I imagine there were some concessions to the liberal base, especially surrounding the environment since that's Gore's pet issue.
The Towers Still Stand: An Alternate take on early 21st Century America.
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
- Status
Also, I know that with still two months to go, with debates, a possible October surprise, and plenty of time for gaffes ahead, any guess could be incorrect, but here are my predictions for the time being:
The Democratic ticket holds onto all of the Gore states (including New Mexico and Iowa) and gain New Hampshire as in OTL. As I said, no 9/11 effect will hurt Bush and with more focus on Enron and the economy (which probably keeps the Rust Belt in the Democratic column) plus the fact that those states are really close even after a convention bounce all indicate that they'll swing Democratic.
But even if Gephardt carries those three swing states, he'd still lose by a very close margin of 274-264 (which possibly opens the door for a new EC crisis if Gephardt wins the popular vote). That would make Florida, Ohio, and Missouri the swing states of this election. Note that Gephardt can afford to lose any two of these states if he wins any one of them.
It's also noteworthy that Gephardt is from one of these states, Missouri, which instantly gives him an edge. The state was also a lot closer back then than in the present day, because it was one of the states that voted for Bill Clinton twice and this is only four years after his presidency. After looking at it this way it seems highly likely Missouri votes for Gephardt, which would hand him the presidency; with a likely Democratic Congress to boot. It doesn't really matter which way Ohio and Florida go at this point (although there is a good chance that they switch as well).
I thought Bush had it locked before but I think I just changed my own mind.
The Democratic ticket holds onto all of the Gore states (including New Mexico and Iowa) and gain New Hampshire as in OTL. As I said, no 9/11 effect will hurt Bush and with more focus on Enron and the economy (which probably keeps the Rust Belt in the Democratic column) plus the fact that those states are really close even after a convention bounce all indicate that they'll swing Democratic.
But even if Gephardt carries those three swing states, he'd still lose by a very close margin of 274-264 (which possibly opens the door for a new EC crisis if Gephardt wins the popular vote). That would make Florida, Ohio, and Missouri the swing states of this election. Note that Gephardt can afford to lose any two of these states if he wins any one of them.
It's also noteworthy that Gephardt is from one of these states, Missouri, which instantly gives him an edge. The state was also a lot closer back then than in the present day, because it was one of the states that voted for Bill Clinton twice and this is only four years after his presidency. After looking at it this way it seems highly likely Missouri votes for Gephardt, which would hand him the presidency; with a likely Democratic Congress to boot. It doesn't really matter which way Ohio and Florida go at this point (although there is a good chance that they switch as well).
I thought Bush had it locked before but I think I just changed my own mind.
Gephardt, at least to my understanding, throughout his time in congress came off as a center left populist and if I remember correctly even voted against NAFTA. I know he became a corporate lobbyist after he left congress, but at this point in this timeline, he's still in congress.
Just caught up with this timeline and I have to say, it's pretty interesting. Naturally, if I lived in this world I'd be rooting for Gephardt, but I wouldn't be too sad about a Bush reelection.
At this point, I give Bush the slight edge, because of his legislative accomplishments, the improving economy and a lack of major foreign policy blunders. But Gephardt could very well pull off a victory if Bush's campaign falters at the debates or something.
At this point, I give Bush the slight edge, because of his legislative accomplishments, the improving economy and a lack of major foreign policy blunders. But Gephardt could very well pull off a victory if Bush's campaign falters at the debates or something.
I wonder if winning the 2004 election will be even close to a poisoned chalice as OTL. There's a fantastic Kerry-wins '04 TL from years ago titled "Reporting for Duty" that showed how 2005-2009 were terrible years to be president no matter who you are. However, with no wars, TTL of course could go a totally different way.
For whoever it is, shit's gonna hit the fan.
OK, a new timeline to read about in the next weeks. SWEET.
Only to avoid the mess that happened 2005-2008 would be to try and force some serious level reforms, but even then...
Guess it was one of those poisned chalices unless you were smart and lucky
September 30th, 2004. The First Presidential Debate:
The first of three 2004 Presidential Debates took place on September 30th at the University of Miami. The Debate was moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS and centered around Domestic policy. Lehrer's first question was for President Bush about the size of the federal government, and he asked the President "You ran in 2000 and you're running now on bringing down the size of the federal government yet over the course of your Presidency, the government has grown and you even had a primary challenger for this very reason. Why is this the case and what are you going to do differently in a second term?" Bush replied "Well unfortunately Jim you're right. We weren't able to shrink the size of government but we also kept it from getting out of control as well. When I took office, many seniors in this country had to choose between getting a needed prescription and food. Something had to be done, and my administration did something about it. Granted, thanks to my opponent and his party's majority in Congress, we weren't able to give more responsibility to the private sector, but we none the less did something in the form of Medicare Part D and I am proud of that, and I'll bet many seniors today are grateful. We also tried to reform Social Security and build onto the Welfare Reforms that were passed a little less than a Decade ago, but there again, we were met with Democrat resistance. My top priority in a second term is to deliver a smaller and more efficient government, and thanks to the work we've done over the last four years, it can be done and it must." Mr. Gephardt responded by saying that "The President's intent was to make the Government smaller, but it wouldn't have been more efficient. It would've been rendered useless. The President ran in 2000 as a compassionate conservative. When the President first took office, he tried, and unfortunately succeeded in many ways, to ram an agenda that was anything but compassionate through Congress. After two years of this, the American people said enough is enough and elected a Democratic Congress to bring some responsibility back to Washington and we did that. Initially, Medicare Part D was going to be a hand out to the pharmaceutical industry, the President wanted to make it so that the Government couldn't negotiate prices and created a donut hole in the plan. We closed it and made it so that prices can be negotiated, saving tax payers and seniors a great deal of money. I'd also like to add that had the Social Security reforms he wanted passed, the program would be destroyed by the President's pals on Wall Street we Democrats knew it and even some Republicans knew it, which is why the legislation failed to pass."
After some back and forth rebuttals between the two candidates, the debate then shifted to the economy and the budget and the first question was for Speaker Gephardt. "Congressman, you've criticized the President about the economic recovery, calling it the weakest of the Post War era. You've also criticized President Bush for the Budget deficit, claiming it was his tax cuts that caused the budget to go back into deficit in the first place. Should you win this November, what do you plan to do to bring about stronger growth and balance the budget?" "Well Jim, to strengthen our economy, I would first work to create jobs. Yes, the unemployment rate is low, but that's because many who lost their jobs in the recession were unable to find work and are thus not counted. One way we can do this is to invest in our infrastructure and bring it into the 21st Century. Many good paying jobs can be created by rebuilding and maintaining our infrastructure. The President promised to do this when the recession hit in 2001, but never delivered I will. As far as the budget is concerned, yes the President's costly tax cut did put the budget back into deficit and one of the first things I'll do as President is return the top marginal rate to what it was when President Clinton was still in office. We were able to balance our budget with that rate being at 39% and we can do it again." President Bush responded by saying "The Former Speaker throughout this campaign and even tonight talks as though things were perfect and then I took office and it all fell apart. The truth is the economy was beginning to unravel before we took office. The Stock Market collapsed in the Spring of 2000, not even a year before I took office, and from there GDP was falling. Many were predicting a recession was going to hit and it did unfortunately. We were tasked with putting the economy back on track and we did so. Unemployment is down and signs show it will continue to fall. Yes the deficit did go up, but with the economy growing again and revenues increasing, the deficit is falling. He says the 2001 Tax Cut I signed into law was a budget buster and was irresponsible, I say it gave Americans much needed relief and kept the recession from getting worse. Is growth as strong as I'd like it to be, no, but I will take the steps necessary to make it stronger. We will sign another tax cut so that businesses have more money to invest and grow and we will do away with wasteful regulations. The Speaker's tax increase and regulations will only hurt business and weaken our economy."
Towards the end of the debate, the candidates briefly discussed Social Issues, namely gay marriage and abortion. The President voiced his support for a "Partial Birth Abortion" ban and called Mr. Gephardt a flip flopper on the issue of abortion as he was Pro Life early in his political career and then switched his position. Bush said that there was support for such legislation with the Public and accused Gephardt and Democrats in Congress of not following the will of the people by not passing legislation to ban partial birth abortion. President Bush also voiced support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Gephardt responded by saying that the Partial Birth Abortion ban that the President wanted would deprive a woman of her right to choose what she wants to do with her body and he said that while he opposes Gay Marriage, he supports Civil Unions. When asked about Massachusetts' recent decision to legalize Gay Marriage, Bush said he was against it while Gephardt said that despite his opposition to gay marriage that the states had a right to choose whether or not to legalize gay marriage and recognize gay marriages.
Polling showed that less people tuned into the debate than they did in 2000. Polls were also close when it came to who won the debate, but the results showed that Speaker Gephardt narrowly won the debate by a 51-47% margin. 3% or respondents were undecided.
No game changer. I still rate Bush the favorite unless something else happens.
I like the bushs. I actually wanted Jeb during the primaries and im looking forward to the rest of the Bush administration.
October 5th, 2004. The Vice Presidential Debate:
The 2004 Vice Presidential Debate between Vice President John Kasich and Governor Gary Locke took place on October 5th at Washington University in St. Louis Missouri and was moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS. The candidates were asked a series of questions about both domestic and foreign policy. The first question was for Vice President Kasich about the budget deficit. Iffil asked the Vice President "Mr. Vice President, when President Bush took office, the federal budget was balanced. By 2002, there was a budget deficit again and there is still today a deficit and studies have shown that if the Tax Cut President Bush is proposing passes, the deficit will only increase. Sir if this is true, how do you plan to balance the budget." Kasich responded. "Well thank you Gwen and thank you to Washington University for having this debate. To answer your question, yes the budget was balanced when President Bush's Presidency began. I would know this because I was the Budget Committee Chairman in the House when the Budget became balanced. With that said, the economy was also heading into recession when the President came into office. We needed to act and we did. The Democrats like to say the Tax Cut alone caused the decrease in revenues, but revenues were already falling before the Tax Cut took effect. I would argue that the recession would've been worse if not for the 2001 Tax cut. We also had to give Seniors a helping hand with paying for prescriptions and that to cost money. President Bush and I both are frustrated that there's a deficit, but we also worked hard to keep it from getting even worse, and if the Democrats had it there way, the deficit would be even higher than it is." Locke responded. "Thank you Gwen and I to want to thank Washington University for having us tonight. Yes the recession took a toll on the budget, but the deficit is a high as it is because the Tax cut caused revenues to fall even further than they otherwise would have and it's as high as it is because spending increased after the tax cut was passed. Now, I agree, we can't tax our way out of this deficit, but we can't cut our way out either. That is why, if Speaker Gephardt and I are fortunate enough to win this election, we are going to have the wealthiest among us pay their fair share in taxes and cut waste from the budget. By returning the top marginal rate to what it was before this administration's tax cut took effect, and cutting waste, we can balance the budget. "
The Debate then moved to the major Social Issues of the day. Governor Locke was asked about Gay Marriage and whether it should be left to the states or if a Constitutional Amendment was needed. Locke said that " My position is the same as Dick Gephardt's. I personally oppose gay marriage, and I feel the states and the voters should decide whether Gay marriage should be legal or not. I think a constitutional Amendment is the wrong way to approach this issue." Vice President Kasich was also asked to responded, and he said that "I support this amendment. The President and I support this because it's the right thing to do, we feel that marriage is between one man and one woman as do a majority of Americans and we feel a Constitutional Amendment will make it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman." On the issue of Abortion and a proposed ban on Partial Birth Abortion, the Vice President said that "President Bush and I are on the side of the American people on this issue and we support banning the awful practice that is Partial Birth Abortion. I think it's a shame that Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Locke oppose this legislation when even a good number of Democrats agree with us on this issue." Governor Locke responded by saying that "Speaker Gephardt and I feel strongly that a woman has a right to choose. We feel that legislation like this would lead to a situation where a woman no longer has any say in what she can and can't do with her body and it's because of this that we oppose the legislation that the Republicans are proposing.
The final segment of the debate centered around foreign policy. Gary Locke was asked about Iraq and whether it was safe to say the Bush Administration's approach to the country was a success. The Governor responded. "Well Gwen the administration deserves credit for the recent developments in Iraq. We now know for sure that Iraq is not producing WMDs. That's good. With that said, we could've reached this point sooner had the administration not been beating the drums of war through 2001 and 2002 and doing so without any strategy whatsoever." The Vice President responded by saying that "In 1990 and 1991, President George HW Bush was able to get the support of Democrats in Congress to use force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. President Clinton throughout his two terms in office had Republican support when it came to dealing with the threat of Iraq. Unfortunately, George W. Bush didn't get any bipartisan support in dealing with this issue because the Democrats were bitter about the election in 2000. Had he gotten some support, we might have reached this point with Iraq sooner than we did. That aside though, I want to make clear that Iraq is still a threat to the stability of the Middle East and to Global Security. I think I can say that Governor Locke and Congressman Gephardt can agree with this." Locke jumped in and said "we do." Finally, the Vice President was asked about North Korea. He was asked why the administration spoke so boldly about North Korea early in the term and yet hadn't taken any steps to work with the International Community to deal with the issue. Kasich said that "we have been working with them, Secretary Powell has been speaking with world leaders about how we can solve this problem. The Democrats think that it was our fault that the Agreed Framework failed when in reality it was a failure from the start. The North Koreans admitted that they were violating the agreement and we understood that a different approach needed to be taken." Locke responded by saying that "The Vice President talked about President Bush not getting Bi Partisan support with regards to Iraq. President Clinton did not get that with regards to North Korea. Shortly after the framework was signed, the Republican party took control of Congress. They opposed the agreement and part of the reason that it failed was because the Republican Majority in Congress at the time, which included my opponent, did not adequately fund it."
The candidates then gave their closing statements and the debate concluded. Polling showed that neither candidate won or lost the debate and that it was a tie.
October 8th, 2004. The Second Presidential Debate:
The Second 2004 Presidential Debate took place on October 8th at Arizona State University. The Debate was in Town Hall format and was moderated by Charles Gibson of ABC. The first question was to President Bush about the economy. A middle aged white male asked "Mr. President. Throughout this campaign, you've been saying that the economy is back on track and that we are better off now than we were four years ago. However, for many of us that isn't the case. Four years ago, I had a good paying job. I lost that job in the recession and was unemployed for 6 months and while I was able to find another job, I am making much less than I did four years ago and am struggling to make ends meet. I know many others who are in a similar situation. I want to ask, why has this recovery been so weak, why have wages declined, and what is your administration going to do to fix this in a second term? The President responded. "Thank you for your question and thank you Charlie for moderating this debate. I also wanna thank Arizona state for hosting us tonight. First of all, um, the economy is better off than it was four years ago. There's no doubt about it. With that said, I have said throughout this campaign that despite that, there are still people that are struggling out there and that something needs to be done. As to why the recovery is weak, I don't have a specific answer, there are a variety of reasons for that. As to what we're gonna do about it in a second term, as I have said, I want to sign a Tax Cut for businesses, small businesses in particular so that they can invest in our economy and create more jobs, but that isn't enough either. We need to realize that we are entering a new economy. Which means people are going to have to go back to school and learn new skills in order to get the new, good paying jobs." Speaker Gephardt also gave a response. "I'm sorry you're in the situation that you're in. I've committed my time in Politics to helping working folks just like you. This recovery is weak and wages are declining because we have not invested in our country, or in our people. Over the last two and a half decades we have not held corporations who have outsourced jobs and are still outsourcing jobs accountable and have done nothing to help the people who lost their job because of outsourcing. If I am elected President, that'll change. We will do everything we can to prevent corporations from outsourcing jobs. We will raise the minimum wage, and I agree with the President, people are going to have to go out and retrain and that's why if I'm elected, we will invest in trade schools and apprenticeship programs, as well as our community colleges."
A series of questions surrounding Domestic and Foreign Policy were asked by both Gibson and members of the audience. The final question was about Immigration, and was asked by an older woman from southern Arizona. The question was for both candidates. "Last year. A bipartisan Immigration reform bill was passed. Living close to the southern boarder, I know first hand just how problematic illegal immigration is. The legislation passed last year seems to do little in the form of securing the boarder and it seems a lot of people are getting amnesty. Why is this the case? The President responded first. "Well first of all, we're not giving anyone amnesty. President Reagan did that in 1986 and he quickly regretted it. This legislation deports everyone that has come here illegally and has committed a crime. However, for those who are here illegally and have not committed a crime, they can pay a fine and they can stay here and earn their citizenship. I and members of Congress felt that this was a more realistic and cost effective approach than deporting these folks. Many of them have roots and families here and one of the worst things we can do is break up families. As for boarder security, I was the Governor of a Boarder state. I know how important Boarder Security is and increasing boarder security was a priority of mine and this legislation does that. Additional fencing will be added across the boarder and more Boarder patrol agents are added as well and if it turns out that alone isn't enough, we will do more to secure the boarder. Mr. Gephardt than gave his answer. "I don't support amnesty and the President is right, no one is getting amnesty as a result of this legislation. Criminals will be deported, Boarder security will be increased, and people who aren't deported will pay a fine and will have to earn their citizenship. I supported this legislation and I'd do it again. With that said, I would add more to it. I would add Stricter punishment to any businesses that hire an illegal alien for the sake of getting around labor laws. Businesses hiring and exploiting these people is morally wrong, and it hurts American workers and it hurts those that want to come here legally to live and work." The Debate then ended. The candidates did not give closing statements.
Post debate polling showed that Speaker Gephardt won the debate by 52-46%. President Bush faltered in the first half of the debate, particularly when it came to the economy, but did better towards the end of the debate. Many noticed that President Bush did worse in this debate than he did in the first Presidential debate, which he also lost. While election polling released three days after the debate showed him two points ahead of Dick Gephardt, many pundits noted that a bad third debate could tip the scales.
Once again, what makes this story shine is how quaintly... boring it is. With how hyper-polarized everything has gradually gotten since 9/11 OTL, seeing a TL without that is so fascinating.
With how hyper-polarized everything has gradually gotten since 9/11 OTL, seeing a TL without that is so fascinating.Thanks. Glad you're still enjoying this.Once again, what makes this story shine is how quaintly... boring it is.
- Status