WI: 9/11 attacks occurred in 2000?

Gan

Banned
What if Al Qaeda carried out the attacks in September of 2000 instead of 2001 like otl? How would the Clinton Administration deal with it? How would the elections be affected? What are the other consequences of an earlier "9/11"?
 

Puzzle

Donor
I tend to think this wold benefit Gore actually, he could make the very good point that he would continue Clinton's work with a much smoother transition than bringing all of Bush's appointees up to speed.
 
This could be argued either way as helping Gore or Bush. Plenty of photo ops for Gore as Commander in Chief in waiting and an argument that this is no time for a change in leadership versus the argument that Clinton failed to keep us safe. Much would hinge on how the media played it and how information came out in the media and how it played out in the context of what all of a sudden became a very important campaign. Probably fewer Nader voters in some states where that could have made a difference. And the fact that Gore actually went to Vietnam while Bush and Cheney avoided service. But, like I said, it could have gone either way.
 
I think the rally-around-the-flag effect would trump any sort of attempt to blame Clinton for the attack. It'd still be close, but ITTL Gore carries Florida (and New Hampshire) and wins.
 
I think the rally-around-the-flag effect would trump any sort of attempt to blame Clinton for the attack. It'd still be close, but ITTL Gore carries Florida (and New Hampshire) and wins.

I'd say this is likely right, but the way presidential campaigns play out can be brutally arbitrary in how they unfold. Trust me on this, I worked for Gore in 2000 and for Clinton in 1992. The way media cycles work and the way they affect a campaign can be extremely unpredictable. While I do think Gore probably would have won, I cannot say that with certainty beyond, say, 60%. I'd say a 40% (or even 25%) chance of Bush winning passes the plausibility test.

Even in 2008, had McCain not picked Palin as a running mate, the notion of him winning despite the financial crisis isn't beyond the pale even with Bush's tremendous unpopularity. Change a statement here and there and have the media cover things just a bit differently and throw in some luck and Obama could have lost. Vary few things in politics are inevitable and the power of sheer luck is often lost on people who have never run a campaign. Different campaign outcomes are a fertile place for finding PODs.
 
I'd say this is likely right, but the way presidential campaigns play out can be brutally arbitrary in how they unfold. Trust me on this, I worked for Gore in 2000 and for Clinton in 1992. The way media cycles work and the way they affect a campaign can be extremely unpredictable. While I do think Gore probably would have won, I cannot say that with certainty beyond, say, 60%. I'd say a 40% (or even 25%) chance of Bush winning passes the plausibility test.

Even in 2008, had McCain not picked Palin as a running mate, the notion of him winning despite the financial crisis isn't beyond the pale even with Bush's tremendous unpopularity. Change a statement here and there and have the media cover things just a bit differently and throw in some luck and Obama could have lost. Vary few things in politics are inevitable and the power of sheer luck is often lost on people who have never run a campaign. Different campaign outcomes are a fertile place for finding PODs.

Agreed, for the most part. This board is often far more authoritative than is warranted, because who wants a thread that's 90% hedging? :) I think a Bush win is still plausible, as a Gore landslide would be, but shifting just those two states seemed likeliest.

2008 seems harder to reconcile, though. McCain was the underdog the whole way and Palin was a Hail Mary pass. Even with, let's say, John Thune as the VP nominee, I'm struggling to see him successfully capitalizing on the turmoil to defeat Obama. And if he had managed to actually pick Lieberman as he allegedly wanted to do, that might have shredded the GOP base and led to an even bigger loss than OTL.
 
I think Clinton would have a rally around the flag effect, not as strong as Bush's was after 9/11 OTL, but strong enough to get his hand picked successor Gore elected. We'd probably invade Afghanistan in October of 2000, get Bin Laden sometime in early 2001 and the war would rap up sometime in 2002 or early 2003. Unfortunately we'd still have something along the lines of the Patriot Act, I don't think we'd get a Department of Homeland Security in a Gore administration as I doubt a GOP controlled house (I think they'd still keep it, the Democrats however will take the senate in 2000 TTL though) will allow another govt. department to form under Gore.

We launch a few airstrikes on Iraq, but we don't go to war, President Gore is defeated in 2004 by Senator John McCain, who is defeated in 2008 by Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton.
 
Top