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.