WI George W Bush wins clear victory over Gore

No, no; it's quite relevant, and shines an interesting light on a contrarian's point of view -- that is, if he is a contrarian. I'm giving him a chance to explain himself, and make sure I haven't misunderstood or misinterpreted his words. Please don't try to distract from the issue while I'm waiting for him to respond.

It won't be good to go down this rabbit-hole and will just result in a political argument and the thread getting locked. We can debate the effect on partiaanship without arguing about current politica and how bad Obama or Republicans were.
 
No, no; it's quite relevant, and shines an interesting light on a contrarian's point of view -- that is, if he is a contrarian. I'm giving him a chance to explain himself, and make sure I haven't misunderstood or misinterpreted his words. Please don't try to distract from the issue while I'm waiting for him to respond.
Very well. Obama was elected as a post-racial President. I was only 15 at the time, but I don't know how many times I heard "Elect Obama so we could put racial division behind us." Granted, the Trump crap brought to light a lot of racism (both the neo-Nazi style and the Archie Bunker style) on the non-establishment right. I freely admit that and hate it as much as ya'll do. However, Obama has been that much a divider as well. From his Bitter Clinger speech in the 2008 campaign, to the stoking of racial divisions. He hasn't been a uniter, far from it. Race relations are at a low not seen in decades. In addition, he hasn't compromised with anyone. It's instead a game of who can obstruct the most, Obama, Harry Reid, or the Cruz/Freedom Caucus posse. I actually have a massive new respect for Biden. He distinguished himself quite well in the fiscal cliff negotiations with Mitch McConnell to avert the crisis.

I blame the level of discord and lack of compromise today on both Obama and the Freedom Caucus wing of the GOP. Ultimately though, the President sets the tone. I have no doubt that Obama isn't a good person or begrudge him on his views, but I think he betrayed his promise to be a President for all Americans. When humbled in two midterm elections, instead of compromising and finding common ground as Bill Clinton or Reagan did, all we saw was obstruction and demonization. This is what I think. Feel free to disagree, and that's fine. I respect your view. But respect mine as well and do not think you can insult and attack me, because I do wish to be civil.

I agree, and to your point, the only really divisive thing Obama did was the ACA. And considering it saved people's lives and gave millions their healthcare rights, it is entirely justifiable.
You and I disagree on this, but that's fine. I respect your view and you are being respectful about it.
 
It won't be good to go down this rabbit-hole and will just result in a political argument and the thread getting locked. We can debate the effect on partiaanship without arguing about current politica and how bad Obama or Republicans were.
On that note, I'm done.

Getting back on subject though, To my understanding, Bush was seen as a lame duck in the Spring and Summer of 2001, if he wins a clear victory in 2000, he might not be seen that way.
This is completely true, and a more convincing victory would likely preserve the senate for the GOP. Bush would be in a stronger position to push legislation and not have the public doubt his legitimacy
 
This is not that much more convincing. It is only 0.5% from Bush and 0.5% from Gore, a bit like 2004, and it is only enough to give the GOP one seat seat-in Washington. But that could still have important effects.
 
This is not that much more convincing. It is only 0.5% from Bush and 0.5% from Gore, a bit like 2004, and it is only enough to give the GOP one seat seat-in Washington. But that could still have important effects.
Even with Bush winning outright, I don't see much changing. As others have said, even after a close controversial election, Bush governed as though he had a mandate equivalent to Reagan's in 1984. The only difference I see in TTL is that he has an easier time governing that way.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
With a clear victory Bush gets Federal Funds for the transition period earlier instead of having to raise some of the funds himslef (or the party did I don't remeber exactly).
I don't know how much difference it really makes, but with all the appointments a new president has to make, all those decissions...
The new administration probably would have been better prepared for getting started without having to put all the resources into making sure they won in the first place.

Al Gore would likely be less important afterwards. He might still do what he did, gain a nobel prize and an oscar, but those "Popular Vote Winner" and "Guy the election was stolen from" things give a lot of spice to his biography.


Just my 2 cents since it didn't come up yet.
BTW, I always liked Al Gore, execpt for his view on nuclear energy.
 
I don't see it changing much. The man was choosing his cabinet even when it was (officially) still in the air who had won, so if he was confident then, he'd be more so without the whispers of nudges from his brother and the Supreme Court.
 
With a clear victory Bush gets Federal Funds for the transition period earlier instead of having to raise some of the funds himslef (or the party did I don't remeber exactly).

It could have rather large effects from potentially no Wolfowitz to no Rumsfeld. That won't erase the Iraq War, but it will stop Bush from feeling he has to pick the first candidates across his desk with a decient CV and are willing to serve for his top positions.

One particularly corrosive factor was the Iraq War, which was not universally supported and some opponents went so far as to assert that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to launch a war having nothing to do with 9/11. In any case, whatever bipartisanship existed was gone by early 2003.

Relations on foreign affairs were frayed in 2004 and 2005 in part over Iraq, but the date bipartisanship on foreign affairs ended was really into Bush's second second term around early 2006 when democrats could and did say it was someone else's civil war we have no business being in after Zarqawi sparked sectarian violence in Baghdad.

That allowed some democrats (not all, but the one who won the primary) to delink being involved in Iraq from protecting the U.S. from terrorists and sell the idea we are just there to prevent genocide which we have no business doing.

Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
 
This is not that much more convincing. It is only 0.5% from Bush and 0.5% from Gore, a bit like 2004, and it is only enough to give the GOP one seat seat-in Washington. But that could still have important effects.
This is key, because it prevents the Jeffords switch from handing the Democrats the senate.
However, the main effect is more one of perception rather than a tangible electoral effect. Winning the popular and electoral vote gives Bush a legitimacy that in OTL only came after his presidential handling of 9/11
 
This is key, because it prevents the Jeffords switch from handing the Democrats the senate.
However, the main effect is more one of perception rather than a tangible electoral effect. Winning the popular and electoral vote gives Bush a legitimacy that in OTL only came after his presidential handling of 9/11

Some of Bush's first term reactivity and inflexibility on taxes and other matters was due to the idea he wasn't fully legitimate as President. When some say he governed like a king after the election, well I don't really see it. He didn't try to force through Congress any major policy intuitive not popularly supported by both sides other then BICRA and the tax cuts the latter of which he saw as necessary to win in 2004.

Ironically I believe him losing the popular vote was something that made him needy when it came to the GOP base which could be seen in the whole stem cell comprimise.

After 911 that is when a better argument can be made he took on powers well beyond that of a President who lost the popular vote.
 
Last edited:
It could have rather large effects from potentially no Wolfowitz to no Rumsfeld. That won't erase the Iraq War, but it will stop Bush from feeling he has to pick the first candidates across his desk with a decient CV and are willing to serve for his top positions.
No Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would mean two less people for the Iraq conspiracy theorists to point to, even if Iraq still happens. The term "neocon" might be less derogatory and less associated with Iraq.
 

jahenders

Banned
What if George W Bush had won a clean victory over Al Gore in 2000, narrow, but enough to make him seem legitimate. Say, his DUI isn't revealed before the election. This doesn't change much, but gives him 0.5% more votes and Gore gets 0.5% less. All states Gore won by 1% or less go Bush.

George W Bush/Dick Cheney-Republican: 301 EV 48.37%
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman-Democratic: 237 EV 47.88%

While close, Bush is the clear winner. Does this have any effect? How would the Bush presidency go differently? How would US politics be altered? What if?

Just one nit on this -- your first line should probably say, "WI ..., but enough that no one questioned the legitimacy of his victory." IOTL, for most, no change was needed to make him 'seem' legitimate -- he WAS legitimate -- the state, the electoral college, and even the supreme court, said so. Some people may have questioned that legitimacy, but most accepted that the process had simply worked in an odd way.

If Bush won more clearly, less people would (of course) question the win and there would be less distractions from that. Gore would lose prominence faster and more thoroughly.
 
Reversed Colored Map in case of confusion:

genusmap.php


Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)/Former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (R-WY): 301 Electoral Votes, 48.37% of the Popular Vote
Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)/Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT): 237 Electoral Votes, 47.88% of the Popular Vote
 
Reversed Colored Map in case of confusion:

genusmap.php


Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)/Former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (R-WY): 301 Electoral Votes, 48.37% of the Popular Vote
Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)/Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT): 237 Electoral Votes, 47.88% of the Popular Vote
Going by the map it seemed like Gore decided to focus on the wealthy white in the big states instead of the nation.
 
I don't think it would have made much real difference. Bush's opponents would still note that he didn't get the *majority* (as distinguished from plurality) of the vote, and attribute his victory to Nader as long as Nader's vote exceeds the difference between Bush's and Gore's. (I am not saying they would be right in doing so, since, unlike in OTL where even a slight preference of Nader voters for Gore over Bush could change the results in Florida and therefore the nation, they would have to assume the Nader vote more overwhelmingly pro-Gore than seems to be the case.)

For that matter, was Bush hated any less when he *did* win a small but clear majority of the popular vote in 2004? And one only needs to look at much of the Right's attempt to delegitimize Obama, who won a near-landslide in 2008 and almost a four-point victory in 2012. The problem is the polarization of American politics; complaints about the elections are mostly just an excuse.
 
Top