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

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.

True. However I think Giuliani would still fail for the same reasons as in OTL 2008. It's too early for Romney, and Kasich is only a Congressman from Ohio. Thompson could be a strong candidate, but I don't think he'd beat McCain for the nomination. McCain would be the runner up from last time, and he could combine his foreign policy credentials with his experience on campaign finance reform to wage a winning campaign. One interesting aspect of all this is whether or not the McCain-Feingold Act becomes law under President Gore. That would certainly have a strong impact on the 2004 election.
 
No Iraqi War helps Gore too.

The economy wasn't bad in 2004. The cracks in the foundation wouldn't show til late 2006/early 2007 and the bottom wouldn't fall out til early 2008.

Depends on who the GOP runs in 2004 but I think in this scenario Gore is the slight favorite.
 
Well, 9/11 happens, Bin Laden is found and taken down. Gore's ratings rise. When the Italian Letter surfaces about WMD, Gore takes his time because he has no vendetta against Saddam Hussein the way Bush did, and there is no Iraq war. The resources that went into that war won't be expended. Now, what does that do for the economy? With no Bush tax cuts, it will not hurt. What does Gore do about Iraq? The same things Clinton did, bomb the neutral zones if Saddam tries to militarize. How long will Saddam rule? He would have turned 72 this year, so he would likely still be around. What about 2004? Unless he makes a real mistake, Gore is probably re-elected. Many say party fatigue is against him. But for as few presidential elections as there are, can we really say that is a real "pattern?" What about the financial crisis of 2008? Since it was driven by greed in the lending industry, it is not likely a different president would have changed it much. If it hits as it did, we are guaranteed a party change in the white house in 2008. A Republican president in 2009 will not take on the crisis the way Obama did, opening the way for a Democrat in 2012.

The big upside? Gore fills the SCOTUS seats of Rehnquist and O'Connor. Very likely, Stevens and Souter will also retire under his watch.
 
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...

In the words of my Republican father who voted for Bush in 2004, the election was about “God, guns, and gays”.
 
Gore NOT invading Iraq seems even less likely than him winning in 2000 tbh.

We were at a near state of war with Iraq late into Clinton's term. Bush getting in delayed things until 2003 or so, with Bush's neocon advisors helping it happen. Avoid 9/11 or even just have a non-Bush/McCain(the main was hawkish even compared to Bush) rep elected and imo no Iraw war.
 
In the words of my Republican father who voted for Bush in 2004, the election was about “God, guns, and gays”.
Another school of thought is that these issues were promoted by the Bush camp in the shadow of the deficits brought out by the war. With a strong economy, would they be motivators at the same level?
 
The thing about social issues is that people who care about them aren't swing voters. Gun-owners and pro-lifers will never vote Democratic and Planned Parenthood executives will never vote Republican.
 
In so far as 2004 was about 'social issues' it was because Karl Rove put considerable effort into making it so, believing that religious conservative voters had not turned out sufficiently in 2000, and that spliced in with the culture war aspects of the Iraq issue as a mobiliser. 'Social issues' wasn't some natural phenomenon designed to play a particularly big role in all 2004 cycles.
 
True. However I think Giuliani would still fail for the same reasons as in OTL 2008. It's too early for Romney, and Kasich is only a Congressman from Ohio. Thompson could be a strong candidate, but I don't think he'd beat McCain for the nomination. McCain would be the runner up from last time, and he could combine his foreign policy credentials with his experience on campaign finance reform to wage a winning campaign. One interesting aspect of all this is whether or not the McCain-Feingold Act becomes law under President Gore. That would certainly have a strong impact on the 2004 election.

Thompson proved to be a pretty ho-hum candidate once he actually got into the 2008 race. It seemed like he got talked up because people were looking for a big-name alternative to Rudy, McCain, and Romney, but he turned out to be just another second-tier candidate who didn't get far. I'm not sure he'd have done any better in a 2004 primary.

I think McCain probably would beat Gore in 2004 regardless of what happens re: 9/11 and Bin Laden. He had a fair amount of crossover support at that point in his career, and if Gore's main strength was a successful foreign policy campaign, that's an issue where McCain could neutralize Gore's appeal. Plus, assuming that the POD is just the Florida ballot as opposed to some sort of Democratic landslide in 2000, then Gore still has a Republican Congress to deal with when he takes office, and potentially Jeffords doesn't change parties. That's likely to stifle his ability to get a domestic agenda moving.

Also, those of us (myself included) who admire Gore should remember that in 2000, he was still more of a cautious centrist who occasionally used populist rhetoric ("we're for the people, they're for the powerful"). It wasn't until the Iraq War that he started moving a little further left, and the credibility he gained from An Inconvenient Truth was after he seemed to have decided to leave electoral politics behind. I do think he could have won both the primary and the general in 2008, at least as long as the "boring kindergarten teacher" persona didn't re-emerge on the campaign trail, but how he would have developed as a politician and leader in a 2000 victory TL seems to me an open question.
 
Gore NOT invading Iraq seems even less likely than him winning in 2000 tbh.

We were at a near state of war with Iraq late into Clinton's term. Bush getting in delayed things until 2003 or so, with Bush's neocon advisors helping it happen. Avoid 9/11 or even just have a non-Bush/McCain(the main was hawkish even compared to Bush) rep elected and imo no Iraw war.

He denounced the push for war pretty forcefully in late 2002. You can argue that he wouldn't have done that if he'd actually been in office, but I suspect he would have stopped short of ordering a full ground invasion of Iraq and wouldn't have been as quick to pull the plug on the UN inspections. (Though maybe he'd have ordered air strikes if Saddam remained intransigent.)
 
He denounced the push for war pretty forcefully in late 2002. You can argue that he wouldn't have done that if he'd actually been in office, but I suspect he would have stopped short of ordering a full ground invasion of Iraq and wouldn't have been as quick to pull the plug on the UN inspections. (Though maybe he'd have ordered air strikes if Saddam remained intransigent.)
I'm near-certain that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq because he was a Trumanite internationalist, not a neoconservative.
 
Would McCain ever gain the political capital needed to push for it? Would McCain consider Iraq any more important than Iran or North Korea?

Both are good questions. In this ATL 2005 Bin Laden is caught and the clamor for war has subsided. As a US Senator McCain wanted to go to war with Iraq very badly, especially after the 2001 anthrax attacks, but at the same time he wasn't driven by a vendetta like Dubya and he'd probably be more respectful of international law. I think McCain would increase sanctions and arm rebel groups before he considers a ground invasion.

As for Iran and North Korea, McCain is likely to prioritize those countries over Iraq.
 
No party has controlled the White House for more than three consecutive terms since FDR/Truman and I'm not convinced someone as relatively uncharismatic as Gore could break the pattern - though if he does I imagine the Democrats would suffer a landslide defeat in 2008 and be locked out for a long time to come.
 
No party has controlled the White House for more than three consecutive terms since FDR/Truman and I'm not convinced someone as relatively uncharismatic as Gore could break the pattern - though if he does I imagine the Democrats would suffer a landslide defeat in 2008 and be locked out for a long time to come.
I don’t think party fatigue is cast in stone, it has just been part of the dynamics of the past 60 years. If Gore maintains a steady economy, he wins in 2004. If the crisis hits in 2008, he initiates a TARP program but his Republican successor is far less aggressive than Obama and there is barely recovery; more businesses fail. One GOP term and a Democratic sweep in 2012. On the other hand, the Dems will be up against some very lofty expectations that might make two-term presidents unlikely for several election cycles.
 
A potential Republican name I don't think I've seen mentioned yet; Rick Santorum. Senator since 1995, at this time Chair of the Senate Republican Committee, and definitely a domestic policy conservative. He'd have to avoid making too many gaffes, and even then I question his viability somewhat, but he might make a run at the nomination if the field is limited enough.
 
A potential Republican name I don't think I've seen mentioned yet; Rick Santorum. Senator since 1995, at this time Chair of the Senate Republican Committee, and definitely a domestic policy conservative. He'd have to avoid making too many gaffes, and even then I question his viability somewhat, but he might make a run at the nomination if the field is limited enough.
I think he earned too much of a reputation as a Catholic fanatic in 2012 to unite the conservative vote.
 
I think he earned too much of a reputation as a Catholic fanatic in 2012 to unite the conservative vote.

Yeah, which is why I question his viability. But if it's a narrow field that doesn't include a lot of big names, a handsome young rising star (or so he may have appeared at the time anyways) with good conservative credentials who also comes from an important state might not be the worst place for the GOP to place their bets against Gore.
 
A potential Republican name I don't think I've seen mentioned yet; Rick Santorum. Senator since 1995, at this time Chair of the Senate Republican Committee, and definitely a domestic policy conservative. He'd have to avoid making too many gaffes, and even then I question his viability somewhat, but he might make a run at the nomination if the field is limited enough.

I agree. Santorum is a name that we should've been considering earlier and is exactly the kind of person I would suspect emerges as the nominee in 2004 if heavyweights like Giuliani and McCain stay out of the race. Hell, he may even be able to beat them if he has the unadulterated right to himself.

I think he earned too much of a reputation as a Catholic fanatic in 2012 to unite the conservative vote.

This is 2004, though. It is the year that an anti-same-sex marriage movement helped galvanize conservative (and even some swing voters) to the polls in states like Ohio. It is a vastly different time than 2012 and it is likely that some of Santorum's head-scratching moments from 2012 would be less concerning to 2004 voters (especially Republican ones). It is possible for him to make comments that go too far, even by 2004's standards, but he certainly has more leeway in that respect.
 
Top