WI: Gore presidency?

I have a specific series of events in mind, but they're inconsequential to this thread--the important thing is that Gore wins the 2000 election. How is American politics and the world changed by this?

I imagine 9/11 would still happen; as much shit as I gave Bush over his many questionable decisions leading up to it, upon reflection, I doubt anything he could have done would have stopped it. Consequently, some sort of Afghanistan war would likely have happened, and when it comes to on the ground tactics, strategies, alliances, etc, I don't see that being much different. The character would likely be very different, though. There would certainly be no Gitmo, for example; POWs would be treated as POWs and terrorists would be tried and convicted of their crimes. And there definitely would be no Iraq war. Giving credit where credit is due, Bush did try to clamp down on the Islamophobia that surged after 9/11--but I can't help but imagine that Gore doing the exact same thing would be labeled a weakling by Fox News.

No Iraq war changes quite a bit. The entire Middle-Eastern balance of power, for one thing. Does this delay the Arab spring? Does that affect Russia's aggressiveness? Would Gore have had any policies that would have?

In the next election, who runs? Would Obama have still run, with an economy presumably in much better shape? If he did, would he have still beaten Clinton? Would McCain have still run in and won the Republican primary? (I think yes to the last one.) Assuming a McCain vs. Clinton race, I think McCain would have won--the Republicans just had too much of a smear campaign ready for Clinton.

With butterfly nets in place, I doubt any of this changes what went down in (and lead up to) Ferguson, only this time it's happening under a White, Republican president. No way in Hell it's not splashing onto him and his party in some way. Alas, that's pretty much it for things I can intelligently say about the McCain presidency in this scenario. ACA wouldn't have happened, obviously; possibly legal marijuana would have had a harder time. Gay marriage would still be the law of the land, because that's a Supreme Court decision--ooh, that's something; he'd have gotten to replace Scalia when he died, and I can't imagine his pick would have been as bad as Gorsuch (not that his pick's politics would have made me happy, of course).

All in all, I imagine McCain wouldn't have been a horrible president, though I obviously don't think he'd have been as good as Obama (certainly not for my politics :p) simply because Obama was a hell of a statesman, but he would probably get more done, given that he wouldn't have an opposition party that was openly at war with him. But he'd happen to be the man who was president when the new Civil Rights movement popped off, and that would tarnish his legacy. This and healthcare would likely lead to a Democrat winning in 2016--but who that Democrat is, I have no idea.
 
I have a specific series of events in mind, but they're inconsequential to this thread--the important thing is that Gore wins the 2000 election. How is American politics and the world changed by this?

I imagine 9/11 would still happen; as much shit as I gave Bush over his many questionable decisions leading up to it, upon reflection, I doubt anything he could have done would have stopped it. Consequently, some sort of Afghanistan war would likely have happened, and when it comes to on the ground tactics, strategies, alliances, etc, I don't see that being much different. The character would likely be very different, though. There would certainly be no Gitmo, for example; POWs would be treated as POWs and terrorists would be tried and convicted of their crimes. And there definitely would be no Iraq war. Giving credit where credit is due, Bush did try to clamp down on the Islamophobia that surged after 9/11--but I can't help but imagine that Gore doing the exact same thing would be labeled a weakling by Fox News.

No Iraq war changes quite a bit. The entire Middle-Eastern balance of power, for one thing. Does this delay the Arab spring? Does that affect Russia's aggressiveness? Would Gore have had any policies that would have?

In the next election, who runs? Would Obama have still run, with an economy presumably in much better shape? If he did, would he have still beaten Clinton? Would McCain have still run in and won the Republican primary? (I think yes to the last one.) Assuming a McCain vs. Clinton race, I think McCain would have won--the Republicans just had too much of a smear campaign ready for Clinton.

With butterfly nets in place, I doubt any of this changes what went down in (and lead up to) Ferguson, only this time it's happening under a White, Republican president. No way in Hell it's not splashing onto him and his party in some way. Alas, that's pretty much it for things I can intelligently say about the McCain presidency in this scenario. ACA wouldn't have happened, obviously; possibly legal marijuana would have had a harder time. Gay marriage would still be the law of the land, because that's a Supreme Court decision--ooh, that's something; he'd have gotten to replace Scalia when he died, and I can't imagine his pick would have been as bad as Gorsuch (not that his pick's politics would have made me happy, of course).

All in all, I imagine McCain wouldn't have been a horrible president, though I obviously don't think he'd have been as good as Obama (certainly not for my politics :p) simply because Obama was a hell of a statesman, but he would probably get more done, given that he wouldn't have an opposition party that was openly at war with him. But he'd happen to be the man who was president when the new Civil Rights movement popped off, and that would tarnish his legacy. This and healthcare would likely lead to a Democrat winning in 2016--but who that Democrat is, I have no idea.

I think that there are two directions this can go in. If 9/11 still happens (there was a chance of it being prevented, by the time it happened the government already had signs of a terror attack a month in advance), in which case I see much of the same events happen as in IRL, and due to Clinton and Gore's unpopular nation building strategy, along with the incumbent fatigue from 12 years of Democratic rule, I can very well see John McCain being nominated using the war hero factor to help him, or possibly Elizabeth Dole in 2004. If there is no 9/11, and no surge, I can see the Gore administration become very unpopular because of the narrow win in 2000, and there is a big chance of George W. Bush trying again in 2004, most likely winning. Barack Obama isn't destined to take the Presidency, and although the 2008 crash could still be as big as it was, I would see Hillary or Biden winning in 2008, but that is a big if.
 

Philip

Donor
Gore winning in 2000 does not guarantee Saddam remains in power. Even if there is no invasion of Iraq, regime change in Iraq was explicitly part of the 2000 platform of the Democratic Party. His removal might be 'softer' than OTL, but what follows is not clear.
 
If Gore became president, I think the world would just see him as a second Clinton, just somewhat less charismatic and more focused on helping the environment.

I think it's very likely 9/11 still happens, just as it does in OTL. Considering that he chose Lieberman, who later became one of the Iraq War's leading cheerleaders (on the Dems' side, at least), as his running mate; I also think that it's probably likely Gore also would have invaded Iraq, and declare a War on Terror; it'd just be more "liberal," so to speak.

Could he have been voted out in '04? It's a possibility if he does invade Iraq. It's possible his previous voters could become disillusioned and invest in a third-party candidate, like Nader, for instance. It's also possible the Democrats choose a second candidate (like Wesley Clark or John Kerry) over Gore if he becomes unpopular enough. I'm pretty sure neoliberalism would become an actual movement, rather than the obscure meme it is today.

Yeah...
 
I guess I'll go out on a limb a bit here and wonder if Gore even makes it to 2004. Assuming he wins a close election similar to OTL with questionable legitimacy, he's already going to have trouble governing. 9/11 could break him. Fair or no, the Republicans will be able to successfully blame Gore and Clinton for the greatest American tragedy in generations.

Sure, there's the rally-round-the-flag effect, but we got a preview of how the modern GOP can bifurcate their patriotism and partisanship back when Mogadishu happened. This is on another scale entirely.

I guess it all depends on what happens in the midterms. IOTL the GOP famously went against the truism that the ruling party always loses seats in the midterms, partly due to the rally-round-the-flag effect. But that sort of requires both parties to play along. A Republican wave isn't out of the question in 2002, and one built significantly on holding Gore to account for his failures. I'm thinking impeachment is possible, and I'm thinking censure is the least he can expect.

Depending on specific AH triggers, he might resign in favor of Lieberman, who would likely be much more popular and palatable, especially to the senate. But because of that, the GOP might try to get their pound of flesh and still keep Gore around as a less popular figure for the ire they'd like to stoke among the people.

In terms of policy victories? I would guess they're few and far between. He wasn't really touting environmental policy much in 2000, and most of what he might do in that arena is likely in the realm of executive decisions. We were still making pork-barrel deals in congress at the time, so I would guess he could claim some victories in the big omnibus spending bills still being passed. But in terms of bipartisan legislation? Nothing beyond military and veterans spending, I would guess. Maybe some specific relief relating to the attack.

I can easily imaging Gore not seeking reelection in favor of Lieberman, who would likely face a challenge from the left in a very weakened Democratic primary. It'd be a mess and I don't think he has a chance of winning. If Gore does run he's got even less chance of winning.

Despite its moderate appearance, I don't think there's any doubt that a McCain/Giuliani ticket runs and wins in 2004. I don't think they have any problems actually governing as relative conservatives, maybe just a few notches more liberal than Bush on a handful of issues, and quite openly breaking from the GOP establishment on some less partisan issues like electoral reform, with perhaps an attempt at something like a bipartisan (but still small-c conservative) environmental plan.

Considering the completely weird and random path that got us into Iraq I think the suggestion of an Iraq War is just absurd, barring AH actions from Hussein. McCain is more likely to get mad at Pakistan and attack the Al Qaeda bases there than carry things over to Hussein. Not that I think a war with Pakistan is in the cards, just that he's going to have a Vietnam vet's appreciation for that war and make judgments accordingly.

Unfortunately for McCain, if we're butterfly-netting things then he's going to catch the brunt of the financial collapse. That's not at all survivable, barring really terrible luck for the Democrats. He's a one-term president as well.

Who runs in 2008 is up in the air, probably all the usual suspects from OTL '04 with perhaps Obama thrown in. Hillary is not going to run with Gore just four years gone. But I expect she's in the senate.
 
Top