Yes, this is a horribly implausible idea. But let's say something happens, and Vice President Gore is not a candidate for President in 2000. What do the Democratic Primaries in 2000 look like? And who might the eventual nominee be?
wellstone vs bradley vs kerry. (in order of finish)
wellstone vs bradley vs kerry. (in order of finish)
Wellstone is the President! And ushers in eight years of peace and prosperity!
Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt. I see Kerry winning, though I would've liked to see Dean or Bradley win.
Was still an experienced, centrist, fiscally responsible, long serving, and successful governor. I can see him as an alternative to the bland as hell Kerry. Of course, Bradley was more well known, and was a former NBA player which is awesome.Didn't Dean mainly distinguish himself with his anti-war stance during Iraq? In 2000, I don't think he would have had the national profile that his anti-war stance brought him.
I think John Kerry and Bob Kerry run. t They have to put thief first initial on thief buttons and bumper stickers.
Thinking about it, without Gore, Bill Bradley actually stands a decent chance of being adopted as the DLC/establishment candidate. IOTL he deliberately shifted to the left to challenge Gore; that wasn't actually where he'd sat politically before then. I'm actually struggling to think of another serious candidate the establishment could have seriously got behind; maybe Evan Bayh?
Dick Gephardt would probably have a crack too, and thinking about it, Howard Dean could be competitive as well. Maybe throw in John Kerry too. Standard Paul Wellstone fantasising meets with standard note that he was too ill to mount a presidential campaign by 2000. Gephardt was certainly regarded as Gore's strongest potential challenger at the time, but I think that only holds purely relative to Al Gore, as the protest alternative; I don't see Gephardt being able to win in an open field. Too old skool, too Congressional caucusey.
No idea who would win out of this lot. Howard Dean could have serious allure in 2000 but is probably too 'hot', (Neverthelsss I can see him winning New Hampshire and being an effective Democratic McCain of this cycle.) Bill Bradley may be too 'cold'. John Kerry might be just right. Bayh is the wildcard. Dean and Bayh could beat Bush; the rest are to varying degrees more doubtful.
Gephardt couldn't be an acceptable establishment candidate, but I rather wonder just how muscular the establishment could be post-impeachment, in lining up some kind of figure who could even bring unity to the right of the Democrats, let alone the entire party. It's going to be difficult, to put it mildly.
Does Gephardt winning Iowa matter much - even assuming he could do it? (He couldn't in 2004) There's a regional favourite son aspect there, a predictability, which could be brushed off.
Speaking of brushes, if you think Dean couldn't potentially be a serious competitor in 2000 then I think you don't have a grasp on the dynamics which were motivating electorates that year. There was a strong outsider, political reform current which McCain and Bradley both tapped into. Dean could market himself as a moderate outsider, very much like John McCain, and unlike Bill Bradley IOTL I think that would have real application. When you consider the likelihood of a good Dean showing in New Hampshire due to regional and political attraction - and if John Kerry doesn't run, then it's Dean's, beyond any shadow of a doubt - he's all set up for a good run, and if you assume Gephardt wins in Iowa, bump his chances up by three or four notches.