Impact of Democratic Party victories on the Economic Crisis?

Faux Pas

Banned
If Gore/Kerry had been elected in 2000/2004, would they have likely lessened or increased the damage done by the crisis?

Or, alternatively, would different results in the 2000/02/04/06 senate elections have led to a significant impact?

(apologies if this is too generalized)
 
If Gore/Kerry had been elected in 2000/2004, would they have likely lessened or increased the damage done by the crisis?
I would say that either 2000 or 2004 Democrats' victory would decrease severity of the crisis, if not butterfly it outright. Speaking about 2000, it isn't obvious that tech bubble would burst as violently as it did without high-tech lobby being replaced by old oil/resource lobby next to ear of American high and mighty (aka election win of Oilman Bush and his oilers team). And, without OTL desperate search for next great vehicle of American Economy, the real estate bubble could be less epic. Now, going down the road from 2000, all the signs of hollowness of the great real estate bubble was there by 2003 at least. With less radical "greed is good" administration at the helm, some teensy measure of public control could (and IMHO would) be introduced to financial system. Basically, for anyone not profiting from speculations and remotely familiar with economy laws, 2003-2007 were years of nervous waiting for a looming disaster. Which did come in 2008, but it wasn't unforeseen at all.
 
And, lest we forget, Gore would have kept the surplus, even after cutting taxes. We'd be at least a trillion less in the hole.
I'm not sure if Gore being in office could have prevented 9/11. However, Gore being in office would still leave us with the no-fly zones over Iraq, and an embargo on Iraq. And that might result in someone trying to break it.
 
Roughly speaking: no.

Clinton, after all, was the guy that deregulated much of it (Reagan did some as well) and Gore wasn't more liberal on financial issues.

Greenspan was widely respected, and would have continued his (insane) pro-bubble policy.

Perhaps the margins are better, but to change the overall situation either requires a radical Republican or a liberal Democrat in the 1990s and a Congress to back him.
 
I would say that either 2000 or 2004 Democrats' victory would decrease severity of the crisis, if not butterfly it outright. Speaking about 2000, it isn't obvious that tech bubble would burst as violently as it did without high-tech lobby being replaced by old oil/resource lobby next to ear of American high and mighty (aka election win of Oilman Bush and his oilers team). And, without OTL desperate search for next great vehicle of American Economy, the real estate bubble could be less epic. Now, going down the road from 2000, all the signs of hollowness of the great real estate bubble was there by 2003 at least. With less radical "greed is good" administration at the helm, some teensy measure of public control could (and IMHO would) be introduced to financial system. Basically, for anyone not profiting from speculations and remotely familiar with economy laws, 2003-2007 were years of nervous waiting for a looming disaster. Which did come in 2008, but it wasn't unforeseen at all.

Bugger. Keep your politics off of the AH forums, please.

The causes of the bubble were institutional, not personal. Changing which individual is in which seat is kind of like changing who sits in what row at a football game: No matter where the fans are watching from, it's the players that determine who wins and who loses. Without changing the institutional context of the situation you're not going to change the outcome, and with the glacial pace at which American institutions change, you're not going to accomplish that with a PoD in the year 2000. If the Democrats had been in charge from 2000 onwards we'd be making Carter allusions instead of Hoover ones, only difference.
 
With Gore or Kerry, there probably isn't too much fundamental reform of the financial sector. As Electric Monk pointed out, Gore wasn't much more of a financial liberal than was Clinton, so some deregulatory measures probably continue under him or Kerry.

Larry Summers probably would have a key role in a Gore administration, which means neoliberal economic policies are going to continue. Of course, Gore won't tax cut away the surplus, but that won't do much other than keep the United States a bit less out of the hole. If a Gore presidency butterflies away 9/11 (supposing he acts on the 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' memo), he probably ends up spending the surplus on a stimulus package for the weak economy in the early 2000s.
 
Top