If Gore wins in 2000 and 2004, how likely would a Trump victory on a xenophobic platform in 2008 be?

RousseauX

Donor
If Gore wins in 2000 and 2004, how likely would a Trump victory on a xenophobic platform in 2008 be?

I'm talking about Trump running as a Republican in 2008 on a similar platform to the one that he ran on in 2016 in our TL.
2008 is too early: what really set off the 2016 wave was the syrian refugee crisis
 
I think Trump or someone might run in 2016... as a Democrat.

Gore wins in 2000 and 2004.

2004 was a poison chalice, between the economy, Katrina and the housing and banking crisis. Whomever the GOP nominates in 2008 wins. As the economy recovers, they win again in 2012.

Not only that, the GOP grows thier control over Congress, at Gore's expense. There will be no Democratic Congress while Gore is President.

Dems grow more radical, populist as a result ala the GOP.

Trump takes the Presidency in 2016... as a Democrat
 

The Avenger

Banned
I think Trump or someone might run in 2016... as a Democrat.

Gore wins in 2000 and 2004.

2004 was a poison chalice, between the economy, Katrina and the housing and banking crisis. Whomever the GOP nominates in 2008 wins. As the economy recovers, they win again in 2012.

Not only that, the GOP grows thier control over Congress, at Gore's expense. There will be no Democratic Congress while Gore is President.

Dems grow more radical, populist as a result ala the GOP.

Trump takes the Presidency in 2016... as a Democrat
It's hard for a billionaire to run as a populist--at least on the left.
 
Well, yeah, there's that.

Thus, what about Al Gore? He first rose to prominence in 1988, but a 2012 presidential bid would have been too late for him.

He won the presidential nomination in 2000 as the incumbent Vice President.

]Illinois?
President and Mrs. Obama don't live in Illinois any more. Do they move back?
 
It would be useful to speculate as to how Gore wins in '04 and who he defeats. He would've just barely squeaked by in 2000, a victory many would probably blame on Dubya's last minute DUI scandal. In 2001 Congress was split between a Democratic Senate and Republican House. Unless Gore governs like Clinton (talking like a liberal but pulling policies from the GOP), he's not likely to have a successful presidency. It's doubtful that even 9/11 and Afghanistan could carry him to victory; a popular Bush almost lost to Kerry in '04. Gore would be going up against Giuliani or McCain that year, if he wins it would be an upset. At any rate, that would knock a major contender from the 2008 GOP field. This means the Republican establishment is more consolidated around whoever turns out to be the front runner, making him a harder opponent for Trump to beat.
 
He was on the scene since 1964 (or was it 1962?). He was already past his prime in 1980, which is less than 20 years since he was first elected. In contrast, we're talking about 24 years for Hillary.

It wasn't that he was "past his prime", it's that he was post-Chappaquiddick.
 
It would be useful to speculate as to how Gore wins in '04 and who he defeats. He would've just barely squeaked by in 2000, a victory many would probably blame on Dubya's last minute DUI scandal. In 2001 Congress was split between a Democratic Senate and Republican House. Unless Gore governs like Clinton (talking like a liberal but pulling policies from the GOP), he's not likely to have a successful presidency. It's doubtful that even 9/11 and Afghanistan could carry him to victory; a popular Bush almost lost to Kerry in '04. Gore would be going up against Giuliani or McCain that year, if he wins it would be an upset. At any rate, that would knock a major contender from the 2008 GOP field. This means the Republican establishment is more consolidated around whoever turns out to be the front runner, making him a harder opponent for Trump to beat.

I think the most likely path to a second term is Gore losing the popular vote, but winning in the EC. (Ironic, I know.)
 
If Gore wins in 2000 and 2004, how likely would a Trump victory on a xenophobic platform in 2008 be?

I'm talking about Trump running as a Republican in 2008 on a similar platform to the one that he ran on in 2016 in our TL.

I doubt it because in OTL Trump's success in getting the nomination was partly the result of Republicans belatedly feeling that George W. Bush's policies, both domestic (the run-up to the Great Recession) and foreign (seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) had failed. If instead a Democrat has been in office in 2001-2008, it would be a lot easier for Republicans to feel in 2008 that a conventional conservative Republican was the answer to the Democrats' failures.
 

The Avenger

Banned
I doubt it because in OTL Trump's success in getting the nomination was partly the result of Republicans belatedly feeling that George W. Bush's policies, both domestic (the run-up to the Great Recession) and foreign (seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) had failed. If instead a Democrat has been in office in 2001-2008, it would be a lot easier for Republicans to feel in 2008 that a conventional conservative Republican was the answer to the Democrats' failures.
That's an interesting point.
 
Trump was a response to the bipartisan political consensus, the main pillars of which were (and still are): immigration is great, America needs to be involved in the middle east and elsewhere, free trade is awesome. This had been the consensus for decades at that point, and anyone who disagreed was a rube.

The thing is, i don‘t think the Republican base was ever really into any of those things. They always wanted to restrict immigration, were never the biggest fans of free trade, and didn‘t really care about the middle east until 9/11. Trump was just the first to say it openly. The Republican leadership had been completely disconnected from their base for a long time, probably since after Reagan. The kind of Neocons that have dominated the party since the end of the cold war have always been progressives hiding behind a veneer of militarism and America-fuck-yeah patriotism, with the exception of some social conservatives like Santorum or Huckabee.

Or, as i‘ve heard it being said on a podcast some time ago: Modern conservatism is merely progressivism in slow motion. I don‘t know if Trump could have won in 2008 nationally, but i could definitely see him winning the republican base over.

The more interesting question is, when would be the latest that Trump could run as a Democrat, but with more or less the same platform as 2016? The 90s, maybe? I think being hawkish on immigration and being against stuff like NAFTA, while also being fairly liberal socially, could be a successful platform for a Democrat as late as 1992. Trump would just fit perfectly into the culture of the time. Though he likely wouldn‘t be very successful as a Republican in that era, as he might be seen as too socially liberal for the religious right, which was much stronger back then.
 
Last edited:

The Avenger

Banned
He won the presidential nomination in 2000 as the incumbent Vice President.

He did, but that was because he was Clinton's VP. Without that, he wouldn't have won.

Also, that's just 12 years after he first came to prominence--in contrast with Hillary Clinton's 24 years in 2016.

President and Mrs. Obama don't live in Illinois any more. Do they move back?

Yes.
 
Top