If Gore won in 2000 and Bin Laden was captured at Tora Bora, what would happen in 2004?

If Gore defeated Bush and 9/11 still happened, but Bin Laden was captured at Tora Bora, what would happen in 2004? Would people credit Gore with capturing Bin Laden and re-elect him? Who would run in the Republican primaries?
 
I think 2004 would be a lot like 1992. The incumbent President at first appears unbeatable thanks to early foreign policy success. But discontent over the economy and social issues undermine his support and he loses re-election. IMO McCain would beat Gore if he runs. By 2004 domestic issues would matter more to voters, and party fatigue would give McCain the edge.
 
I think 2004 would be a lot like 1992. The incumbent President at first appears unbeatable thanks to early foreign policy success. But discontent over the economy and social issues undermine his support and he loses re-election. IMO McCain would beat Gore if he runs. By 2004 domestic issues would matter more to voters, and party fatigue would give McCain the edge.

For this to really mirror 1992, you need the heavyweights (your 2004 Republican version of Cuomo and Gore himself) to decide that Gore is unbeatable and skip the race. Now, I'm not sure you can realistically take McCain out, but let's say he does sit it out. W. also sits it out. Giuliani sits it out. Bill Frist, who would likely get talked about, also sits out. You're looking, I think, at a George Allen nomination ... if you take the 1992 analogy to its fullest conclusion.
 
For this to really mirror 1992, you need the heavyweights (your 2004 Republican version of Cuomo and Gore himself) to decide that Gore is unbeatable and skip the race. Now, I'm not sure you can realistically take McCain out, but let's say he does sit it out. W. also sits it out. Giuliani sits it out. Bill Frist, who would likely get talked about, also sits out. You're looking, I think, at a George Allen nomination ... if you take the 1992 analogy to its fullest conclusion.

Not necessarily because the 1992 election season began just after the war ended when Bush was extremely popular. By contrast the 2004 election season will have begun over a year after 9/11 and the Invasion of Afghanistan. If Gore can maintain high approval ratings through 2003 it might deter McCain, Giuliani, etc from running. But otherwise if the political discussion shifts to domestic issues and Gore is vulnerable on the economy (in OTL there was a mild recession from 2001-03) then I could see the Republican heavyhitters taking a chance on '04.
 
In all likely hood Gore wins re election, because catching bin ladin is that massive of a feather in his cap, but I also think that the housing bubble was going to burst and we would enter recession no matter what. I don't think he fumbles the ball as badly as Dubya does so the great recession is a little more mild but in its aftermath the republicans will get the presidency because after 16 years of democratic rule people will be tired of it.
 
He wouldn;t have won, of course. OTL was basically a best-case scenario for his campaign.

We've been through this. Even if OTL was the best case scenario for Gore (it wasn't), OTL 2000 was a coin-flip. Ergo, a basic re-run of OTL would have as much chance of a Gore victory as a Gore defeat.

(Seriously. Every US Presidential election since 1976 could have conceivably been won by the loser with a sufficient POD. It's truly hilarious that you fixate on the closest of them all, and label it unwinnable for Gore. I get that you don't like him. Fair enough. But please stop pretending that 2000 was an inevitable win for Bush under all circumstances).
 
OTL 2000 wasn't a coinflip but Gore getting multiple things running in his favor and not managing to get past the 270 electoral vote hurdle.

2000 wasn't an inevitable win for Bush, it's just that Gore wasn't an electable candidate. There are dems who could have easily won in 2000 but Gore wasn't one.
 
Some more major candidates that would probably run in ATL 2004 include, Tommy Thompson, Newt Gingrich, George Pataki (who runs in deference to Giuliani), and/or Fred Thompson. Not sure if any of them could win though.
 
We've been through this. Even if OTL was the best case scenario for Gore (it wasn't), OTL 2000 was a coin-flip. Ergo, a basic re-run of OTL would have as much chance of a Gore victory as a Gore defeat.

(Seriously. Every US Presidential election since 1976 could have conceivably been won by the loser with a sufficient POD. It's truly hilarious that you fixate on the closest of them all, and label it unwinnable for Gore. I get that you don't like him. Fair enough. But please stop pretending that 2000 was an inevitable win for Bush under all circumstances).

1984, 1996, and 2008 were all incredibly unlikely to go the other way.
 
If Gore had won, he'd probably had paid more to his intelligence reports and 9/11 wouddn't have happened.
Hard to say, because the FBI had "noise" about foul play in the summer of 2001 but let this one pass under the radar. Gore would have listened to Clinton's concern over Al-Qaeda more so than Bush, so there is a good chance one or all of the attacks could have been foiled. But think about this. The highjacked planes are identified. Fighters scramble to literally shoot them down before they can hit their targets. Shoot down airliners? That's blood on Gore's hands, not good. So, they would have to stop the highjackings before they happened. But how well does a foiled plot translate to "Gore the hero?"

As for Gore's election, the only POD you need is to stop the ballot alignment problem in Florida.
 
2000 was weird.

Gore sort of fluked in that he was behind before the DUI issue came out for Bush - pushing him over the edge in terms of the popular vote.

Bush fluked because some bad ballots in Florida, which were approved by the county Democratic Party, resulted in Gore losing quite a few votes to Pat Buchanan - thus delivering the electoral victory to Bush.
 
I think 2004 would be a lot like 1992. The incumbent President at first appears unbeatable thanks to early foreign policy success. But discontent over the economy and social issues undermine his support and he loses re-election.

What economic and social issues? In 2004, the economy was on a upswing and social issues have never been as big drivers like economic and social ones have been...
 
If domestic issues are the focus of the day in the 2004 election cycle, which I'd be willing to bet they would be, I think McCain might not be the best man for the nomination (assuming he even runs). Giuliani, Thompson, or maybe even Romney or Kasich would make more sense IMO. McCain's image, correctly or not, was definitely one of a man with an eye on foreign policy. But that having been said, he could still end up the nominee if the other big-name Republicans think Gore is truly unbeatable.
 
Top