samcster94
Banned
What if Gore wins in 2000, but it is a narrow one(like he wins NH by 50 votes during a second recount)??? I was just wondering how this would impact his Presidency, which likely would be one term.
OTL Bush Sr is a good example.I think he is referencing Gore would be running for 16 consecutive years of uninterrupted political power which hadn't happened since FDR - Truman. Knowing how much the public hated political dynasties and how little he could get done with Republicans controlling Congress, the odds of him being a one term is significantly high.
OTL Bush Sr is a good example.
I don't think that HRC is going to run in 2008 in this TL. Basically, the 2008 recession only became evident around December 2007--at which point it might be too late for HRC to start a campaign. Before December 2007, McCain would have probably looked unbeatable.In fact I think Gore would almost be the Democratic version of HW Bush: pretty successful in domestic and foreign affairs, but bad with PR. Gore would preside over a recession and this would provide powerful ammo to the GOP in 2004. I don't think GWB would make a comeback, so McCain would be the nominee after Giuliani (if 9/11 still happens) crashes and burns in the primaries. But that said, McCain would be in power during Katrina the Great Recession so he wouldn't be re-elected either. But instead of losing to Obama, he'd lose to HRC since there's no Iraq War to drag her down.
43. Al Gore (2001-2005), D-TN
44. John McCain (2005-2009), R-AZ
45. Hillary Rodham Clintoln (2009-2013), D-NY
Obama just barely overcame Romney, who was actually predicted by Gallup to win by 1% the day of the election, so I don't think Clinton would be re-elected given that by her own admission she isn't as good as a politician.
46. Mitt Romney (2013-2017), R-MA
47. Barack Obama (Since 2017), D-IL
Romney would more likely than not be a one term President, given that middle class anger will be just as strong if not stronger with a wealthy, conservative businessman in charge. Not to mention that he'd fail to repeal Obamacare and attack Syria - angering conservatives and making him look generally incompetent.
That depends. Does he win fairly by 50 votes or through more questionable means (for instance, by halting a recount or by throwing out some absentee ballots)?What if Gore wins in 2000, but it is a narrow one(like he wins NH by 50 votes during a second recount)??? I was just wondering how this would impact his Presidency, which likely would be one term.
I don't think that HRC is going to run in 2008 in this TL. Basically, the 2008 recession only became evident around December 2007--at which point it might be too late for HRC to start a campaign. Before December 2007, McCain would have probably looked unbeatable.
Yes, it's very possible, but she's going to have to very quickly organize a campaign.Given how powerful Clinton was in the Democratic Party before 2016, she could jump in at that point and still win. Otherwise, it would be pretty ironic if Obama still wins anyway in this TL.
Yes, it's very possible, but she's going to have to very quickly organize a campaign.
As for Obama, it's not guaranteed that he runs in 2008 in this TL. After all, like Hillary, he might only see the 2008 recession coming once it is already too late for him to jump into the race. Plus, he'd have much less name recognition than Hillary in this TL.
Yeah, a Dem dark horse in 2008 in this TL is certainly very possible. I don't know if it would be John Edwards, though. After all, why would he run if he doesn't think that he can win?So like in 1992, we could have a scenario where the leading Democrats sit out the race only for a dark horse to come out on top. For all we know it could've been John Edwards (who obviously wouldn't have run for VP in 2004), and given his disastrous personal life I'm not sure he would even be able to survive one term...whether he resigns over the affair or alleged campaign finance violations.
As for resigning, Bill Clinton didn't resign over his affair and thus I doubt that John Edwards would resign either.
Was Edwards actually convicted of violating campaign finance laws, though?But Edwards and Clinton are very different. Edwards not only had an affair but his wife was dying of cancer at the time and the affair produced a child out of wedlock. Clinton on the other hand never went that far and proved an unusually adaptable and resilient politician who was able to survive a midterm blowout and an impeachment. Edwards, not so much. And remember that Edwards was charged of violating campaign finance laws, an actual crime unlike adultery. An Edwards Presidency would be a perfect storm of sex scandal and political corruption, resulting in a resignation sometime in 2010. Even if he isn't necessarily guilty of a crime, the Democrats would certainly turn on him ahead of the midterms and force him out as the GOP did with Nixon.
Was Edwards actually convicted of violating campaign finance laws, though?
After all, there is a difference between politicians' private and public lives.
No. But truth isn't exactly the name of the game in politics.
Not to voters. Edwards was crushed in OTL because of the affair, after starting out as one of the three leading candidates.
Obama just barely overcame Romney, who was actually predicted by Gallup to win by 1% the day of the election, so I don't think Clinton would be re-elected given that by her own admission she isn't as good as a politician.
46. Mitt Romney (2013-2017), R-MA
47. Barack Obama (Since 2017), D-IL
To take your second suggestion, that HRC somehow manages to win the 2008 nomination (I can agree her being suckered into supporting the Iraq invasion might be critical) but then gets primaried out by Obama is quite bizarre.
Obama won reelection with solid margins, and again I have to wonder who put this bug in your ear whispering there was any thinness to it.
why would W's reelection not have been still easier to reverse?
I am pretty much at a loss for why you have an impression Romney came close to winning OTL.
I remember just how competitive that election was, and how polling after the first debate showed Romney either tied with or leading Obama. Even Gallup on the day of the election showed Romney leading by 1%. (This is something I already pointed out, and now I have to do it again).
See the difference there? You said it did happen that way. But no consistent definition of a thin margin can bracket Obama there. Unless of course instead of talking about what did happen, it is all about your subjective private mental process.Obama just barely overcame Romney
so I don't think Clinton would be re-elected given that by her own admission she isn't as good as a politician.
everything turns on a dime, victory and defeat are as smoke in the wind based on purely chaotic happenstances, in your original post you are in the business of hard inference. HRC<BO in political skill, therefore since Obama was (in your subjective impression, carried over into your false belief about his precarious position in a reality you imagine) on the think edge of failure AND Hillary is not as slick a politician, therefore =>Romney wins QED.It would have been just as easy to reverse actually. Had either Kerry or Romney not made critical gaffes and generally had been better at articulating their message to average voters then they probably would've won.
It is a perfectly legitimate victory.That depends. Does he win fairly by 50 votes or through more questionable means (for instance, by halting a recount or by throwing out some absentee ballots)?