WI: Al Gore Wins Tennessee

[Penelope]

There is nothing strange about a party holding the Presidency for long periods. Nixon almost made it twelve years' continuous Republican hold, as did HHH in '68, as did Gerald Ford in '76, Bush did in '88, and would have made it sixteen in '92 if the economy hadn't tanked.

The political cycle is basically the economic cycle + national security issues. Very simplistic, but basically it. And as we're working on the premise that 9/11 still happens, and as the economy is still reasonable good (cerainly getting better from the turn of the millenium) there's no reason to rely on it as neccessarily hurting Gore.

Why do you seem to think the Gore would magically prevent 9/11?
It was nearly impossible to prevent, I think nothing would change except how it was handled by Gore. And plus, Gore still gets at least 1 bad point on him, because there isn't anyway that he might be able to say that "the policies of the previous admin resulted in this." since he was VP for Clinton.

That kind of backs up my point though. Kerry was a vet, battling against a President who was involved in an increasingly unpopular war, and he could only manage to take it just short of a draw. I think McCain (assuming he could win) would on balance have been a more effective candidate than Kerry, but you have to keep a sense of perspective on that one.

To quote Lewis Black, "The first time I heard John Kerry I was like 'S**t, I don't have enough breadcrumbs to find my way home."

Although I do agree that McCain might be a better candidate, I think Gulliani might be VP if he doesn't get the nod.

 

[V-J]

Why do you seem to think the Gore would magically prevent 9/11?

I didn't mention Gore. I said that once you diverge from our history, butterfies can mean anything can happen. Once you have changed a historical event, it will logically have a complete impact on everything that follows. Yes, everything. This applies to everything, however small, that you chose to modify from OTL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

And plus, Gore still gets at least 1 bad point on him, because there isn't anyway that he might be able to say that "the policies of the previous admin resulted in this." since he was VP for Clinton.

I don't think Bush said this in OTL though. There were Conservatives who blamed Clinton, but that was mostly confined to periodicals etc as I recall.

Although I do agree that McCain might be a better candidate, I think Gulliani might be VP if he doesn't get the nod.

Guilliani won't be McCain's VP. No way Jose. Guiliani is a Cabinet appointment, not a running mate.

Maybe, possibly, if someone like Huckabee got the nomination, but not McCain, no.

 

[Penelope]

1 I didn't mention Gore. I said that once you diverge from our history, butterfies can mean anything can happen. Once you have changed a historical event, it will logically have a complete impact on everything that follows. Yes, everything.


2 I don't think Bush said this in OTL though. There were Conservatives who blamed Clinton, but that was mostly confined to periodicals etc as I recall.



3Guilliani won't be McCain's VP. No way Jose. Guiliani is a Cabinet appointment, not a running mate.

Maybe, possibly, if someone like Huckabee got the nomination, but not McCain, no.

1 : Eh. I think it's rather weak to just completely change an event and say "The Butterflies did it."

2 : True. But still, people are going to be more likely to think bad about Gore for this since he was an integral part of the Clinton Admin. (Which is why he lost in 00, imo)

3: Eh, I still think Gulliani might get the nod if he becomes a national figure after 9/11. But the Possibility of McCain/Huckabee would be intresting. But I doubt it because Huckabee is a fair tax conservative, where as McCain is a moderate republican.

 

[V-J]

1 : Eh. I think it's rather weak to just completely change an event and say "The Butterflies did it."

Uhm, why? If you alter history, then by all reasonable definition, you can't do that in a vacuum. All subsequent events can be effected.

Oh yeah, but I forgot. History is only something that happens to Presidents, isn't it?

2 : True. But still, people are going to be more likely to think bad about Gore for this since he was an integral part of the Clinton Admin.

I don't think that is true tbh, anymore than people blamed Bush for 9/11; (which was confined to people who had a pre-existing dislike of Bush anyway) rallying round the flag is just too strong for that kind of thing.

3: Eh, I still think Gulliani might get the nod if he becomes a national figure after 9/11.

Guiliani is way too moderate-to-liberal to be McCain's running mate. Unless McCain has some exceptionally good polling numbers (Which admitedly is not impossible in 2004) to the point where he doesn't have to care about getting the vote out, he'll be picking someone from the socially conservative wing. Or at least, someone who has strong purchase with the base. That is not Guillani.

But the Possibility of McCain/Huckabee would be intresting. But I doubt it because Huckabee is a fair tax conservative, where as McCain is a moderate republican.

I don't see this personally. (Huckabee is fiscally flexible and runs on social conservatism, neither of which appeals to McCain) McCain, if he'd been thinking straight, would have picked Huckabee last year, and the fact that he didn't rather signals that he has some personal reason against it.

 

[chessfiend]

If Gore wins the 2004 election and gets his second term, what contenders would show up on both sides for the 2008 election?

The Dems. may have the attitude that they are going to get beat in 2008 regardless of how well the 2nd Gore Administration goes. 16yrs is a long time for any political cycle and I sincerely believe that the Reps. would have a clear cut win in the 2008 Presidential election and possibly the 2006 mid-term elections.

So would the Democrats throw up a weak contender in 2008? Maybe let Lieberman get the nomination and have Edwards (assuming he keeps himself out of trouble) as his running mate.

Here are some possible Republican nominees:

McCain/Powell
McCain/Paul
Powell/McCain
Powell/Richardson (longshot perhaps)
Huckabee/McCain
Paul/Richardson (only in my dreams)
Richardson/Paul (only in my dreams)

I think Romney has no shot..not this time....not next time...not ever

 

[V-J]

If Gore wins the 2004 election and gets his second term, what contenders would show up on both sides for the 2008 election?

That of course depends entirely on who loses in 2000 and 2004; returning for a second shot at the Presidency just doesn't happen, by and large.

 

[Standard X]

If Gore wins the 2004 election and gets his second term, what contenders would show up on both sides for the 2008 election?

The Dems. may have the attitude that they are going to get beat in 2008 regardless of how well the 2nd Gore Administration goes. 16yrs is a long time for any political cycle and I sincerely believe that the Reps. would have a clear cut win in the 2008 Presidential election and possibly the 2006 mid-term elections.

So would the Democrats throw up a weak contender in 2008? Maybe let Lieberman get the nomination and have Edwards (assuming he keeps himself out of trouble) as his running mate.

Here are some possible Republican nominees:

McCain/Powell
McCain/Paul
Powell/McCain
Powell/Richardson (longshot perhaps)
Huckabee/McCain
Paul/Richardson (only in my dreams)
Richardson/Paul (only in my dreams)

I think Romney has no shot..not this time....not next time...not ever

It's very likely McCain will get the Republican nod in 2004 with his VP either Tom Ridge or George Allen, but he'll be narrowly defeated by Gore in the 04 election. In that case McCain will not run in 08. Colin Powell will not run in 04 and 08 nor will he be a VP candidate, you can bank on that. The Republican candidates for 08 will likely be Mike Hukabee, Romney, Paul, Ridge,George Allen(if he's reelected in 06),Guiliani, Chuck Hagel, and Allen Keyes. On the Democratic side Lieberman will be the frontrunner and will most likely get the nomination but he will be challenged by Senator John Edwards(he's relected senator in 04), Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, and possibly Hillar Clinton. I have to disagree with you about Romney, not only does he have a shot he very likely will get the Republican nod, if not him them definitely Mike Huckabee.

 

[chessfiend]

Romney is a Mormon, that is why he will never have any chance to be elected President. He follows a religion that was admitted to be fabricated by one of the relgion's early leaders.

 

[Standard X]

Romney is a Mormon, that is why he will never have any chance to be elected President. He follows a religion that was admitted to be fabricated by one of the relgion's early leaders.

Are you speaking for yourself and own prejudices? Or are you assuming a good segment of the electorate are religiously bigoted? 50 years ago today many people said Senator didn't have a shot at becoming president because he was a Roman Catholic.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Romney is a Mormon, that is why he will never have any chance to be elected President. He follows a religion that was admitted to be fabricated by one of the relgion's early leaders.

Are you speaking for yourself and own prejudices? Or are you assuming a good segment of the electorate are religiously bigoted? 50 years ago today many people said Senator didn't have a shot at becoming president because he was a Roman Catholic.

Well, aside from the flame bait, he has somewhat of a point. As long as the Republican presidential primaries are decided by 'right wing evangelical Christians' (which is pretty much how it is now), the chances of a Mormon making it as the REPUBLICAN candidate are very small. Mind you, the chances of a Mormon running as a Democrat aren't great either.

OTOH, the Republican party is either going to have to move away from the thrall of the Christian right or they may never elect another president. So, in 10 or 20 years, a Mormon might stand a chance.

 

[Carpetbagger]

I hope to correct about four or so people.

Guilliani X
Gialiani X
Guliani X
Giuliani

 

[Mikey]

Assuming that 9/11 happens pretty much as it did in OTL, I think that the relationship between Gore and Giuliani might have a lot to do with the latter's 2004 presidential chances.

It's plausible that Giuliani would be the Sec. of Homeland Security (assuming such a position still forms) under President Gore, as a sign of national unity, thus making it impossible for him to run against the President in 2004. Rudy would quite possible end up as governor of NY in 2006, assuming Pataki retires on schedule, and maybe a plausible candidate in 2008 (eh, a little early) or 2012, if a Democrat somehow turns 16 years into 20.

Additionally, I think partisanship is going to have a different feel from 2001 on if Gore is the president instead of Bush; Gore tried, but failed, to maintain Clinton's broader coalition while Bush ran hard to his base. Now that strategy has been repudiated a little bit, and the Red State/Blue State dynamic won't be as firmly in the American consciousness. Tennessee is a big blue smear in the middle of that whole map. And depending exactly on what flipped the Volunteer state, Missouri could have come over as well, while Minnesota and Wisconsin could have gone back the other way.

So with that start, combined with Gore's earlier centrism never being disrupted, there may be a very different set of power brokers rising in both parties in the 2000s. Gore is unlikely to really assert any majorly divisive issues, especially since his re-election will depend on holding on to a wavering Tennessee.

So with that in mind, the candidates for 2004/2008 are going to look a lot different - moderates in both parties will likely be more successful and with bigger national figures, so we could get a different crop of candidates. For 2004, McCain does seem like a logical choice, running more on his moderate, independent credentials against an entrenched administration that's spent too long in Washington. He wins if the economy's wavering, gridlock predominates, or if people are otherwise generally frustrated with the sort of bland politics of Gore-Lieberman. By 2008, the Democrats may stay in the South for yet another term, and I'd be surprised if John Edwards didn't end up nominated, though he would likely lose to a Republican, maybe Huckabee?

 

[Standard X]

Well, aside from the flame bait, he has somewhat of a point. As long as the Republican presidential primaries are decided by 'right wing evangelical Christians' (which is pretty much how it is now), the chances of a Mormon making it as the REPUBLICAN candidate are very small. Mind you, the chances of a Mormon running as a Democrat aren't great either.

OTOH, the Republican party is either going to have to move away from the thrall of the Christian right or they may never elect another president. So, in 10 or 20 years, a Mormon might stand a chance.

I think that is more of a caricature or stereotype than a actual reflection of present day reality. It's from my experience that those who characterize the Republicans as being dominated by the 'right-wing evangelical Christians' are usually left-leaning and secular at that. These are the same type of arguments that were used against Kennedy in 1960, and used a just few years ago why an African-American cannot be elected president. That having said if Romney did get the nomination he would have to get someone who has experience serving in Congress and preferably a conservative Christian. Probably Sen. Brownback of Kansas, Sen, DeMint of South Carolina or Sen. John Ensign of Nevada Of course it's equally plausible that Mike Huckabee could have gotten the nomination. Ok, here's the scenario: At the end of Gore's second term the Democratic presidential candidate is a Jew(Lieberman) and the Republican candidate is a Mormon(Romney) and the recession and major economic crisis happens more or less around the same time as in OTL, who wins the 2008 presidential elections?

 

[chessfiend]

At the end of Gore's second term the Democratic presidential candidate is a Jew(Lieberman) and the Republican candidate is a Mormon(Romney) and the recession and major economic crisis happens more or less around the same time as in OTL, who wins the 2008 presidential elections? [/font]

I think Romney getting the nod in this TL is ASBish, or any timeline for that matter. There is just to much canon fodder for the Dems to use against Romney. The Dems would go after his character and keep bringing up all the facts about how "his so called "religion" affected his life." This would bring about a major character debate and Romney (no matter how good of a person he may be) will lose. A mass majority of Americans will not and cannot identify with the Mormon faith and will most likely not accept a member of that religion for President. The Dems would only have to mention three things about Romney being a practicing Mormon:

1. The Mountain Meadows Massacre
2. Polgamy (this may be the most damning to most Americans)
3. The man selected to lead their religion is called a prophet.

I will admit that all of this may be a personal bias of mine against Mormonism. But in all honesty I do not see how a Mormon can ascend to the Presidency when a mass majority of the electorate cannot identify with his faith.

 

[robertp6165]

2. We'd see how bad Gore would screw up the 9/11 attacks

There might not be any 9/11 attacks. Bill Clinton actually came closer to killing Osama bin Laden than George Bush ever did. Al Gore might have actually got the job done before 9/11 was ever launched.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

I think Romney getting the nod in this TL is ASBish, or any timeline for that matter. There is just to much canon fodder for the Dems to use against Romney. The Dems would go after his character and keep bringing up all the facts about how "his so called "religion" affected his life." This would bring about a major character debate and Romney (no matter how good of a person he may be) will lose. A mass majority of Americans will not and cannot identify with the Mormon faith and will most likely not accept a member of that religion for President. The Dems would only have to mention three things about Romney being a practicing Mormon:

1. The Mountain Meadows Massacre
2. Polgamy (this may be the most damning to most Americans)
3. The man selected to lead their religion is called a prophet.

I will admit that all of this may be a personal bias of mine against Mormonism. But in all honesty I do not see how a Mormon can ascend to the Presidency when a mass majority of the electorate cannot identify with his faith.

I don't recall any republicans saying that Romney was doomed by his religion.

I imagine that the left would try to bash in on it, but would it really fly?

 

[oudi14]

Except for '76, when Carter won everything in the south except VA. True, the south has even gotten more conservative since then, but surely Gore could have eked out a win in TN. Carter even managed to win GA in 1980, when everyone knew what a wuss he was at heart - but his home state voters were willing to stick with him. And Gore had the advantage of a successful Clinton presidency, even factoring Lewinsky in.

That's much more logical. It's a good Democratic stronghold. Tennessee...yeah, it's his homestate, but let's face facts: ever since the Johnson administration, Republicans have had the South.

 

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

I don't recall any republicans saying that Romney was doomed by his religion.

I imagine that the left would try to bash in on it, but would it really fly?

I'm guessing you've never lived in the South. Southern evangelicals are the group more hostile to Mormons than any other. Many evangelicals don't even regard Mormons as Christian, much like they feel about Catholics. Huckabee's people tried to cater to that prejudice, though Huckabee himself didn't.

Lefitsts would probably defend Romney, like they do reflexively any minority, even ones whose values are quite different. Witness leftist defenses of American Muslims.

 

[V-J]

I don't recall any republicans saying that Romney was doomed by his religion.

There were polls ran during the primaries (Google, they'll soon come up) in which large numbers of people said they'd never vote for a Mormon. I can't remember the exact number, but 40% rings a bell. Maybe more.

Romney may or may not be able to change that simply based on his personality and how the public react to him, but all the same it's a signifigant disadvantage to overcome, particularly since, as AIHA says, this is likely to be most concentrated amongst natural Republican supporters.

 

[Standard X]

I think Romney getting the nod in this TL is ASBish, or any timeline for that matter. There is just to much canon fodder for the Dems to use against Romney. The Dems would go after his character and keep bringing up all the facts about how "his so called "religion" affected his life." This would bring about a major character debate and Romney (no matter how good of a person he may be) will lose. A mass majority of Americans will not and cannot identify with the Mormon faith and will most likely not accept a member of that religion for President. The Dems would only have to mention three things about Romney being a practicing Mormon:

1. The Mountain Meadows Massacre
2. Polgamy (this may be the most damning to most Americans)
3. The man selected to lead their religion is called a prophet.

I will admit that all of this may be a personal bias of mine against Mormonism. But in all honesty I do not see how a Mormon can ascend to the Presidency when a mass majority of the electorate cannot identify with his faith.

Well the majority of the electorate back in 1960 did not identify with Kennedy's Catholic faith but yet he did win big in parts of the country where Roman Catholics were a small minority. Likewise, in the most recent presidential election many of the electorate voted for Obama even though the vast majority of them did not identify with him racially and ethnically.
There are some on the extreme left, such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, that might make an issue of Romney's religion. But the Democrats would have to be careful of playing that card for it could easily backfire and paint them as religious bigots.
What ironically might Romney in TL or Scenario with evangelical Christian voters and voters in the South is the fact the Democratic presidential candidate is a Jew from the northeast-as VP Lieberman would most likely be the Democratic nominee if Gore had served two terms as POTUS. The two candidates would cancel out each other when it comes to the issue of religion