What if Al Gore had won the 2000 Presidential Election?

How do you think he would have reacted to things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, 2008 Financial Metldown etc..
Would he have done better or worse than George W.?
Sorry if the post is a little messed up, its my first one:)
 

Rebel

Banned
How do you think he would have reacted to things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, 2008 Financial Metldown etc..
Would he have done better or worse than George W.?
Sorry if the post is a little messed up, its my first one:)

Well, the '08 meltdown may not have happened, or may not have been as bad as it was IOTL. Just saying.
 
A lot depends on the POD and the exact way the election is won.
If it's something like the above-mentioned TL, it's one thing.
But most Gore-wins ideas and TLs have a POD in November or even December 2000 (i.e. just before or after Election Day), which is completely another thing.
I think it was Zompist who said about the "sore winner"... ah, here it is:
Zompist said:
Not to cry sour grapes or anything, but I think this election comes with a 'winner's curse'. The winner will deal with a divided Congress, opponents who think the election was stolen, and a declining economy. And that beautiful budget surplus may fade like a mirage.


...So what, how?
January First-of-May
 
Last edited:
If Gore won the election he wouldn't be the climate change crusader he is today. He would face the same problems with more or less the same powers and limitations as GWB, so changes would be nesecarily small.
 
If Gore won the election he wouldn't be the climate change crusader he is today. He would face the same problems with more or less the same powers and limitations as GWB, so changes would be nesecarily small.

We'd probably see GWB go on a terrorism prevention crusade.
 
I'm just gonna throw this out there, but IOTL Clinton/Gore viewed terrorism as a major threat to the US, and made tracking groups and people like bin Laden a top priority. Though not openly crusading against it a la a GWOT, they did rank it fairly high in priorities and silently kept up the pressures on terrorist activity. A Gore administration would continue this trend.

ITTL Bush didn't think terrorism was a big deal. An oft-citied fact of this is the entire Bush administration's ignorance of and ignoring the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US' policy research paper.

So... just saying :(
 

loughery111

Banned
Well, the '08 meltdown may not have happened, or may not have been as bad as it was IOTL. Just saying.

Doubt this POD would change almost anything about that... the groundwork for that meltdown was laid long before 2000. Namely, government started demanding that banks give loans to people who couldn't really afford them, banks discovered that they could make lots of money doing so, and much expanded the process... then they bundled the loans to spread the risk, with the tacit assurance that government would bail them out if it all went south...
 
Doubt this POD would change almost anything about that... the groundwork for that meltdown was laid long before 2000. Namely, government started demanding that banks give loans to people who couldn't really afford them, banks discovered that they could make lots of money doing so, and much expanded the process... then they bundled the loans to spread the risk, with the tacit assurance that government would bail them out if it all went south...

That's very true. There was more to the meltdown than the President's decisions.

Another thing that might have changed is-- what would the 2008 election have looked like? Assuming Gore would have won 2004. If Gore had a two-term presidency, would Americans blame the meltdown on him, just like they blamed Bush for it?

Would that have changed the outcome of the 2008 elections? It would have been a closer race, for sure, and the Republicans might be playing the "hope" and "change" mantra against the solidified Democratic policies that they would blame for the recession and failed environmental policy.
 
Internationally, Tony Blair's post-2001 career would have been very different indeed. Probably no Iraq is the only thing we can be certain of, but as so, so much of Blair's whole administration hinged on his changing relationship with Dubya there's really no way of knowing what shape the UK would be in today in this TL. The optimist in me says Blair might have led a successful Labour Party through 2005's election, gone in much nicer (no Iraq) circumstances and Gordon would have taken over with strong momentum and taken a minor loss of seats in the election in 2009/10.

In terms of the special relationship... I don't know enough about Gore's foreign policy intentions. I get the impression he and Blair would be good, stoic liberal buddies (Blair in office during the real 'Clinton years' would have been something to see). Certainly there'd be less distaste towards America today, as unlike Bush I suspect Gore would not throw away the goodwill that the world poured into the USA on 9/12 with warmongering and arrogance.
 
Certainly there'd be less distaste towards America today, as unlike Bush I suspect Gore would not throw away the goodwill that the world poured into the USA on 9/12 with warmongering and arrogance.

But how would America's reputation look like if the U.S. does not invade Iraq?

How would North Korea, Iran, etc. change their policies if the U.S. did not take decisive action against Iraq, and left Saddam in power, even when it was clear that he was pursuing WMD capability? Unless Gore takes significant action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees the US as more concerned with global warming than with stopping military threats, which damages our reputation and encourages WMD proliferation.
 
But how would America's reputation look like if the U.S. does not invade Iraq?

How would North Korea, Iran, etc. change their policies if the U.S. did not take decisive action against Iraq, and left Saddam in power, even when it was clear that he was pursuing WMD capability? Unless Gore takes significant action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees the US as more concerned with global warming than with stopping military threats, which damages our reputation and encourages WMD proliferation.

I think Gore would probably commit to Afghanistan for the same reasons GWB did, but not Iraq. He'd probably play up Afghanistan as the front against terror (though I can't imagine him saying 'War on Terror') while making arrangements for a CIA-backed coup in Iraq if intelligence genuinely proved that Saddam had WMD. Of course, if it's conclusively proven that he has them by UN weapons inspectors, the US just has to willingly join the coalition of blue-berets that invades Iraq under UN command if Hans Blix happens to trip over a nuclear warhead Saddam thought he'd stashed under the bed.
 

Deleted member 1487

But how would America's reputation look like if the U.S. does not invade Iraq?

How would North Korea, Iran, etc. change their policies if the U.S. did not take decisive action against Iraq, and left Saddam in power, even when it was clear that he was pursuing WMD capability? Unless Gore takes significant action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees the US as more concerned with global warming than with stopping military threats, which damages our reputation and encourages WMD proliferation.


Huh? There was absolutely no evidence that Saddam was pursuing anything of the sort. In fact, UN weapons inspectors said the opposite at the time, which would give the world the impression that the US actually pays attention to the UN instead of running off on its own.

Gore, if there was even a 9/11, which there might not be, as there will be tremendous overlap between the Gore/Clinton administrations, meaning very little disruption in policy and goals so that the "bin laden determined to hit US" memo is not ignored, preventing the terror attacks from happening. That means no Afghanistan invasion, though likely significant Special Forces operations. Though this more limited WoT would still be costly, but nowhere near the OTL levels.

The big difference would be the lack of Bush tax cuts, which leaves the nation in a much stronger financial postion. The drop in the economy post 2000 would still happen, though it is questionable whether Gore would still allow the realistate bubble to form to the degree it did. More likely something like a lost decade with increased social spending while the surplus drains away and social security becomes a major issue. The Republicans become increasingly embittered and there might be a type of tea party forming. I would guess that far-right extremism continues to be an issue, as the militias are likely to treat Gore like they did Clinton.
 
Huh? There was absolutely no evidence that Saddam was pursuing anything of the sort. In fact, UN weapons inspectors said the opposite at the time, which would give the world the impression that the US actually pays attention to the UN instead of running off on its own.

Gore, if there was even a 9/11, which there might not be, as there will be tremendous overlap between the Gore/Clinton administrations, meaning very little disruption in policy and goals so that the "bin laden determined to hit US" memo is not ignored, preventing the terror attacks from happening. That means no Afghanistan invasion, though likely significant Special Forces operations. Though this more limited WoT would still be costly, but nowhere near the OTL levels.

The big difference would be the lack of Bush tax cuts, which leaves the nation in a much stronger financial postion. The drop in the economy post 2000 would still happen, though it is questionable whether Gore would still allow the realistate bubble to form to the degree it did. More likely something like a lost decade with increased social spending while the surplus drains away and social security becomes a major issue. The Republicans become increasingly embittered and there might be a type of tea party forming. I would guess that far-right extremism continues to be an issue, as the militias are likely to treat Gore like they did Clinton.

1. Iraq had been using chemical weapons for some time. They had no problem using chemical agents to kill thousands of Iranians. Also they DID have programs to develop nuclear weaponry.

2. So if Gore was president, there would be no 9/11? That's just ridiculous. In 1996, terrorists hit Oklahoma City even though Clinton was in power, and they attempted unsuccessfully to bomb both LAX airport and the USS The Sullivans in 2000. To say that Clinton/Gore policies deterred terrorism is completely untrue.

3. What makes you think that Gore would stop the real estate bubble that had been in place for decades? Clinton/Gore certainly didn't stop the bubble.

4. How would the tax cuts reduce the country's economic strength? Tax cuts, in themselves, do nothing but help the economy. The only question is what the government could have done with the extra cash resulting from higher taxes, and if Gore had spent money on welfare, social security, etc., that would probably not do much for the economy.
 
I'm just going to throw out some thoughts here for a Gore presidency...

9/11 will happen even if the Gore Administration continues the Clinton administration's priority on combating terrorism, the institutional flaws that allowed all the warning signs/pieces of the puzzle not put together won't be fixed if the Democrats continue to govern.

Like Bush in OTL, Gore will invade Afghanistan that includes working with the Iranians like what happened in OTL, it wasn't given a lot of press but it happened. However, unlike Bush, Gore will not be surrounded by neo-cons which leads to the Axis of Evil speech in the 2002 State of the Union (which IMHO leads to the Iranian clerics looking for a hardliner) and later Iraq.

On the domestic side, the 2001 Bush tax cut won't happen. But Republicans would still be in control of Congress (though barely in the Senate) and might press for a tax cut/relief. Common ground would be found in increasing the child tax credit and either eliminating or cutting the 'marriage penalty,' but the biggest disagreement would be over tax rates with Gore wanting the bigger cuts for lower- and middle-income earners while Republicans for middle- and higher-income earners with both sides compromising by having middle-income earners getting a bigger cut than both lower and higher income earners. This probably allows the budget surplus to continue with Gore and Republicans agreeing to prop-up Social Security and Medicare plus paying off some of the debt.

The Gore administration would begin stirring the energy policy a little more towards "green" technology than what Clinton did, but it won't be a major emphasis unless after 9/11 the foreign oil = terrorism argument gets a lot of play.

Again just some of my thoughts...
 

Goldstein

Banned
But how would America's reputation look like if the U.S. does not invade Iraq?

How would North Korea, Iran, etc. change their policies if the U.S. did not take decisive action against Iraq, and left Saddam in power, even when it was clear that he was pursuing WMD capability? Unless Gore takes significant action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees the US as more concerned with global warming than with stopping military threats, which damages our reputation and encourages WMD proliferation.

Setting aside if 9/11 and the '08 meltdown, that could probabily happen to some extent, are you aware that the American reputation was greatly (and I mean GREATLY) damaged by the actions against Iraq (and that is, of course, ignoring the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo)? Or that North Korea and Iran have not changed their position in the slightest way, and their animosisty and defiance against the international community has become just greater? Also, I'm not seeing any betterment concerning WMD proliferation, nor in which way helped the fight against Islamist terrorism to fight one of the only secular regimes in the ME.

Regarding intervention in Afghanistan, it's very probable it would happen anyway. Iraq, I doubt it.
 

Deleted member 1487

1. Iraq had been using chemical weapons for some time. They had no problem using chemical agents to kill thousands of Iranians. Also they DID have programs to develop nuclear weaponry.
He used those weapons in the 1980's, which were provided by the Europeans. By 2003 they had been long gone after we took out the vast majority in Desert Storm. Care to provide sources that prove he was working on nukes in 2003?

2. So if Gore was president, there would be no 9/11? That's just ridiculous. In 1996, terrorists hit Oklahoma City even though Clinton was in power, and they attempted unsuccessfully to bomb both LAX airport and the USS The Sullivans in 2000. To say that Clinton/Gore policies deterred terrorism is completely untrue..
I stated that it was a possiblity, not that it was probable. The Gore administration would not have been so cavalier about ignoring the bin laden threat (even leaving asside the Bush-Bin Laden family connections), but this does not mean the intelligence failures would still not have happened, as the examples above show. But none of those happened under the Gore administration, so we will never know if he would have been more effective or not. Though he would have to invade Afghanistan if 9/11 happens, he would get far more blowback from the right for what happened.

3. What makes you think that Gore would stop the real estate bubble that had been in place for decades? Clinton/Gore certainly didn't stop the bubble..
Again, I am postulating that he would have been more proactive without being certain. We will never know what he would have done, but I question whether he would have continued the deregulations of the Clinton era or made the poor economic policy decisions of the Bush administration. Gore was not Clinton.

4. How would the tax cuts reduce the country's economic strength? Tax cuts, in themselves, do nothing but help the economy. The only question is what the government could have done with the extra cash resulting from higher taxes, and if Gore had spent money on welfare, social security, etc., that would probably not do much for the economy.
Okay, this is just plain partisan and unsubstantiated. Tax cuts to a point are helpful, beyond which they just deprive the government of money to run programs. It is better to have money moving through the economy than have it sitting in a bank. Yes I know that money in banks is invested, but if there is not enough being used to purchase goods and services, then money in investments are not useful. Government programs spend money and move it through the economy, wheras tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is saved instead of supporting the economy. Basing it on investing bubbles like the .com's or realestate is much more detrimental than helpful. Money spent on welfare, social security, and other social programs like healthcare are used in the consumer economy, not save, meaning they have a beneficial effect for businesses. There is such a thing as too much investing afterall.

Tax cuts of those most likely to spend it instead of saving is healthy for the economy: i.e. the lower and middle classes are much more likely to use the money from tax cuts than the upper classes, which hoard that money or use it to chase the hottest new investment (again, .com's and realestate- the largest number of defaults on housing after the bubble burst was with people in the upper classes with more than one home. Interestingly enough, these people only defaulted on investment properties, not their own homes; its easier to walk about from an investment that is underwater than your own home).
 
Top