What if Gore won in 2000? Let's say Clinton campaigned for him in the south and he got more votes, enough to win, how would the past ten years have gone for America?
I ask because I just finished watching the movie W., and although I think most of it was fictional, I came to the conclusion that I dislike the outcome of the Bush presidency, and I'm curious as to what a Gore presidency would bring us over the past ten years.
Some specific questions:
1. First of all, and most importantly, would 9/11 have occurred under a Gore presidency, and if so, how would he have reacted?
2. Would be be in Afghanistan or Iraq with a 9/11?
3. How would he have handled the economic situation that would develop into the recession?
4. Would he run again in 2004, who would run against him, and would he win?
5. Finally, regardless of a two-term presidency or not, where would the US be in the present after the impact of a Gore presidency compared to OTL?
I'm not playing up Gore as to be an awesome replacement to Bush, just curious as to an alternate outcome for events after 2000 if Gore wins.
1. Most likely (by which I mean almost no way it wouldn't), as there would be little time for Gore to shake things up enough at Justice and the intelligence agencies to suggest that they'd do anything differently. On the other hand, he isn't tossing the entire upper echelons out, so maybe they'll grow a brain while they're still there.
2. Afghanistan, certainly. Everyone will be out for someone's head. Barring that, people will want to destroy any group's ability to use Afghanistan as a base for training and recruitment. Iraq... no. A Gore government will not be as ideologically blinkered when looking at intelligence statements; or at least not in the same way.
3. As OTL, or so damned close that it won't make a bloody difference. Cyclical rise and fall is the rule in capitalism... this one was just made worse by the idiots who thought they could abolish that concept. Those idiots are still running things ITTL, so not much changes. And God knows the Democrats will have no more taste for the painful structural reforms that would ensure long-term prosperity, any more than the Republicans did IOTL.
4. Yes, McCain, I would imagine... I can't think, off the top of my head, of anyone else who wasn't in the middle of some other job at the time, and no, he probably wouldn't win. Damned hard for one party to stay in power for 16 years. There will be enough accumulated grievances to see him lose by this point, especially since he'll likely start tossing around his weight when it comes to environmental policy and the 2002-2004 recovery will be slower.
5. A little better in foreign policy, a little worse domestically. As usual, the idiocy the Democrats spout on the economy is dumber than the Republicans' idiocy, and their foreign policy is a little better, at least in this case. So not much difference, though the government's financial position may be marginally (read, a few percentage points of GDP) better off.