WI: Bush/Lieberman in 2000 (No Electoral Majority)

I do not believe the Democrats had a Senate majority until after the 2000 presidential election. Here, assume they barely do during the election, for the interest of the scenario. Assume that neither Bush nor Gore has the sufficient majority of electoral votes, and the election is thrown to Congress. The Republican controlled House elects George Bush as president. The Democratic Senate elects Joe Lieberman as vice president. What would come of that?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I'd say that our foreign policy is likely similar except without Cheney's influence, things might not go off the rails too much and Saddam would have been handled differently.

Lieberman would have fully encouraged Bush to go after AlQaeda after 9/11. He was one of the more hawkish Democrats, to the point that he eventually became an Independent after breaking with the party.

A Jewish man second from the top probably would not make the Arab World all that happy.

Economically, I think we still get the first tax cut but not the second one, and I think that Bush would likely divert more money to social programs as he stated in his campaign; Cheney was economically not too far from center but also not really buying into the compassionate conservatism thing that Bush espoused and steered him away from that in general.

The two would likely find a way to work with each other and I doubt that there would be too much of an issue. Ideologically, I don't think that they were all that far apart.
 
Joe probably works better with Bush then he would of Gore had there ticket won to be honest.

Cheney probably sticks around as chief of staff or SOD I would think in this situation
 
Republicans would probably challenge the result (i.e. the appointment of Jean Carnahan to the Senate) of the 2000 Missouri Senate race, where a dead candidate (Mel Carnahan) defeated incumbent Sen. John Ashcroft (R), to prevent this from happening.
 
The two would likely find a way to work with each other and I doubt that there would be too much of an issue. Ideologically, I don't think that they were all that far apart.

I'm sure they'd find a way to work together, but Lieberman's ideology is not as conservative as it is often portrayed. He is a neo-con on foreign policy, but domestically he's your basic liberal Democrat. That's why Gore had no qualms about selecting him as a running mate.

What would they do in 2004?

Bush would pick a new running mate. Possibly Cheney again, but maybe not. Lieberman may still run for the Democratic nomination, which would make for a fascinating internal dynamic in the administration. Not sure if he'd do better in the primaries because of being VP or worse because of his association with Bush.
 
Bush would pick a new running mate. Possibly Cheney again, but maybe not. Lieberman may still run for the Democratic nomination, which would make for a fascinating internal dynamic in the administration. Not sure if he'd do better in the primaries because of being VP or worse because of his association with Bush.

Is there any possibility of Bush keeping on Lieberman? Lieberman was the Democrat most (prominently) ok with George Bush. It may be difficult to sell to the Republican establishment, but having a unity ticket is a hell of a selling point in " this Post 9/11 World". Or could it even be in Lieberman's wheel-house to go Independent or switch to a Republican?
 
I'm sure they'd find a way to work together, but Lieberman's ideology is not as conservative as it is often portrayed. He is a neo-con on foreign policy, but domestically he's your basic liberal Democrat. That's why Gore had no qualms about selecting him as a running mate.



Bush would pick a new running mate. Possibly Cheney again, but maybe not. Lieberman may still run for the Democratic nomination, which would make for a fascinating internal dynamic in the administration. Not sure if he'd do better in the primaries because of being VP or worse because of his association with Bush.

As someone who has lived in CT almost his whole life I'm going say he is a blue dog democrat all around.

I could see a Fusion ticket in 04 I mean what republicans would Bush chose? Interesting thing is that for two years CT would have a republican senator since Rowland was gov in 00.
 
Bush would pick a new running mate. Possibly Cheney again, but maybe not. Lieberman may still run for the Democratic nomination, which would make for a fascinating internal dynamic in the administration. Not sure if he'd do better in the primaries because of being VP or worse because of his association with Bush.

It would depend on Lieberman's overall favorability and his favorability among Democrats and among Republicans after 4 years as VP. If the overall or among the GOP is good Bush may decide to keep him on. If it's particularly strong among Democrats, Lieberman might step down and position himself for 2008.

Even though Lieberman was thrust upon him as VP, I don't think Bush would replace him unless he offered him something like State, Defense, AG, Ambassador to the UN, or a Supreme Court seat. Presidents usually don't replace their VPs. Last one I know of was FDR replacing Wallace with Turman. McGovern replaced his VP nominee in 1972 and it didn't help. Even Bush 41 stayed loyal to Quayle. If Lieb r rman has proven his loyalty, then I think Bush 43 would keep him.
 
I have written this TL several times. The POD is changing the votes in Florida, New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin. I think that after the Iraq War Lieberman become a partner for Bush. Which makes his quest for 2004 Democratic nomination even more unsuccessful. Bush could not have picked him as a 2004 running mate. He could not get a majority of the delegates at the Republican Convention to vote for a pro choice liberal.
 
Even though Lieberman was thrust upon him as VP, I don't think Bush would replace him unless he offered him something like State, Defense, AG, Ambassador to the UN, or a Supreme Court seat. Presidents usually don't replace their VPs. Last one I know of was FDR replacing Wallace with Turman. McGovern replaced his VP nominee in 1972 and it didn't help. Even Bush 41 stayed loyal to Quayle. If Lieb r rman has proven his loyalty, then I think Bush 43 would keep him.

Presidents usually don't replace their VPs because they picked those VPs in the first place. I see no reason why he'd have any loyalty to someone from the opposing party who actively campaigned against him for the opposing ticket. I'm sure that he'll be happy with Lieberman's support for the Iraq invasion and the War on Terror, but not enough to tap him as his running mate in 2004.
 
Presidents usually don't replace their VPs because they picked those VPs in the first place. I see no reason why he'd have any loyalty to someone from the opposing party who actively campaigned against him for the opposing ticket. I'm sure that he'll be happy with Lieberman's support for the Iraq invasion and the War on Terror, but not enough to tap him as his running mate in 2004.

My bad. I see what you're saying. Bush might still offer Lieberman a cabinet position but I agree now he'd pick someone else.

Then again, depending on how hyperpartisan things are, might he try to keep Lieberman to maintain some domestic tranquility?
 
My bad. I see what you're saying. Bush might still offer Lieberman a cabinet position but I agree now he'd pick someone else.

Then again, depending on how hyperpartisan things are, might he try to keep Lieberman to maintain some domestic tranquility?

*blinks*

Somebody on the internet just changed his mind when confronted by a logical argument.

I really don't know how to respond to that. :p

In all seriousness, I agree with you that a cabinet position is definitely a possibility for Lieberman. It would basically be a thank you for cooperating and not making the last four years more difficult than they needed to be. He's got a slim chance at Secretary of State to replace the retiring Colin Powell, but I'm pretty sure Bush had Condi Rice pegged for that job all along. My best guess is Lieberman gets Rice's old job as National Security Adviser. Whatever job he gets would definitely have to be foreign policy related, because he's not really on board with most of the Bush administration's domestic policies.

The only time that a multi-party "fusion ticket" has ever really been attempted in the United States was Lincoln-Johnson during the Civil War in 1864, so that gives you some idea of how hyperpartisan things have to get before people do that. It was discussed in 1944 as well with FDR considering Wendell Wilkie, but the Democratic Party leadership nixed that idea pretty fast. I think for Bush to try something that radical we'd need like a nuclear-level 9/11 or some other major event like that and even then, good luck getting the religious right to back a pro-choice VP.
 
The Republican controlled House elects George Bush as president. The Democratic Senate elects Joe Lieberman as vice president. What would come of that?
I think the most likely outcome is that Lieberman gets third-wheeled as irrevelant, which is pretty much the fate of the vast majority of v.p.'s in U.S. history.*

*although a lot of exceptions in recent history:

Ford-Rockefeller?
Carter-Mondale
Clinton-Gore
Bush II-Cheney
Obama-Biden?
 
Last edited:
Top