List of Presidents without the Monica Lewinsky Incident

Gore might have had a better campaign in 2000 but I think the Democrats would lose the White House in 2004 after 12 years of control and voter fatigue.

My guess is the Republicans nominate John McCain in 2004 but his reelection in 2008 depends on how the economy is doing.
 
Gore might have had a better campaign in 2000 but I think the Democrats would lose the White House in 2004 after 12 years of control and voter fatigue.

My guess is the Republicans nominate John McCain in 2004 but his reelection in 2008 depends on how the economy is doing.

The final ingredient in the witch's brew was Bush raising the allowable bank leverage ratio in 2004. If Gore doesn't make the same mistake the economic meltdown might be less severe.

If we don't go to war in Iraq and have smaller tax cuts, we might be in a better position to respond to a 2008 style crisis.

With either of those factors McCain has a chance to survive - although he would still own the Katrina response and would be harmed by the Abramoff scandal.
 
Gore might have had a better campaign in 2000 but I think the Democrats would lose the White House in 2004 after 12 years of control and voter fatigue.

My guess is the Republicans nominate John McCain in 2004 but his reelection in 2008 depends on how the economy is doing.

Another potential timeline

Al Gore/Jeanne Shaheen: 2001-2005 (Gore doesn't feel pressure to nominate the relatively socially conservative Lieberman w/o Monica, so he can make history by nominating the first female Vice President)

John McCain/Lindsey Graham: 2005-2009

Jeanne Shaheen/Evan Bayh: 2009-2017


John Kasich/Bob Corker: 2017-

 
I think Al Gore would have a two terms with Mitt Romney following him, how many Mitt Romney can have could have would depend on how would he do well, Mitt Romney would continue Al Gore's policies, especially his climate policies and we would have a better environment as well.
 
Last edited:
It also depends on the state of the economy in 2004. While a lot of people want to blame HW Bush's defeat in 1992 solely on 12 years of Republican rule, the fact is that the economy was souring. Prior to this, both parties believed Bush would easily win re-election thanks to victory in the Gulf and the relatively sound state of the economy.
 
Gore probably wins in 2000. However I think he'd lose to McCain in '04. McCain might be re-elected if butterflies delay the recession. But if the recession begins on schedule then he loses in 2008. 2012 could see a more seasoned Obama winning the presidency, before getting re-elected in 2016.
 
If Gore wins in 2000 and McCain wins in 2004, you're likely going to see OTL's bush tax cuts delayed until 2005-2006. This might push the recession back to the beginning of McCain's second term, or you might have the economy start weakening during the campaign and get really bad as a Democrat is assuming the presidency.
 
Gore probably wins in 2000. However I think he'd lose to McCain in '04. McCain might be re-elected if butterflies delay the recession. But if the recession begins on schedule then he loses in 2008. 2012 could see a more seasoned Obama winning the presidency, before getting re-elected in 2016.
If the economy is doing decently in 2004, what would be the basis for Gore's defeat aside from party fatigue? As I said, HW Bush's defeat in 92' was largely due to the recession, not party fatigue. A lot of pundits thought he would win re-election before the economy soured.
 
I think everybody is failing to take in how the deficit was gone under Clinton and how that’d continue under Gore. Bush’s tax cuts helped blow up the deficit and then he started a several billion dollar war with no immediate way to pay for it, massively enlarging the national debt. Now I don’t think Democratic voters ever cared about that stuff as much as swing voters and business-minded Republicans.

The debt from the beginning of Clinton’s term compared to GDP fell from 47.8% when he took office to 33.6% when he left. The GDP per capita at the time increased by 23% during his term, about the same as it had under Reagan.

If Gore won in 2000, I see no reason for him to cut taxes by any significant amount. The only reason would be to fight the 2002-2003 recession that was showing signs in early 2000. In March 2001 the recession began, two months into either George Bush’s or Al Gore’s term. Now IOTL, the recession would continue late in the year, sort of rebound in 2002, and then crash back into a recession in 2003. Butterflies could change that, either making it one long recession from early ‘01 to maybe mid ‘02 or if the response is fumbled, last even longer. I don’t think Gore would have shaken anything up at the Treasury so you’ll have a confident, experienced team that started out under a pretty consistent administrative style and leadership in 1993. I think the recession ending in mid-2002 would also help the President’s party in the midterms, but I’ll get back to that.

Something nobody’s seemed to touch on, but just offering up butterflies beginning in 2000, 9/11 could not happen. Either the FBI manages to get a little ahead of where they were IOTL and take this specific potential terror threat seriously or the would-be attackers fail in one of the million ways they could have (like being picked out in a random search at the airport and being found to have weapons). This would completely change modern US history.

If this were to happen then the early 2000s would be politically not far from the late ‘90s. The US would not be at war and the focus of political circles remains about the economy and the culture war instead, at least for a few more years.

The midterms had been expected to be good for the Democrats, who were defending 13 seats vs. the GOP’s 19. IOTL The Senate Republicans won 3 new seats but lost 1, resulting in a net +2. Assuming minimal butterflies as far as candidates go, this alternate ‘02 election would have the same candidates navigating a very different race. Since the recession is over and nobody’s that much more worried about terrorism or foreign policy, I could see a net 2 point shift to the Democrats, giving them narrow wins in Missouri and Minnesota, along with their win in Arkansas. The Republicans only succeed in flipping Georgia, but also hold on to all their other seats. This would give a reversed Democrats +2 to the Senate race. IOTL the House was held by the GOP from ‘95 to ‘07 and I don’t see how Gore’s everything’s just alright midterm would change that.

As far as re-election goes though? I think Gore has a shot. He took pains to distance himself from Clinton because of Lewinski and that ended up hurting his poll numbers. Without that then we would see a stronger win from him in ‘00 then we did IOTL and in office I think he would come off as competent if not inspiring or adventurous. But there is nothing wrong with just being a good leader and I don’t see what could take him down in ‘04 that couldn’t take Bush down. The rally around the flag feeling under Bush had been dying by the time of his election and his economic policy was not helping. Giving a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy was not a good look and really stomped all over the previous president’s legacy in a way that pisses off most voters. Gore keeping what worked in place won’t put any points in his favor, but it won’t hurt him either.

I could see Gore being re-elected if the economy is fine, as it probably would be. His challenger could very well be McCain or somebody like that, but I can’t see him being able to overcome an incumbent Gore in a time where there is no crisis.

Gore’s second would be a mix of better governance than OTL and some unforeseen events. Hurricane Katrina would be 100% butterflied because after about a decade of people moving around differently, we would not see identical weather patterns and storms, but Gore’s FEMA and National Guard would be far more prepared for such an incident unless a big war started post-2004. That’s unlikely though, if anything a little war could have started by then.

2008 ITTL would be the Republicans’ Year. 16 years of moderate Democratic governance has produced an economy chugging along but steadily receiving lower returns. It’s a long era of general peace and prosperity, but it was also very technocratic and moderate in a way that was uninspiring. 2008 would have Gore’s VP (whoever that might be) against Mitt Romney, with Romney easily winning the election.

This is where something interesting happens for anybody who finds economics fascinating but too complicated. So that national debt had been beaten down for 16 years by this point and, if they had stayed on track from 2000, the debt would be gone by 2012 (maybe 2013-14 to adjust for the early ’00s recession). What’s not really discussed often is that this would create its own crisis. US Treasury bonds have always been safe, reliable, and readily available. Reducing the debt and curtailing the number of bonds is generally fine, but to get rid of them entirely would pull the rug out from under institutions like banks who rely on these bonds to hold some consistent and expected value.

I’m sure the Romney Administration would understand this, but what if they worked out an alternate solution? Maybe some kind of voucher system or maybe the lack of bonds would not be the crisis that was thought as the idea gets closer to reality. Whatever the case, the Romney Administration would either be the one to see the national debt end if it’s something that can happen without the global economy melting down. This is assuming be won re-election, which I think he’s got a good shot at if he’s governing from the center-right as Clinton and Gore were center-left.
 
I think everybody is failing to take in how the deficit was gone under Clinton and how that’d continue under Gore. Bush’s tax cuts helped blow up the deficit and then he started a several billion dollar war with no immediate way to pay for it, massively enlarging the national debt. Now I don’t think Democratic voters ever cared about that stuff as much as swing voters and business-minded Republicans.

The debt from the beginning of Clinton’s term compared to GDP fell from 47.8% when he took office to 33.6% when he left. The GDP per capita at the time increased by 23% during his term, about the same as it had under Reagan.

If Gore won in 2000, I see no reason for him to cut taxes by any significant amount. The only reason would be to fight the 2002-2003 recession that was showing signs in early 2000. In March 2001 the recession began, two months into either George Bush’s or Al Gore’s term. Now IOTL, the recession would continue late in the year, sort of rebound in 2002, and then crash back into a recession in 2003. Butterflies could change that, either making it one long recession from early ‘01 to maybe mid ‘02 or if the response is fumbled, last even longer. I don’t think Gore would have shaken anything up at the Treasury so you’ll have a confident, experienced team that started out under a pretty consistent administrative style and leadership in 1993. I think the recession ending in mid-2002 would also help the President’s party in the midterms, but I’ll get back to that.

Something nobody’s seemed to touch on, but just offering up butterflies beginning in 2000, 9/11 could not happen. Either the FBI manages to get a little ahead of where they were IOTL and take this specific potential terror threat seriously or the would-be attackers fail in one of the million ways they could have (like being picked out in a random search at the airport and being found to have weapons). This would completely change modern US history.

If this were to happen then the early 2000s would be politically not far from the late ‘90s. The US would not be at war and the focus of political circles remains about the economy and the culture war instead, at least for a few more years.

The midterms had been expected to be good for the Democrats, who were defending 13 seats vs. the GOP’s 19. IOTL The Senate Republicans won 3 new seats but lost 1, resulting in a net +2. Assuming minimal butterflies as far as candidates go, this alternate ‘02 election would have the same candidates navigating a very different race. Since the recession is over and nobody’s that much more worried about terrorism or foreign policy, I could see a net 2 point shift to the Democrats, giving them narrow wins in Missouri and Minnesota, along with their win in Arkansas. The Republicans only succeed in flipping Georgia, but also hold on to all their other seats. This would give a reversed Democrats +2 to the Senate race. IOTL the House was held by the GOP from ‘95 to ‘07 and I don’t see how Gore’s everything’s just alright midterm would change that.

As far as re-election goes though? I think Gore has a shot. He took pains to distance himself from Clinton because of Lewinski and that ended up hurting his poll numbers. Without that then we would see a stronger win from him in ‘00 then we did IOTL and in office I think he would come off as competent if not inspiring or adventurous. But there is nothing wrong with just being a good leader and I don’t see what could take him down in ‘04 that couldn’t take Bush down. The rally around the flag feeling under Bush had been dying by the time of his election and his economic policy was not helping. Giving a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy was not a good look and really stomped all over the previous president’s legacy in a way that pisses off most voters. Gore keeping what worked in place won’t put any points in his favor, but it won’t hurt him either.

I could see Gore being re-elected if the economy is fine, as it probably would be. His challenger could very well be McCain or somebody like that, but I can’t see him being able to overcome an incumbent Gore in a time where there is no crisis.

Gore’s second would be a mix of better governance than OTL and some unforeseen events. Hurricane Katrina would be 100% butterflied because after about a decade of people moving around differently, we would not see identical weather patterns and storms, but Gore’s FEMA and National Guard would be far more prepared for such an incident unless a big war started post-2004. That’s unlikely though, if anything a little war could have started by then.

2008 ITTL would be the Republicans’ Year. 16 years of moderate Democratic governance has produced an economy chugging along but steadily receiving lower returns. It’s a long era of general peace and prosperity, but it was also very technocratic and moderate in a way that was uninspiring. 2008 would have Gore’s VP (whoever that might be) against Mitt Romney, with Romney easily winning the election.

This is where something interesting happens for anybody who finds economics fascinating but too complicated. So that national debt had been beaten down for 16 years by this point and, if they had stayed on track from 2000, the debt would be gone by 2012 (maybe 2013-14 to adjust for the early ’00s recession). What’s not really discussed often is that this would create its own crisis. US Treasury bonds have always been safe, reliable, and readily available. Reducing the debt and curtailing the number of bonds is generally fine, but to get rid of them entirely would pull the rug out from under institutions like banks who rely on these bonds to hold some consistent and expected value.

I’m sure the Romney Administration would understand this, but what if they worked out an alternate solution? Maybe some kind of voucher system or maybe the lack of bonds would not be the crisis that was thought as the idea gets closer to reality. Whatever the case, the Romney Administration would either be the one to see the national debt end if it’s something that can happen without the global economy melting down. This is assuming be won re-election, which I think he’s got a good shot at if he’s governing from the center-right as Clinton and Gore were center-left.

If the economy isn't poor, what would allow for Romney's victory in 2008?
 
If the economy isn't poor, what would allow for Romney's victory in 2008?

Well generally if there’s no crisis creating an intense lame duck presidency, like Bush from ‘07 onward, then the narrative would probably be more of the rise of somebody/some group. Like how Clinton and Gore were two guys about the same age from the South and their rise to the White House was seen as the rise of a younger generation of moderate Southern Democrats taking power.

Romney coming in would be somebody roughly the same age as Clinton and Gore who was also seen as a centrist but from the other party. He’d be the GOP answer to Clinton and Gore. As far as they could tell, the electorate liked reasonable, moderate governance and an economy moving along nicely. The Republicans lost the White House for so long because they didn’t keep the economy going well (H. W. Bush), seemed hellbent on the culture war angle (Dole and W. Bush), and because the Democrats were able to just generally keep everything in order (McCain). Romney’s presidency would probably look a lot more like Gore’s than any modern presidencies would look like each other IOTL. I think this GOP would see reactionary politics as a losing game and push for genuine conservatism, maintaining what’s in place and moderating alterations.

I think after having spent 16 years under presidents that governed to the right of the party, Democrats would want their candidate to shift to the left, even just a little bit. That person’s probable loss due to the likes of party fatigue and just the way the campaign played out might be chalked up to that, like the DLC’s obsessive fear of another McGovern in ‘72 situation.
 
Well generally if there’s no crisis creating an intense lame duck presidency, like Bush from ‘07 onward, then the narrative would probably be more of the rise of somebody/some group. Like how Clinton and Gore were two guys about the same age from the South and their rise to the White House was seen as the rise of a younger generation of moderate Southern Democrats taking power.

Romney coming in would be somebody roughly the same age as Clinton and Gore who was also seen as a centrist but from the other party. He’d be the GOP answer to Clinton and Gore. As far as they could tell, the electorate liked reasonable, moderate governance and an economy moving along nicely. The Republicans lost the White House for so long because they didn’t keep the economy going well (H. W. Bush), seemed hellbent on the culture war angle (Dole and W. Bush), and because the Democrats were able to just generally keep everything in order (McCain). Romney’s presidency would probably look a lot more like Gore’s than any modern presidencies would look like each other IOTL. I think this GOP would see reactionary politics as a losing game and push for genuine conservatism, maintaining what’s in place and moderating alterations.

I think after having spent 16 years under presidents that governed to the right of the party, Democrats would want their candidate to shift to the left, even just a little bit. That person’s probable loss due to the likes of party fatigue and just the way the campaign played out might be chalked up to that, like the DLC’s obsessive fear of another McGovern in ‘72 situation.
What do you feel would end the 1990s culturally ITTL, with the lack of a major terrorist attack such as 9/11 and the subsequent WoT?
 
If the economy is doing decently in 2004, what would be the basis for Gore's defeat aside from party fatigue? As I said, HW Bush's defeat in 92' was largely due to the recession, not party fatigue. A lot of pundits thought he would win re-election before the economy soured.

There was a recession from 2001-2003. Gore and the Democrats are going to be blamed for that in 2004. If Gore didn't win in 2000 when the economy is booming, then I doubt he'd win in 2004.
 
What do you feel would end the 1990s culturally ITTL, with the lack of a major terrorist attack such as 9/11 and the subsequent WoT?

Well early 2000s would line up a lot more with the late 1990s in that case.

There was a recession from 2001-2003. Gore and the Democrats are going to be blamed for that in 2004. If Gore didn't win in 2000 when the economy is booming, then I doubt he'd win in 2004.

If the recession is over in 2004 then it would not be the factor as you’re envisioning. Also, Gore won in 2000 IOTL, here it was just by even more so that the Supreme Court doesn’t appoint their guy on partisan lines.
 
The unemployment rate in 2004 was still over five percent, which was historically seen as the cutoff above which a President would have a difficult time being reelected. Obama was reelected with an unemployment rate over five percent in 2012, but that was attributed to voters blaming the recession on the Republicans. In this scenario, Clinton/Gore are going to take the blame for both the initial recession and the slow recovery, making it hard for him to win reelection.
 
Well early 2000s would line up a lot more with the late 1990s in that case.



If the recession is over in 2004 then it would not be the factor as you’re envisioning. Also, Gore won in 2000 IOTL, here it was just by even more so that the Supreme Court doesn’t appoint their guy on partisan lines.

The recession was over by election day 1992. But did that help Bush? No, and it likely wouldn't help Gore either.

As for 2000, Gore probably won the election IOTL. But did he become President? Was the booming economy and a popular incumbent enough to put him in the White House? That was my point - if those factors weren't able to make him President in 2000, I doubt Gore would win again in 2004 after 12 years of Democrats, an economic downturn, and a midterm election which is sure to favor the GOP. Remember that despite his wartime popularity Bush only barely defeated Kerry in 2004. With Gore in the White House, this ATL 2004 is likely to be a change election that sees the GOP return to power - probably under McCain.
 
The unemployment rate in 2004 was still over five percent, which was historically seen as the cutoff above which a President would have a difficult time being reelected. Obama was reelected with an unemployment rate over five percent in 2012, but that was attributed to voters blaming the recession on the Republicans. In this scenario, Clinton/Gore are going to take the blame for both the initial recession and the slow recovery, making it hard for him to win reelection.

While that’s worth noting, I do think Gore’s position is pretty different from HW. He would be far more tied to Clinton than Bush to Reagan (coming from the same wing of the party) and as I mentioned in my first post on this thread about the economy, I think the recovery would have started by the midterm election and it’d be growing, but sluggish by ‘04. As far as unemployment rate goes I can’t really tell what factors cause it, but assuming a recession that’s well and done by August of 2002, I don’t think the blame for a 5% unemployment rate would be too easy to tie to the recession if it’s still there.

Again, without Bush’s tax cuts and the other changes in economic policy from Jan. ‘01 - Nov. ‘04, I don’t think we would see the same economic situation.

The recession was over by election day 1992. But did that help Bush? No, and it likely wouldn't help Gore either.

As for 2000, Gore probably won the election IOTL. But did he become President? Was the booming economy and a popular incumbent enough to put him in the White House? That was my point - if those factors weren't able to make him President in 2000, I doubt Gore would win again in 2004 after 12 years of Democrats, an economic downturn, and a midterm election which is sure to favor the GOP. Remember that despite his wartime popularity Bush only barely defeated Kerry in 2004. With Gore in the White House, this ATL 2004 is likely to be a change election that sees the GOP return to power - probably under McCain.

A few points to reiterate.

1) Republicans =/= Democrats. Bush was a hard sell to the GOP that just had eight years of Reagan and so was his re-election.
2) Gore distanced himself from Clinton because of the sex scandal. All summaries of the election say doing that hurt Gore. The PoD of this whole thread is that doesn’t happen!
3) As far as the Senate goes, there were very few chances for the GOP to grow it’s majority in ‘02, as I mentioned before and even the gains they made could very well go the other way without 9/11 and the GOP’s rally around the flag message.

Bush barely beating Kerry despite being a wartime president says more about how poor of a president Bush was than it says about the US voters being fickle or what kind of position Gore would be in.

Looking at it another way, the GOP barely held onto the presidency despite having started two wars since taking office and having ended the recession. ‘04 would be the only election in the past 30 years where the Republicans won the popular vote. That’s an awful record and I don’t have high hopes for them beating an incumbent Gore. They just had to take such extreme positions to win the nomination that it was hard for them to come across as normal and relatable. Stem cell research was a hot button issue in 2000, with the GOP being fanatically against it and the Kyoto Protocol. Those are tough positions to take and consistently argue for while trying to win over everyday people, just because they succeeded enough to take power IOTL doesn’t mean they will ITTL.
 
While that’s worth noting, I do think Gore’s position is pretty different from HW. He would be far more tied to Clinton than Bush to Reagan (coming from the same wing of the party) and as I mentioned in my first post on this thread about the economy, I think the recovery would have started by the midterm election and it’d be growing, but sluggish by ‘04. As far as unemployment rate goes I can’t really tell what factors cause it, but assuming a recession that’s well and done by August of 2002, I don’t think the blame for a 5% unemployment rate would be too easy to tie to the recession if it’s still there.

Again, without Bush’s tax cuts and the other changes in economic policy from Jan. ‘01 - Nov. ‘04, I don’t think we would see the same economic situation.



A few points to reiterate.

1) Republicans =/= Democrats. Bush was a hard sell to the GOP that just had eight years of Reagan and so was his re-election.
2) Gore distanced himself from Clinton because of the sex scandal. All summaries of the election say doing that hurt Gore. The PoD of this whole thread is that doesn’t happen!
3) As far as the Senate goes, there were very few chances for the GOP to grow it’s majority in ‘02, as I mentioned before and even the gains they made could very well go the other way without 9/11 and the GOP’s rally around the flag message.

Bush barely beating Kerry despite being a wartime president says more about how poor of a president Bush was than it says about the US voters being fickle or what kind of position Gore would be in.

Looking at it another way, the GOP barely held onto the presidency despite having started two wars since taking office and having ended the recession. ‘04 would be the only election in the past 30 years where the Republicans won the popular vote. That’s an awful record and I don’t have high hopes for them beating an incumbent Gore. They just had to take such extreme positions to win the nomination that it was hard for them to come across as normal and relatable. Stem cell research was a hot button issue in 2000, with the GOP being fanatically against it and the Kyoto Protocol. Those are tough positions to take and consistently argue for while trying to win over everyday people, just because they succeeded enough to take power IOTL doesn’t mean they will ITTL.
How would Gore's legacy shape ITTL?
 
Top