WI: Gore pulls a Nixon for 2008

The links between Gore and Richard Nixon in a niche in history has been discussed before. Both men lost their elections very narrowly, and their supporters contested the results. Both men went out of politics. Both lost to administrations that were popular in the aftermath of a national tragedy but became very unpopular due in large part to foreign wars that were fought on what turned out to be a false casus belli. I'm shoehorning in Nixon's case, as Kennedy and Johnson were separate administrations, but you get the idea.

In that niche of history, Al Gore, like Nixon in 1968, could have run in 2008. Many were expecting him to. He didn't.

To be honest, a portion of this scenario that has not been discussed is the fact that Nixon spent his time in the wilderness planning to be president, building connections and allies and making himself someone the Republicans could vote for. Al Gore did not do that, and instead very much went for a life after politics with no effort or intent to run for president later. And one of the bigger issues for him during his political retirement was the fact that, publicly, the perception of him increasingly grew to be an archetype of a Liberal, and Liberal in the four letter word sense. Had he had the intent to be president later in the wake of 2000, he would have kept at least some politician speak to not alienate the public in the run up to 2008. So a scenario where Gore runs in 2008 would involve Gore deciding early after 2000 that he is going to run again, and honing his character and efforts carefully to build up the infrastructure over the course of eight years to run in 2008.

What if Al Gore, with that early intention to run again, ran for the presidency in 2008? And what if he had won?
 
My question is how his relationship with the Clintons unfolds. If he and HRC and Obama run that year, it could be a Democratic bloodbath.
 
First thoughts, not fully congealed.
1. If H. Clinton and A. Gore run, then Gore becomes the anti-Clinton candidate, taking votes from Obama in the primaries. The anti-Clinton coalition might gel around Gore.

2. Gore would not spend anywhere near as much time on global warming as he did in OTL. This costs him points with the enviormentalist crowd.
 
If Gore presents a more moderate image in the wake of 2000, I don't really see how he roars back in 2008 and wins the Democratic Nomination. Much of what lost Gore the election in the first place was the fact many on the left perceived him as too moderate and without the 'radical Gore' stepping up his liberal rhetoric, does that image change? If it doesn't, how would the left react to a campaign that wasn't necessarily different from Hillary's? What helped solidify Obama's support in the '08 Democratic Primary was not just his opposition to the Iraq War (would a more moderate Gore, whose eyes were on the presidency, come out against the Iraq War in the first place?) but the fact he was the idealistic liberal candidate - young, attractive and progressive. Gore, potentially, would not fit any of that and without it, how does he overcome the Clinton campaign?

Unlike in 2008, where it was Establishment (Clinton) versus Outsider (Obama), it would be Establishment (Clinton) versus Establishment (Gore) and I don't think that benefits the Gore campaign all too much. The best bet is to have Clinton pass on running, but the only way that happens is if she decides to run in 2004 and loses - or Giuliani never gets cancer and beats her in 2000 (therefore ending her short political career).
 
Obama would not have run had Gore chosen to run again. He would have backed Gore. Though in a TL where Gore isn't perceived as nearly as liberal, that could change.
 
If Gore had been the nominee, one butterfly may have been the failure of Prop 8. Remember, that referendum was the result of a lot of minorities, especially African-Americans, that turned out for Obama for the reason he was one of their own, and also voted yes to ban gay marriage. With another old white guy that decisive minority demographic isn't as mobilized, and the referendum fails, or at least passes by a much narrower margin OTL (I've seen PoliSci research that suggests that Anglos may have narrowly supported a Yes vote). Mind you, the No on 8 crowd never would have carried those demographics (their campaign almost entirely ignored non-Anglophones, bar La Opinion) but they might have had a better time if said demographics did not increase their turnout in 08.
 
Gore can't be re-nominated eight years later. It's highly implausible. It's been said before it's borderline-ASB for Clinton and Obama not to run (without derailing Obama's Senate candidacy, anyhow) and there's not a chance in hell Gore would challenge Hillary. More importantly, I just can't imagine the Democrats re-nominating him in any case - he's a loser and a has-been. He's been in the wilderness too long and can do nothing to help the party platform but run on the Clinton record, which is exactly what Hillary did anyway. Gore's lack of charisma would hurt him here more so than it did OTL, and hell, even more so than Kerry in 2004. He had his chance and he blew it.
 
Gore can't be re-nominated eight years later. It's highly implausible. It's been said before it's borderline-ASB for Clinton and Obama not to run (without derailing Obama's Senate candidacy, anyhow) and there's not a chance in hell Gore would challenge Hillary. More importantly, I just can't imagine the Democrats re-nominating him in any case - he's a loser and a has-been. He's been in the wilderness too long and can do nothing to help the party platform but run on the Clinton record, which is exactly what Hillary did anyway. Gore's lack of charisma would hurt him here more so than it did OTL, and hell, even more so than Kerry in 2004. He had his chance and he blew it.

220px-Richard_Nixon.jpg
 
If Gore ran in 2008, he would have support and be a major candidate. tTo win he would need the people who voted for Obama. If he gets the nomination he wins. I think policy wise there would have been little difference. tThere would have been the controversial Gorecare.
 
Part of the problem was that Gore came off as politically clueless between 2000-2008, not a fair perception, but one that sort of stuck. He sort of looked like a guy that had no idea how to play politics and would jump on the wrong issue at the wrong time. He was mute on the Iraq war at first. Then he was for it. Then against it. Then he backed Howard Dean in 2004...the day before the Dean campaign imploded!

To get Gore to be viable in 2008 you need to change him into the "elder statesman" of the party. He still pushes his enviornmentalism, but he is vocal in opposition of the Iraq war from day one. He backs Dean in 2004 very early, perhaps even before Dean emerges as the frontrunner. When Dean implodes it doesn't hurt Gore as a result. Then he forms a PAC, which backs anti-war/green candidates in areas where the D's are strong and blue dog democrats where Democrats are weak. He will back a lot of losing candidates, but his presence as a mover and shaker will give him a lot of goodwill from those candidates who win, and it keeps him in the public eye without forcing him to run for another office.
 

Nixon had more charisma, connections and political moderation than Gore had in a heartbeat - not to mention, perhaps the biggest problem, is Nixon could easily run on Eisenhower's popularity, whereas Gore's main political point was an obsessive need to make sure nobody thinks he's Bill Clinton. Gore did not unite different factions of the party, was a poor public speaker, lacked strong political connections, and on top of it has never really have a built-in political base.

That, and the Democratic Party is much more hostile to second chances than the Republican Party is, keeping in mind that George McGovern and John Kerry both wanted to run again and were "persuaded" against it by party insiders.
 
Comparatively, Nixon is a shiny golden door knob and Gore's a crappy old plastic one. At least you might pay attention to the shiny one.

Yeah, Nixon did pull off a few pretty big zingers (Checkers, Sock it to me, etc). Gore never really did. Both were dry and dull, but Nixon was able to huminize himself on occasion whereas with Gore it always seemed somewhat...forced. Like when he kissed Tipper at the Democratic Convention after he won the nomination. It seemed way to scripted and phony. And there was always something like that, Gore just couldn't shake that image, whereas Nixon was able to (sometimes) shake it.
 

iddt3

Donor
Nixon had more charisma, connections and political moderation than Gore had in a heartbeat - not to mention, perhaps the biggest problem, is Nixon could easily run on Eisenhower's popularity, whereas Gore's main political point was an obsessive need to make sure nobody thinks he's Bill Clinton. Gore did not unite different factions of the party, was a poor public speaker, lacked strong political connections, and on top of it has never really have a built-in political base.

That, and the Democratic Party is much more hostile to second chances than the Republican Party is, keeping in mind that George McGovern and John Kerry both wanted to run again and were "persuaded" against it by party insiders.
Kerry wanted to run again? That would have been a disaster.
 
Kerry wanted to run again? That would have been a disaster.

The senator, in his rounds around the country since the election, has argued that he came close to winning in 2004 and would be a better candidate, with extra experience, in 2008. Mr. Kerry had turned his attention to the 2008 presidential race almost from the moment he conceded defeat to Mr. Bush in November 2004. After being daunted in the 2004 race as being equivocal on the war in Iraq, he had emerged as one of his party’s leading opponents to the war, and had renounced his original support for the war resolution that caused him so many problems in the last election.

But Mr. Kerry faced severe obstacles in trying to capture his party’s nomination for a second time. For one thing, many of his supporters had made clear that they would not join him again should he try to run, with many blaming him for making mistakes in 2004 that cleared the way for Mr. Bush to win even as he was saddled with an unpopular war and a public that had turned largely against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/washington/24cnd-kerry.html?_r=0

But you're right. Had Kerry run in 2008, it would've been a personal disaster. He would not have performed well at all and probably would have bowed out before a primary vote was cast due to lack of traction.
 
First off, I apologize for a lot of my comments in the thread today. I was in a pretty sour mood and obviously exaggerated the weaknesses of Vice President Gore.

The first fact is, no Democrat has a chance in 2008 unless Hillary Clinton's out. Obama succeeded because he was a complete antithesis to Clinton. Kerry and Gore would be too similar and fight mostly for the same group of supporters.

Pull Hillary out and Gore has a shot, hell, Kerry'd even have half a shot.
 
Top