I really think he would have lost again. I am of the opinion that even John Kerry is a better politican than Al Gore (Sighing during the debate, Earth Tones, Lockbox, etc.)
I think Democratic primary voters had already turned against Iraq by the time the 2004 primaries began. Otherwise, Howard Dean wouldn't have been a thing.That's quite possible, given his outspoken opposition to the Iraq War and Bush's abuses of civil liberties. Bush was still relatively popular in 2004, it wasn't until 2005 that his rating began to really tank. Had Gore run for say, Governor of Tennessee in 2002, then run for President in 2008 he could have won the nomination and the election.
I think Democratic primary voters had already turned against Iraq by the time the 2004 primaries began. Otherwise, Howard Dean wouldn't have been a thing.
I see. However, Gore would have many things going for him over Dean: Name recognition, anger over the 2000 election, foreign policy experience, and military service (the last two having been the majority of Kerry's OTL 2004 platform). There's also the question of whether Kerry's vote for Iraq helped or hurt him in the OTL 2004 general election.I was talking less about Democrats and more about independents and the overall majority of the country. That said, even before the "Dean Scream" Dean was badly trailing and had little chance of being nominated even without his infamous gaffe. But you are right in that Dean gained traction for a specific reason: liberals hated the Iraq War. The problem is you can't win by simply turning out your base. Gore would be able to do that, but whether or not he could get an electoral college majority is less certain.
I see. However, Gore would have many things going for him over Dean: Name recognition, anger over the 2000 election, foreign policy experience, and military service (the last two having been the majority of Kerry's OTL 2004 platform). There's also the question of whether Kerry's vote for Iraq helped or hurt him in the OTL 2004 general election.
I'd imagine that when Kerry voted for Iraq in 2002, he thought it would help him in 2004, but then when the WMDs weren't found, Kerry became fearful of getting Ralph Nader'd and decided to run against the war.IMO if not for the "I vote for it before I vote against it" gaffe, or the perception that Kerry was a weak flip-flopper because of his history on the Iraq War, he would have won Ohio and become the 44th President.
Are you saying that you think Kerry should have run as a Scoop Jackson Democrat and said, "I agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but I oppose the stem-cell research ban, the tax cuts, and the environmental deregulation"?IMO if not for the "I vote for it before I vote against it" gaffe, or the perception that Kerry was a weak flip-flopper because of his history on the Iraq War, he would have won Ohio and become the 44th President.
It's not necessarily that he shouldn't have backtracked on Iraq. The way he said it was odd and made it seem like he just changes on a dime. Had he said something more sophisticated like "It seemed like the best decision at the time, but changing times and new information make me regret my vote" it would have been better.Are you saying that you think Kerry should have run as a Scoop Jackson Democrat and said, "I agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but I oppose the stem-cell research ban, the tax cuts, and the environmental deregulation"?
Iraq was a losing issue by the election, but Kerry already made his bed and so he had to sleep in it. I think Gore would have been a slightly stronger candidate, could have won Ohio and/or Florida the second go around. This prevents Republican losses in 2006 in the house and by 2008 whomever wins the Republican nomination (ATL probably still McCain but with butterflies Giulliani is not impossible) becomes President. Ron Paul is still a thing, but no Rand Paul because no Tea Party. Because McCain is already so liberal for a Repub, this really forces things for the Dems, who probably move far left to differentiate themselves from McCain. This could lose them 2012 because I don't think Gay rights is a strong enough issue to win the states McCain could carry. Obama is a real wild card though. He was a very popular President (just look at the votes he got compared to Trump of Hillary). He could still win it in 2012 IF he avoided running in 2008 or lost the primary to Hill' Clinton. At this point, it becomes too hard to predict, probably the only thing we know for sure is that immigration amnesty occurs and hispanics prove to be a more Republican demographic. I mean, we have the most anti-hispanic President ever and for the last two months his approval ratings among hispanics are being measured at 50% though high 30s is more likely (source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192).
Gore's wife wouldn't let him run again, they where on their way to a permanent split, likely due to his #metoo problems.
If he faces a competitive primary, someone is going to sniff that out on him, or if not Rove's dirty hits squad will and he won't be able to get through it, in tact
Gore didn't face a sexual harassment allegation until after the 2008 election, well after he had left politics and was separated from Tipper. So it wouldn't be used against him in 2004.