What if for some reason (I can't think of a reason to use for this timeline, so whatever reason you can think of), Al Gore choses to sit the 2000 election out? Who runs for the Democratic nomination? Who wins it? Assuming GW Bush is still the republican nominee in 2000, who would win the general?
WI: Al Gore doesn't run for President in 2000?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
In OTL, Bill Bradley was his chief competitor for the nomination. I am sure that Bradley would get some competition in this ATL, John Kerry being one obvious possibility. (In the general election, Kerry would at least have a better chance of carrying NH--as he would do in 2004--than Gore did, and if he does that *and* carries all the other Gore states, that's enough to beat Bush, even without Florida. That's a big "if", though...) Bob Graham would be another possibility, and I would not *automatically* assume he would do as poorly in the primaries as he did in 2004 in OTL--this time, he might be the party's only southern candidate. But he would still be a long shot IMO. Richard Gephardt is another possibility--if nominated, he would have a reasonable chance to carry Missouri, which Gore lost by 3.3 points. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/2000.txt
Last edited:
Why not have an adviser suggest that due to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, it may be wise for Gore to sit this election out, comparing it maybe to Nixon's nomination in 1960?
How about having Governor, Douglas Wilder of Virginia or Shadow Senator Jesse Jackson of Washington, D.C. run as the first black presidential candidate? Would Bush have the same results like McCain did against Obama?
Could we have a Texas vs Texas election between George Bush and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas?
You still have the same names that float about in these elections:
Senator, Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts
Former Governor, Jerry Brown of California
Senator, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska
Representative, Dick Gephardt of Missouri
Governor, Howard Dean of Vermont
Bentsen (who had long since left the Senate--and for that matter his job as Clinton's first Secretary of the Treasury) was 79 years old by 2000. In addition, "In 1998, Bentsen suffered two strokes, which left him needing a wheelchair for mobility." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Bentsen
FDR needed a wheelchair in his later years. I think Bentsen, would have made a brilliant President.
Like former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said "I like Lloyd Bentsen very much indeed, I was sad when he resigned. He's a real marvelous politician, a person of great dignity, a person we can look up to respect and like as well."
Stolengood
Banned
...I don't think you understand the point he is trying to make. And FDR specifically built his public image so that NO ONE thought he was confined to a wheelchair; Bentsen, a long-since retired Senator and unsuccessful VP candidate who had been out of the limelight for over a decade, at that point, with age issues and health problems, would NO way, NO how, be a plausible candidate.
Also, if you're trying to make a point about how god Bentsen would have been, it'd probably be best to not quote Thatcher to do it.
Tsongas running would be quite the feat since he died in 1997. Of the others, only Gephardt is really viable for 2000. Kerrey quit the Senate and politics in 2000, Jerry Brown was in the political wilderness and Howard Dean would have been, in 2000, the longest of long shots.
Jesse Jackson already WAS the first black presidential candidate; he ran in 1984 and 1988.
One possible candidate to consider would be Paul Wellstone. While Wellstone did not run in 2000, he reportedly considered it. Without an obvious frontrunner in Gore, that decision might turn out differently. Apart from that, look at the 2004 field for a fairly decent general idea, taking out the obvious post-9/11 candidates like Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman.
I think Lloyd Bentsen is a stretch; as noted, he had health issues by that point in his life.
Even if Benstsen were in perfect health, 79 would be way too old. A lot of people worried that Dole was too old when he was nominated at the age of 73 in 1996; likewise with McCain at 72 in 2008. Reagan was 73 in 1984 but that was for a *second* term.
Even in this year, with an unusually large number of elderly candidates and possible candidates, Sanders is "only" 74 and Biden (as of November 2015) will "only" be 73. Donald Trump is only 69 and Hillary Clinton will only be a youthful 68 this October...
(By the way, even if Bentsen were healthier *and* younger, and even if he had a desire to get back into politics--which he did not, even before the strokes--praise from Margaret Thatcher is not particularly helpful in Democratic primaries...)
Last edited:
Just to add to the "why Bentsen wouldn't have been the nominee in 2000" talk. Let's not forget he did run when he was much younger and healthier in 1976 in a year that was supposed to be good for Democrats in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the Nixon pardon. Bentsen couldn't even get any traction in 1976, no way he could have done any better in 2000. Bentsen is one of those guys who always looked good on paper, but that was it (*coughs Scott Walker). Bentsen was a good senator and likely would have been a good Vice-President for any Democratic president, but that was as high as his ceiling would have went.
Bentsen's best shot at ever getting the Democratic nomination would have been if Ford had won in 1976 and Ted Kennedy decided not to run in 1980.
One person not mentioned yet that I think certainly would have ran in 2000 with Gore's absence is Joe Biden. The whole plagiarism scandal would have been 12 years ago by this point and wouldn't hurt him in 2000.
In the absence of Vice-President Gore these are the people I think who would have ran for the Democratic nomination.
Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Joe Biden
Sen. Bill Bradley
Gov. Mel Carnahan
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John Kerry
Rev. Al Sharpton
Sen. Paul Wellstone
I think the Clinton White House and the party establishment would have privately backed Evan Bayh. I could see him picking somebody like John Kerry or maybe Paul Wellstone (to appeal to the liberals in the party) to be his running mate. Bayh would win Indiana and possibly Ohio while holding the states Gore won in OTL.
Sen. Evan Bayh/Sen. John Kerry - 304 electoral votes
Gov. George W. Bush/fmr. Sec. Dick Cheney - 234 electoral votes
Bentsen's best shot at ever getting the Democratic nomination would have been if Ford had won in 1976 and Ted Kennedy decided not to run in 1980.
One person not mentioned yet that I think certainly would have ran in 2000 with Gore's absence is Joe Biden. The whole plagiarism scandal would have been 12 years ago by this point and wouldn't hurt him in 2000.
In the absence of Vice-President Gore these are the people I think who would have ran for the Democratic nomination.
Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Joe Biden
Sen. Bill Bradley
Gov. Mel Carnahan
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John Kerry
Rev. Al Sharpton
Sen. Paul Wellstone
I think the Clinton White House and the party establishment would have privately backed Evan Bayh. I could see him picking somebody like John Kerry or maybe Paul Wellstone (to appeal to the liberals in the party) to be his running mate. Bayh would win Indiana and possibly Ohio while holding the states Gore won in OTL.
Sen. Evan Bayh/Sen. John Kerry - 304 electoral votes
Gov. George W. Bush/fmr. Sec. Dick Cheney - 234 electoral votes
Al Gore was not known for his charisma and he won the popular vote in 2000 over Bush and was 3 electoral votes away from winning the presidency. Bayh was an extremely popular governor in Indiana and won his senate seat in 1998 with 64% of the vote. If Bayh wins the states Gore won and wins his homestate of Indiana, he's the 43rd President of the United States.
As has already been noted, Tsongas was dead. As for Dean, the thing that really made him a contender nationally was his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. in 2000, he was just an obscure (and incidentally, rather centrist) governor of a small state.
Bayh wasn't anymore conservative than Bill Clinton was. The DLC (centrist Democrats) controlled the party at the time. Plus Al Gore beat a more liberal Bill Bradley for the nomination. Progressives didn't control the party at the time and labor unions were/are not as influential in the Democratic party nominating process as they were in the early in mid 20th century. If the unions could back Clinton, they could back Bayh also.
It's an oversimplification to see Bradley as "more liberal" than Gore in 2000, at least in his support: " Ironically, Bradley's message doesn't seem to be resonating yet nearly as much as his loping, antipolitics (and implied anti-Clinton) persona; in many surveys, Bradley is running better among independents and moderate-to-conservative Democrats (many of them disillusioned with Clinton) than he is with liberals. " http://prospect.org/article/more-liberal-you-thought Also note that Gore attacked Bradley's health plan as "abolishing Medicaid."
IMO Monicagate and the impeachment attempts greatly helped Clinton (and by extension Gore) among liberals and minorities. Clinton came to be a liberal hero--which he had not really been previously (and would not be in the future). And in particular, blacks stood by Clinton in the impeachment crisis and appreciated Gore's association with Clnton. Evan Bayh did not have the same sort of longtime Clinton connection.
Bradley may have been a bit to the left of Gore as a US senator--though both were basically centrists--but that was mainly a matter of the different states they represented. And by 2000, Gore had come a long way from being the conservative Democrats' choice he was in 1988. In particular, he had gotten a reputation as an environmentalist (though Bradley attempted to challenge it). Meanwhile, while the DLC did support Gore, it worried he was going too far in remaking himself and becoming too "populist"--Al From expressed fears on that score as early as 1999. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-10-13/news/9910120572_1_gore-s-support-dlc-bill-bradley
So, we only had two major Democratic candidates OTL?
Alright, the major advantage of the current primary system is that you tend to get a pretty good candidate who has demonstrated the ability to go through a long obstacle course matter-of-factly recovering from screw ups.
Well, you lose this main advantage if you start with too few candidates.
Alright, the major advantage of the current primary system is that you tend to get a pretty good candidate who has demonstrated the ability to go through a long obstacle course matter-of-factly recovering from screw ups.
Well, you lose this main advantage if you start with too few candidates.