What would a Gore Presidency look like?

So assuming Gore wins in 2000 who wins the GOP primary in 2004 and does he/she win the general election?

I mean it really depends on Gore's term.

Gore could head off 9/11 and nothing else really flares up in terms of foreign policy. So the GOP candidates would tend towards and shift in favour of domestic policy standings. So successful governors or domestic focused legislators. Likely just a campaign of social issues, scaremongering about whatever Gore ended up doing in his term, and promising to turn Gore's surplus into tax cuts.

Gore could still have 9/11 happen under his watch. I doubt he would get the same impact as Bush thought. The right wing media would accuse him of being asleep on the job, and the mainstream media would mindlessly parrot it. So even if Gore is quite successful in the aftermath in hunting down the perpetrators and their allies, that could be seen as a weak spot, or at least something the Republicans need to balance against. Like picking Kerry because he voted yes to war. So the Republicans run a Hawk claiming he is fucking it up and America needs a Republican. That could be a dangerous scenerio if they not only want to go after Iraq, but also other Republican bugbears like Iran and North Korea. That could create a real Carter, considering the issues awaiting in that term. Katrina, the financial crisis and potential wars.

As for winning, I think the odds are against him no matter the scenerio. The 12 year itch will be tough to overcome. The last time a party had such dominance was the New Deal with the Republicans utterly wrecked and the Democrats holding a mega coalition.

But the Republicans could still botch it, and make a bad choice. Like America might want a 'tough guy' President but could still balk at multiple potential wars. Or just a terrible candidate generally.
 
As for winning, I think the odds are against him no matter the scenerio. The 12 year itch will be tough to overcome. The last time a party had such dominance was the New Deal with the Republicans utterly wrecked and the Democrats holding a mega coalition.

Thanks for answering. Agree with this part here. The more I think about it the more I'm pretty sure that the housing bubble/credit crunch/Great Recession occur more or less right on schedule as they did OTL. Whichever party wins in 2004 is pretty screwed come 2008. The GOP might be able to say "hey, this economic disaster is because of 12 years of Clinton/Gore, we need more time to clean up the mess" but if the ITTL Great Recession is to the level of OTL's that message will probably fall on deaf ears. Whichever Democrat runs after a termed-out Gore in 2008 is royally screwed.
 
In a scenario in which Gore narrowly defeats George H. W. Bush in 1988, Gore is slightly further to the right than he was in OTL 2000. The Persian Gulf War probably still happens as OTL, but no Somalia. Gore either loses re-election in 1992, or wins re-election narrowly, leading to a Republican in 1996. How he handles the post-Cold War transition with Russia is up in the air.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the "faulty" intelligence -- everything I've read about the Iraq War said that the CIA's opinion was that Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction. Granted there were uncertainties, as in all intelligence work, but the consensus in the intelligence community was what proved to be true.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld decided to conquer the place, and then announced that Saddam was a threat to sell it to the public.
 
In a scenario in which Gore narrowly defeats George H. W. Bush in 1988, Gore is slightly further to the right than he was in OTL 2000. The Persian Gulf War probably still happens as OTL, but no Somalia. Gore either loses re-election in 1992, or wins re-election narrowly, leading to a Republican in 1996. How he handles the post-Cold War transition with Russia is up in the air.

It'd be interesting to see what happens in Russia without a former CIA head as President. Russia during the 90s was extremely vulnerable to outside pressure and influence*, and Bush had all the experience in the world to just that. Gore might keep Russia at an arm's length rather than capitalize on the political situation.

*The push for shock therapy for one, meddling with Russian Elections for another.

I don't think Gore would be shrewd enough to manipulate anything in the dark. That's a particular set of skills that you don't get from being a Tennessee senator.
Russia would have a lot more breathing room to settle its own affairs without interference, and that could produce some interesting outcomes. Maybe holding onto some of the Soviet era welfare state could happen?
 
Humorously enough, I’m doing my own timeline on the thing. Gore did seem to have his own path even if aligning with Clinton.

And if Gore loses reelection , the GOP will be blamed for the Recession. Either in 2008 or in 2012 if re-elected by some inane reasons
 
Humorously enough, I’m doing my own timeline on the thing. Gore did seem to have his own path even if aligning with Clinton.

And if Gore loses reelection , the GOP will be blamed for the Recession. Either in 2008 or in 2012 if re-elected by some inane reasons

The poisoned chalice of recession elections...

I wonder how the recession could be affected by how the Congress develops? If Republicans come into office with a majority in both houses, they might try for 1980 2.0, and push through a lot of their agenda as aggressively as they can manage. That could definitely backfire if/when the recession hits. If it's a split government, it might muddy the waters in 2008.

Not saying the Republican could win, but it might be more of a contest than it had a right to be.
 
The poisoned chalice of recession elections...

I wonder how the recession could be affected by how the Congress develops? If Republicans come into office with a majority in both houses, they might try for 1980 2.0, and push through a lot of their agenda as aggressively as they can manage. That could definitely backfire if/when the recession hits. If it's a split government, it might muddy the waters in 2008.

Not saying the Republican could win, but it might be more of a contest than it had a right to be.

The taxcuts would make it worse and they'd get the shaft for it. If somehow they maintain hold in 2012, it would just screw them and the national economy worse, though it could mean more leftists would come to dominate the Democrats
 
Al Gore winning in a rematch in 2004 is an underdiscussed scenario. Maybe postpone the September 11th, 2001 Terrorist Attacks until after January 20th, 2002, and then have George W. Bush gun for Iraq immediately after. Congress gives him his War in Iraq, but the voters are pissed come November 2002 during the Midterms. With no War in Afghanistan, Gore can focus on withdrawing from Iraq. Instead of invading Afghanistan, Gore sends special forces to hunt al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden.

Gore probably picks John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, or Howard Dean as his vice presidential nominee. Either way, as the above posters pointed out, 2004 is a poisoned chalice. I could imagine a Bush/Ridge revenge ticket pulling off a second Grover Cleveland in 2008. If not George at the top of the ticket, then Jeb!

You could also have an Al Gore Presidency in 2008, just have both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not run (maybe have Bill and Chelsea get into a traffic accident in early 2007 and Obama decide he's not experienced enough.) Gore-Kerry Vs. McCain-Ridge will be dubbed as the election that should have been in 2000; although McCain picking Lieberman would be a move to remind Gore of his defeat eight years prior.
 
Last edited:
Top