WI GW Bush picks Tom Ridge as his running mate and carries PA but not FL

This is a double what if, but the reason for this is to make the main question work, GW Bush has to pick Tom Ridge as his running mate in 2000 instead of Cheney.

With Ridge's help, Bush carries Pennsylvania. However, he does not carry Florida. Disappointment among evangelical voters erodes Bush's razor thin IOTL margin.

Everything else remains the same, Bush and Gore carry the same states they carried IOTL and Gore winds up with a somewhat narrower national popular vote lead.

Then what happens?
 
This is a double what if, but the reason for this is to make the main question work, GW Bush has to pick Tom Ridge as his running mate in 2000 instead of Cheney.

With Ridge's help, Bush carries Pennsylvania. However, he does not carry Florida. Disappointment among evangelical voters erodes Bush's razor thin IOTL margin.

Everything else remains the same, Bush and Gore carry the same states they carried IOTL and Gore winds up with a somewhat narrower national popular vote lead.

Then what happens?
Bush/Lieberman, as the Dems had 50 Senate seats + tie-breaking vote from Gore, whilst the GOP had a majority of states in the House.

If Dubya chokes on that pretzel in '02, then Lieberman becomes POTUS.
 
Bush/Lieberman, as the Dems had 50 Senate seats + tie-breaking vote from Gore, whilst the GOP had a majority of states in the House.

If Dubya chokes on that pretzel in '02, then Lieberman becomes POTUS.

That sounds like an interesting combo? What if Gore chose Bob Graham instead?
 
Bush/Lieberman, as the Dems had 50 Senate seats + tie-breaking vote from Gore, whilst the GOP had a majority of states in the House.

If Dubya chokes on that pretzel in '02, then Lieberman becomes POTUS.

Then Lieberman runs against GWB in '04, and likely gets the Dem nomination, I suspect. Interesting, indeed.
 
Then Lieberman runs against GWB in '04, and likely gets the Dem nomination, I suspect. Interesting, indeed.

He's a pretty hard guy to have win the nomination if they're going for an anti-war platform as IOTL. Comes off almost as a '64 McClellan rerun
 

bguy

Donor
Bush/Lieberman, as the Dems had 50 Senate seats + tie-breaking vote from Gore, whilst the GOP had a majority of states in the House.

Would Gore even be allowed to vote for the Vice President? The 12th Amendment section on electing a Vice President in case of an Electoral College deadlock reads:

"and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

That seems to mean that it will take 51 Senators to elect a Vice President since 51 is the majority of the whole number of senators. Vice President Gore isn't a senator, so his vote presumably wouldn't count for something that explicitly requires a majority of senators and not just a majority of votes in the Senate.
 
Would Gore even be allowed to vote for the Vice President? The 12th Amendment section on electing a Vice President in case of an Electoral College deadlock reads:

"and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

That seems to mean that it will take 51 Senators to elect a Vice President since 51 is the majority of the whole number of senators. Vice President Gore isn't a senator, so his vote presumably wouldn't count for something that explicitly requires a majority of senators and not just a majority of votes in the Senate.
So... if the Senate is split 50-50, there's not VP elected? Or does the incoming Senate get to vote in that instance? And if they're 50-50, too? Then no VP?
 
They'd strike a deal long before that would have to happen. Of course, Jim Jeffords might just bail early and give it to Lieberman.
 

bguy

Donor
So... if the Senate is split 50-50, there's not VP elected? Or does the incoming Senate get to vote in that instance? And if they're 50-50, too? Then no VP?

In theory that is correct. If neither of the top two candidates for vice president are able to get 51 senators to vote for them then the Senate would not be able to elect a vice president. Of course come January 20, newly inaugurated President Bush could then claim the vice presidency is vacant (since no one has been elected to the post) and could then nominate a vice president under the 25th Amendment. A replacement vice president appointed through the 25th Amendment requires the approval of a majority of both houses of Congress so it might still end up deadlocked, but the choice isn't limited to among the top two finishers as it is when electing a vice president under the 12th Amendment, so if the Democrats in the Senate just really dug in and refused to vote for Ridge, Bush could nominate someone else (Powell maybe) to try and get the required majority approval. But yes if the Democrats just block everyone then the vice presidency would stay vacant at least until there is a change in the makeup in the Senate.

In practice though if it becomes clear that the House is going to elect Bush then I think Lieberman would probably encourage the Democrats to just go ahead and vote for Ridge for VP. Lieberman isn't going to want to be an unwanted Vice President since that's pretty much guaranteed political irrelevance for him for the next four years, and he would also appreciate just how much damage it would do to the country if a President of one party was assassinated and that led to a person from the other party becoming President. (Especially if the assassin was a Charles Guiteau type deliberately trying to make Lieberman president.) Nor would the Democrats have any reason to really find Ridge objectionable as the vice president. (If Bush is going to be president anyway, the Democrats would probably want Ridge in there as a voice of moderation within the administration.) And stepping aside for the good of the country would make Lieberman look like a great statesman and thus would increase his chances for making a successful presidential run of his own in 2004.
 
Would Gore even be allowed to vote for the Vice President? The 12th Amendment section on electing a Vice President in case of an Electoral College deadlock reads:

"and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

That seems to mean that it will take 51 Senators to elect a Vice President since 51 is the majority of the whole number of senators. Vice President Gore isn't a senator, so his vote presumably wouldn't count for something that explicitly requires a majority of senators and not just a majority of votes in the Senate.
Jeffords might cross party lines to vote for Lieberman.
 
Gore carried Pennsylvania by more than four points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 It's very unlikely that a *vice* presidential candidate's "home state adbantage" is enough to make up for that.

There has even been some controversy as to whether there *is* such an advantage, but if there is, it does not seem to amount to more than about two points in large swing states:

"Existing studies have found that the vice presidential home state advantage is small to non-existent — less than 1 additional percentage point. These studies have also found that the advantage is larger only in small states, which are less likely to have enough electoral votes to swing the outcome.

Campaign advisers and political observers have taken notice. In 2012, Karl Rove advised Mitt Romney to ignore campaign considerations in his vice presidential selection process. Recently, William Galston provided similar advice to the 2016 candidates.

However, in a new study published in American Politics Research, we come to a different conclusion. We find that the average vice presidential home state advantage is considerably higher: nearly three percentage points, on average...

Overall, we find that vice presidential candidates add an average of 2.7 points in their home states. In crucial swing states, they added 2.2 points.." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-actually-do-win-votes-in-their-home-states/
 
Well a two point VP advantage means 2 points to Bush and away from Gore in that state so it could be swung. Virginia this election is not competitive because Tim Kaine is Hillary's VP(it would be only light blue otherwise)
 
Gore carried Pennsylvania by more than four points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 It's very unlikely that a *vice* presidential candidate's "home state adbantage" is enough to make up for that.

There has even been some controversy as to whether there *is* such an advantage, but if there is, it does not seem to amount to more than about two points in large swing states:

"Existing studies have found that the vice presidential home state advantage is small to non-existent — less than 1 additional percentage point. These studies have also found that the advantage is larger only in small states, which are less likely to have enough electoral votes to swing the outcome.

Campaign advisers and political observers have taken notice. In 2012, Karl Rove advised Mitt Romney to ignore campaign considerations in his vice presidential selection process. Recently, William Galston provided similar advice to the 2016 candidates.

However, in a new study published in American Politics Research, we come to a different conclusion. We find that the average vice presidential home state advantage is considerably higher: nearly three percentage points, on average...

Overall, we find that vice presidential candidates add an average of 2.7 points in their home states. In crucial swing states, they added 2.2 points.." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-actually-do-win-votes-in-their-home-states/

Let's say there is a 2-point vice-presidential advantage in their home-state. Most elections this is irrelevant. So Bush say 2.2% in Pennsylvania. Bush's 46.43% is increased to 48.63%. But where does that 2% come from? Maybe 0.2% of it can come from third parties and minor candidates, at the most. There is still 2% left, that comes out of Al Gore's Pennsylvania vote total. Al Gore now has 48.60% of the vote in Pennsylvania to Bush's 48.63%. Going by the existing turnout, which may have changed, that is 2,389,250 votes for Bush to 2,387,776 for Gore. That is a victory for Bush of 1,474 votes. Now maybe there could be more, if the bounce is 3% or even more then it is not as close, while if the bounce is any less Gore wins. If Pennsylvania is closer, that may in turn force the Democrats to shift resources to there and away from Florida, however Republicans may also target Florida more at the expense of Pennsylvania. There could be a Gore wins Florida, Bush Pennsylvania scenario or one where Bush gets both Pennsylvania and Florida. But I think Bush can win Pennsylvania with Ridge.
 
Gore carried Pennsylvania by more than four points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 It's very unlikely that a *vice* presidential candidate's "home state adbantage" is enough to make up for that.
Well, yeah, but the fact that Bush picked Ridge would probably be indicative of a different overall strategy from the Bush campaign which would be designed to appeal to voters in Pennsylvania and probably involve Bush pouring more money in there as well.
 
Well a two point VP advantage means 2 points to Bush and away from Gore in that state so it could be swung. Virginia this election is not competitive because Tim Kaine is Hillary's VP(it would be only light blue otherwise)

I think it's clear that by a two point difference, the study means a two point difference in the overall margin (*not* two points less for candidate X and two points more for his opponent candidate Y). Once again, I don't think a vice-presidential candidate's home state advantage is good enough to make up for a 4.17% deficit, which is what Bush had in PA in 2000.

So far as 2016 is concerned, I would say that Clinton would be favored in Virginia anyway. Trump got only 34.7% of the GOP primary vote there (Rubio, who came a close second, would almost certainly have defeated him had Kasich not been in the race) while HRC defeated Sanders almost two-to-one. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia Moreover, most polls taken *before* HRC chose Kaine showed her with a substantial lead over Trump there. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html Undoubtedly Kaine helps her there--but I doubt by four percentage points.
 
Well, yeah, but the fact that Bush picked Ridge would probably be indicative of a different overall strategy from the Bush campaign which would be designed to appeal to voters in Pennsylvania and probably involve Bush pouring more money in there as well.

If Bush put more money in the state, and the polls showed it close, presumably Gore would put more money in there, too.
 
Top