Query: 2000 Without Al Gore.

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?
 
Either it's Bill Bradley or the Democratic establishment unites around another candidate and beats him. I'm betting on Bill Bradley.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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. :D
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I think Gephardt could do fairly well in Iowa, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he wins there. But my impression is that Bill Clinton would not have wanted a Gephardt nomination. And if Gore's out of the picture, I think the President, behind closed doors at least, would be doing everything he could to ensure that the party nominates an acceptable successor. I don't think Kerry is the most predictable candidate to win the nomination in 2000. 2000 wasn't the kind of national security election that 2004 was, and there Kerry's argument for the nomination was that he was uniquely suited to a commander in chief role thanks to his experience in Vietnam. I very much doubt Dean could win the nomination, let alone the election.
 
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.
 
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.

I suppose that I am being a bit unfair to Dean. Partially, I was judging him based on what happened between 2003-2004 concerning his attempt to win the 2004 nomination. Perhaps my impression is inaccurate, but I thought that Dean's campaign imploded largely due to organizational issues with that campaign, that it in effect stretched itself too thin, too quickly. Maybe I'm entirely wrong about what happened in 2004, but I was under the impression that Dean failed in 2004 for reasons that could conceivably have happened in 2000, even if Dean was running as a "moderate outsider." Also, I thought that the gay marriage thing twelve years ago would have presented Dean with serious problems, if not in the primary than certainly in the general election. Yes, it's sad, but back in 2000 gay marriage would have been a problem for Dean. Yes, I realize that on paper, Dean looks like a good candidate here. But I was under the again, perhaps false impression that there would be other issues that would deny Dean the nomination here.
 
Top