The 2000's: A Tale of Three Presidents?

Ok, I know how many on this board feel as if Al Gore had won the election in2000, be it different results in Florida or otherwise, many believe that he would have served full two terms. Bringing along with him a new liberal era in America society:D

But is that really the case... Some Political Scientists looking back on the last 9 years of the decade fell as if partisan feelings within the United States were split on very defined lines and if it wern't for the War in Iraq, Kerry could have possibly won th 2004 election. But even he in the circumstances of a botched Hurricane Katrina, An early withdrawl from the war before the 2006 surge could have left Iraq in the midst of the civil war, and the economic crises which began last year...probably would have been a one term President as well.

So is it safe to say that a "Gore winning in 2000" scenario would guarantee three diferent Presidents within a decade? Who might the Republican's nominate in alt 2004 after the defeat of Bush and the conservative faction of the party? Would a more or less succesful War on Terror gaurauntee Gore's ability to win a second term? Or would the 12 year rule hold out? Would the current economic crises be more or less the same and be strong enough to throw the Republican's out of office after one term? Who wins the nomination on the Democratic side in 2008? Any other thoughts on the potential politcal,social and economic ramifications of Gore winning in 2000?
 
I think that had Gore been President and the September 11 atrocity still occured Republicans would blame the Democrats for the event. I fear that it would have found some traction.

I assume Gore would not have gone to war against Iraq. I suspect that he would have been more competent in Afganistan and of course less distracted.

The 2004 election would likely have been quite close. I do not know the outcome.

I have to say that unless Gore became a LOT more populist and picked up on the stupidity of the Financial markets it would have been pretty near impossible for a Democrat to suceed Gore in the 2008 election.


Of course it is possible that Gore would have taken advice on terrorism more serious than GW Bush did in OTL and September 11 might have been avoided.

Still the financial issues would doom Democrats in 2008, unless Gore really turned on Wall Street, not all that likely.
 
Gor elikely would have handled Afghanistan the same way Clinton did. Some air strikes and some cruise missiles, but not much else. What would really make a Gore administration entertaining is the likelihood that he would try to impose a carbon tax as well as a lot of other dubious environmental initiatives.
 
Gor elikely would have handled Afghanistan the same way Clinton did. Some air strikes and some cruise missiles, but not much else. What would really make a Gore administration entertaining is the likelihood that he would try to impose a carbon tax as well as a lot of other dubious environmental initiatives.

To paraphrase what I said on another thread on this topic:

Al Gore is not Dennis Kucinich. A ground invasion of Afghanistan is almost certainly in the works. I do think that the United States will focus heavily on reconstructing Afghanistan under a Gore Presidency, especially without the distraction of the Iraq War.

Though that doesn't mean Gore wouldn't intervene in other locales, depending on how the situation on the ground is in Afghanistan (Sudan? Somalia?) after a certain point...
 
I think that had Gore been President and the September 11 atrocity still occured Republicans would blame the Democrats for the event. I fear that it would have found some traction.

I assume Gore would not have gone to war against Iraq. I suspect that he would have been more competent in Afganistan and of course less distracted.

The 2004 election would likely have been quite close. I do not know the outcome.

I have to say that unless Gore became a LOT more populist and picked up on the stupidity of the Financial markets it would have been pretty near impossible for a Democrat to suceed Gore in the 2008 election.


Of course it is possible that Gore would have taken advice on terrorism more serious than GW Bush did in OTL and September 11 might have been avoided.

Still the financial issues would doom Democrats in 2008, unless Gore really turned on Wall Street, not all that likely.

I did not quite think on the possibily of the GOP being willing to blame the Democrats for TTL"s 911 attacks. If he is able to actually concentrate on getting Bin Laden and finds his man, then I think that will definatly help his approval ratings for a man who probably wouldn't have that much of a honeymoon.
 
Gor elikely would have handled Afghanistan the same way Clinton did. Some air strikes and some cruise missiles, but not much else. What would really make a Gore administration entertaining is the likelihood that he would try to impose a carbon tax as well as a lot of other dubious environmental initiatives.

I think for atleast the first two years in his term, Gore would probably not get anything substantial passed. Although a carbon tax would be neat, the Republicans in Congress would rally against, if he pushes hard for it ala Hillarycare in '93 then it makes him look really bad. He would probably have to wait to see what happens in the '02 midterm elections. Depending on how Gore handles the War in Terror, the Democrats may or may not win back both Houses.
 
To paraphrase what I said on another thread on this topic:

Al Gore is not Dennis Kucinich. A ground invasion of Afghanistan is almost certainly in the works. I do think that the United States will focus heavily on reconstructing Afghanistan under a Gore Presidency, especially without the distraction of the Iraq War.

Though that doesn't mean Gore wouldn't intervene in other locales, depending on how the situation on the ground is in Afghanistan (Sudan? Somalia?) after a certain point...

Yeah, I think Gore's ambition might translate to a resurgance of Idealism in American Foriegn Policy. I can't see the American People stomaching an expensinve nation building plan in Afghanistan after to long, and if he decides to get tangled in other conflicts, he could really erode his small base of support.

In saying that I think I could see Gore/Liberman going down in a close defeat against someone like Elizabeth Dole , Dan Quayle or George Allen. Any other ideas?
 
Any other comment's on the effects of a Gore Presidency? I find that this is a very plausible scenario...
 
Well, one point for sure with Gore is that if he was president, we may not have those environmental measures he's now synonymous with. As Vice-President, Gore was never really much of an environmental campaigner as he is now. As President, I don't expect that to change.

Stopping 9/11 is probably not gonna happen at that point, so Gore would have to deal with that. I imagine that the war in Afghanistan wouldn't go that much different from OTL - Gore was not Kucinich, as DBE pointed out. The world would back our efforts, perhaps with a few more nations helping us out. Since Iraq would not be on the radar, the focus is on Afghanistan, which is good for ordinary Afghans and very bad indeed for the Taliban and Al-Queda. I can see the ISAF actually getting bin Laden, who would promptly be shipped off for trial in the United States. I cannot see the Gore Administration doing the Guantanamo garbage either. Not much of a honeymoon, but the focus would be on Afghanistan and Al-Queda, not Bush's dedication to getting Saddam.

On domestic policy, I don't see much changing from Clinton, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Clinton oversaw the changes to the investment bank laws, so Gore would have to overturn those in order to stop the current economic crisis.
 
2000 Election:
First we have to figure out how he gets into power. There are two routes: A) a minor change on election day (or in the campaign) that results in the count more clearly favoring Gore. This is actually a fairly substantial change since it removes the legacies of OTL's gridlock and the travesty of Bush v. Gore. At its maximum extent, I think this would be Gore winning in Tennessee and maybe one other state, with Florida not decisively changing anything. Or, B), a change during the process of the counting / recounting results in Gore winning Florida by virtue of a judicial process of some sort. For example, this might be SCOTUS refusing to hear Bush v. Gore and/or allowing a recount to proceed. The issue here is whether Gore's presidency starts under the onus of a legal challenge or not.

9/11:
Consensus seems to be that it would probably happen (and for argument sake positing that it wouldn't happen would so drastically change the nature of the 2000s that it's outside the bounds of the OP). I agree with those who say that Gore would invade Afghanistan, with NATO help.

2000 Budget surplus:
Would Gore really be able to stick to his guns and use the surplus to paydown Social Security et al in the face of a Republican Congress? At the very least, he will probably be able to stall until 9/11. After this point, the politics are a lot different. On the one hand, the GOP will want a tax cut, justified by the need to jumpstart the economy after the combination of the tech bust and the impact of 9/11. On the other, the Dems have control of the Senate (assuming Liberman is replaced by a Dem) with Liberman's veto (and with Jeffords' potential defection). Gore can potentially play hard ball at this point: the war in Afghanistan will costs lots of money, new money will need to be spent on national defense and security concerns -- he gets to justify arguing against a tax cut scheme by saying he's strong on defense. This is pretty major hardball, though, so a middle-class tax cut may also get through as a compromise. Definitely not the scale of the Bush tax cuts.

2002 Mid-Term elections:
OTL the 2002 mid-terms were a big fluke in that the incumbent party gained seats; this has been chalked up to 9/11. While TTL the GOP might attack the Dems for allowing the attack to happen in the first place -- an attack the GOP can make more easily than the Dems TTL since they can blame Clinton too -- they don't get to run on the strongest theme they did OTL: support the commander in chief / gov't in a time of crisis. Indeed, a lot depends here on how Gore handles the response to 9/11 and how people feel about it. Will Lieberman end up in an "undisclosed location"? Will Gore fumble in the same way Bush did on 9/11 itself (his press conference at the AFB)? Will Gore have the same sort of moment with the fire fighters at Ground Zero that Bush did? What will Gore's Joint-Address to Congress be like? Will he be strong, insisting on the moral uprightness of the USA or will he admit a role for US (and hence some blame) in allowing extremism to fester? I'd like to think his response would probably have been strong, but without the bluster (Axis of Evil) of GWB. On the other hand, though, the GOP will still try to say he wasn't hard enough. Another factor at play is the legacy of how Gore won in 2000, whether by judicial action or not. At the end of the day, though, I think a Gore White House will be able to get an approval bump from the whole thing, given the nature of the American people's response to the attack (return to patriotism). Hence, the Dems probably do "well" in 2002. Of course, that doesn't mean they take back the House or anything. Maybe just narrow the margin in the House and gain a Senate seat. Would have to look at what seats are open in 2002 and likely candidates for TTL.

The outcome of the above is probably that the GOP vs. Dem stand-off increases by virtue of an even more divided gov't than OTL. Gore will have gotten any victories by playing on the impact of 9/11 (as any post-9/11 president would have). To knock him off his horse, the GOP would have to out-patriotism him. If in '02 the GOP hardliners do try to attack the Dems for their handling of the situation, I think it backfires to some extent due to the rally-round-the-flag effect. Therefore, by '04, they would be ready with a new strategy. In this environment, somebody like John McCain might do pretty well (though as always he'll struggle to get the support of social conservatives, who OTL were a big part of GOP strength in '02 and '04). I guess is, to whom would the social conservative torch fall and would major GOP donors line up behind them? This is a large part of the reason why GWB dominated in 2000. Personally, I think consensus is likely to be pretty well divided. For one, Jeb Bush looks like a potential candidate and if GW has had his chance, might Jeb play for his?

In summary, there are probably two options: either a social conservative emerges, who runs on social issues, or a moderate who runs on a maverick / "country - first" strategy. In the first case, 2004 may be pretty close (though Gore's incumbency would help him and the GOP wouldn't have the power of the White House to put behind a get-out-the-vote campaign). In the second, though, the election may not be partisan, though it may still be fairly close. The middle ground would probably be someone who could do a bit of both. George Allen may work as would Tom Ridge. Come to think of it, Giuliani (assuming he comes out of 9/11 smelling like a rose) might try for the nomination, too. I doubt he takes it, but he would introduce an element of profound unceratinty into the GOP convention / primaries. Personally, I don't think Elizabeth Dole would have enough, current expereince in 2004 (even assuming she's in the Senate after '02). She's a good VP pick, though.

2008 is a bigger question, in my mind. The Credit Bubble will still be growing, but if tax policy since 2001 has been different, it may take slightly different paths. Plus the truly shocking parts of the financial crisis didn't really happen until September - October 2008. Before then, a changed invasion of Iraq (or probable lack thereof) dramatically changes the feel of 2004-2008. Hillary is almost surely running for the nomination in '08 and Obama probably hasn't risen to prominence as fast (at least not in the way he did OTL). In short, it's possible the butterflies change the "major events" (Bear Stearns collapse, Lehman Bro.s bankruptcy, AIG bailout, non-passage of TARP, passage of TARP, bungling of TARP, etc) of the crisis in such a way that the election of 2008 TTL is very, very different from OTL. That being said, given the fact that a downturn had been brewing since 2007 probably means that there's at least enough of a recession in the air (per Clinton in 1992) that the incumbent will be disadvantaged. Odds are, President Hillary Rodham Clinton is sworn in January 20, 2009.
 
Kerry could have possibly won th 2004 election. But even he in the circumstances of a botched Hurricane Katrina, An early withdrawl from the war before the 2006 surge could have left Iraq in the midst of the civil war

I don't think a President Kerry could have mounted an 'early withdrawal' anytime before about 2008, and he probably would have carried out something like Petraeus' Surge in order to cover it. All in all he wouldn't have botched Iraq any worse than any president who didn't want to keep the equivalent of several combat divisions in that country indefinitely... Hmmm, Bush really did create a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't policy environment there, didn't he?

Would a more or less succesful War on Terror gaurauntee Gore's ability to win a second term? Or would the 12 year rule hold out? Would the current economic crises be more or less the same and be strong enough to throw the Republican's out of office after one term? Who wins the nomination on the Democratic side in 2008? Any other thoughts on the potential politcal,social and economic ramifications of Gore winning in 2000?

If Gore can maintain the fiscal policies of Clinton and avoid invading Iraq then he should preside over a period of stability (9/11 and the GWOT aside). My gut feeling is that despite this stability, despite a shallower economic downturn in 2001/2 (I assume he can pass some kind of stimulus package with his post-9/11 political capital), despite having a saner foreign policy than OTL's Bush, he can lose in 2004.

It all depends upon the GOP media machine taking advantage of whatever discontent there is in an America that isn't as prosperous as it was under Clinton, and the Republicans running a competent candidate who can exploit this manufactured 'backlash'.
 
Questions?

One: What does Gore do with Iraq? Keep large numbers of US troops in Saudi Arabia while fighting a war in Afganistan? Pull them out? No response to the collapse of sanctions, and Iraqi rearmament?

Two: Does Gore move as quickly to focus American anger at Radical Islam as opposed to Islam? The lack of ethinic backlash against islamic individuals here in the US is something we take for granted now, but...

And does he focus solely on Afganistan as the problem behind 9-11 thus negating any call for a War on Terror.

I find that likely and very likely to blow up in his face, if there is another attack. Indeed the European attacks might be enough to cost him politically for declaring the war over with the conquest of Afganistan.
 
2000 Election:
First we have to figure out how he gets into power. There are two routes: A) a minor change on election day (or in the campaign) that results in the count more clearly favoring Gore. This is actually a fairly substantial change since it removes the legacies of OTL's gridlock and the travesty of Bush v. Gore. At its maximum extent, I think this would be Gore winning in Tennessee and maybe one other state, with Florida not decisively changing anything. Or, B), a change during the process of the counting / recounting results in Gore winning Florida by virtue of a judicial process of some sort. For example, this might be SCOTUS refusing to hear Bush v. Gore and/or allowing a recount to proceed. The issue here is whether Gore's presidency starts under the onus of a legal challenge or not.

9/11:
Consensus seems to be that it would probably happen (and for argument sake positing that it wouldn't happen would so drastically change the nature of the 2000s that it's outside the bounds of the OP). I agree with those who say that Gore would invade Afghanistan, with NATO help.

2000 Budget surplus:
Would Gore really be able to stick to his guns and use the surplus to paydown Social Security et al in the face of a Republican Congress? At the very least, he will probably be able to stall until 9/11. After this point, the politics are a lot different. On the one hand, the GOP will want a tax cut, justified by the need to jumpstart the economy after the combination of the tech bust and the impact of 9/11. On the other, the Dems have control of the Senate (assuming Liberman is replaced by a Dem) with Liberman's veto (and with Jeffords' potential defection). Gore can potentially play hard ball at this point: the war in Afghanistan will costs lots of money, new money will need to be spent on national defense and security concerns -- he gets to justify arguing against a tax cut scheme by saying he's strong on defense. This is pretty major hardball, though, so a middle-class tax cut may also get through as a compromise. Definitely not the scale of the Bush tax cuts.

2002 Mid-Term elections:
OTL the 2002 mid-terms were a big fluke in that the incumbent party gained seats; this has been chalked up to 9/11. While TTL the GOP might attack the Dems for allowing the attack to happen in the first place -- an attack the GOP can make more easily than the Dems TTL since they can blame Clinton too -- they don't get to run on the strongest theme they did OTL: support the commander in chief / gov't in a time of crisis. Indeed, a lot depends here on how Gore handles the response to 9/11 and how people feel about it. Will Lieberman end up in an "undisclosed location"? Will Gore fumble in the same way Bush did on 9/11 itself (his press conference at the AFB)? Will Gore have the same sort of moment with the fire fighters at Ground Zero that Bush did? What will Gore's Joint-Address to Congress be like? Will he be strong, insisting on the moral uprightness of the USA or will he admit a role for US (and hence some blame) in allowing extremism to fester? I'd like to think his response would probably have been strong, but without the bluster (Axis of Evil) of GWB. On the other hand, though, the GOP will still try to say he wasn't hard enough. Another factor at play is the legacy of how Gore won in 2000, whether by judicial action or not. At the end of the day, though, I think a Gore White House will be able to get an approval bump from the whole thing, given the nature of the American people's response to the attack (return to patriotism). Hence, the Dems probably do "well" in 2002. Of course, that doesn't mean they take back the House or anything. Maybe just narrow the margin in the House and gain a Senate seat. Would have to look at what seats are open in 2002 and likely candidates for TTL.

The outcome of the above is probably that the GOP vs. Dem stand-off increases by virtue of an even more divided gov't than OTL. Gore will have gotten any victories by playing on the impact of 9/11 (as any post-9/11 president would have). To knock him off his horse, the GOP would have to out-patriotism him. If in '02 the GOP hardliners do try to attack the Dems for their handling of the situation, I think it backfires to some extent due to the rally-round-the-flag effect. Therefore, by '04, they would be ready with a new strategy. In this environment, somebody like John McCain might do pretty well (though as always he'll struggle to get the support of social conservatives, who OTL were a big part of GOP strength in '02 and '04). I guess is, to whom would the social conservative torch fall and would major GOP donors line up behind them? This is a large part of the reason why GWB dominated in 2000. Personally, I think consensus is likely to be pretty well divided. For one, Jeb Bush looks like a potential candidate and if GW has had his chance, might Jeb play for his?

In summary, there are probably two options: either a social conservative emerges, who runs on social issues, or a moderate who runs on a maverick / "country - first" strategy. In the first case, 2004 may be pretty close (though Gore's incumbency would help him and the GOP wouldn't have the power of the White House to put behind a get-out-the-vote campaign). In the second, though, the election may not be partisan, though it may still be fairly close. The middle ground would probably be someone who could do a bit of both. George Allen may work as would Tom Ridge. Come to think of it, Giuliani (assuming he comes out of 9/11 smelling like a rose) might try for the nomination, too. I doubt he takes it, but he would introduce an element of profound unceratinty into the GOP convention / primaries. Personally, I don't think Elizabeth Dole would have enough, current expereince in 2004 (even assuming she's in the Senate after '02). She's a good VP pick, though.

2008 is a bigger question, in my mind. The Credit Bubble will still be growing, but if tax policy since 2001 has been different, it may take slightly different paths. Plus the truly shocking parts of the financial crisis didn't really happen until September - October 2008. Before then, a changed invasion of Iraq (or probable lack thereof) dramatically changes the feel of 2004-2008. Hillary is almost surely running for the nomination in '08 and Obama probably hasn't risen to prominence as fast (at least not in the way he did OTL). In short, it's possible the butterflies change the "major events" (Bear Stearns collapse, Lehman Bro.s bankruptcy, AIG bailout, non-passage of TARP, passage of TARP, bungling of TARP, etc) of the crisis in such a way that the election of 2008 TTL is very, very different from OTL. That being said, given the fact that a downturn had been brewing since 2007 probably means that there's at least enough of a recession in the air (per Clinton in 1992) that the incumbent will be disadvantaged. Odds are, President Hillary Rodham Clinton is sworn in January 20, 2009.

Wow, nice Post Nic, I think that you pretty much hit right on the money...I think moderates of the GOP might win out in the 2004 election on both the primaries and the national election. Especially if Gore isn't seen as the legitmate President of the United States. George Pataki would seem like a Great Choice especially if 9/11 goes more or less the same as in OTL.

So a Pataki/Dole ticket might be able to win another extremley close election over Gore in the 2004 election. Katrina is probably still fumbled and the 2007 recession will probably doom their chances of relection. I am not sure about Hillary getting the nominaton in 2008 esp if the Recession is rightley so blamed on Clinton era policies. I think Change would still be a strong message(not as much as IOTL) but enough to keep the Clinton's or Southern Moderates from returning to the White House after only a four year intermension. Senator Feinstein, Jesse Jackson Jr.(who might decide to run and win the Illinois senate seate),Howard Dean, John Kerry are all plausible candidates.
 
Questions?

One: What does Gore do with Iraq? Keep large numbers of US troops in Saudi Arabia while fighting a war in Afganistan? Pull them out? No response to the collapse of sanctions, and Iraqi rearmament?

Two: Does Gore move as quickly to focus American anger at Radical Islam as opposed to Islam? The lack of ethinic backlash against islamic individuals here in the US is something we take for granted now, but...

And does he focus solely on Afganistan as the problem behind 9-11 thus negating any call for a War on Terror.

I find that likely and very likely to blow up in his face, if there is another attack. Indeed the European attacks might be enough to cost him politically for declaring the war over with the conquest of Afganistan.

Oooooh there was ethnic backlash alright. I remember one special case where a Sikh was shot and killed because he was mistaken as a Muslim.
 
I did not quite think on the possibily of the GOP being willing to blame the Democrats for TTL"s 911 attacks. If he is able to actually concentrate on getting Bin Laden and finds his man, then I think that will definatly help his approval ratings for a man who probably wouldn't have that much of a honeymoon.

Research has concluded that it could have been prevented by Clinton. He shrugged off the threats.
 
Two: Does Gore move as quickly to focus American anger at Radical Islam as opposed to Islam? The lack of ethinic backlash against islamic individuals here in the US is something we take for granted now, but...

Because Bush talking of Islam as a religion of peace is the only way to stop ordinary Americans going (actively) LGF, eh?

And does he focus solely on Afganistan as the problem behind 9-11 thus negating any call for a War on Terror.

I find that likely and very likely to blow up in his face, if there is another attack. Indeed the European attacks might be enough to cost him politically for declaring the war over with the conquest of Afganistan.

Let me get this straight; you're saying that if America was hit by another AQ terror attack (Why, how? They don't have a secure base in Afghanistan anymore) then Gore is blamed for not fighting a real War on Terror i.e. not invading Iraq?
 
Top