What would a Gore Presidency look like?

[Bolt451]

I'm writing a low-key alternate history (ish) story at the moment and one of the characters is from a world which diverges with Florida going to Gore in 2000. I've vaguely outlined the world and how it influences the day to day life of the character (who was only 10 at the time of the PoD) and I've got vague ideas about how a Gore presidency might look



Looking at 2000-2004 (or potentially 2008) how do you all thing a Gore presidency would fare. Do you think we'd still go into Iraq? Would Gore go in with a UN resolution? (this is something I've written into the notes as it affects UK Politics quite directly) If so how would this affect his re-election chances. Could we get 16 years of democrats in the White House



As for domestic affairs I cant really comment.

 

[Emote Control]

No Iraq, that's for certain. The Iraq invasion was due solely to Bush's feelings of personal honor, and Wolfowitz's goading. Without those, no Iraq invasion.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

No Iraq War for sure. The very interesting question to if/when the Great Recession hits. Odds are it still would in some form as the housing bubble and lack of government oversight probably isn't butterflied away in a Gore presidency. But I wonder if the impact is lessened somewhat due to not spending billions in Iraq? Does that even matter?

 

[AussieHawker]

Well, considering the fact that he's the man behind An Inconvenient Truth, I can predict that his administration would have something to do with environmental issues, but considering some of the inaccurate information in the documentary, I think he would overdo it to the detriment of the US economy. I do believe in human-caused climate change, just in case anyone jumps down my throat.

The article 'inaccuracies' are essentially nothing. And the hand wringing about the costs of dealing with climate change is dumb. As long as he doesn't try to get rid of nuclear power, more funding and effort for renewables won't hurt the economy, it will help. The US getting a first mover advantage in those industries would create jobs. Climate change isn't just a apocalyptic threat. The ecological damage and pollution causes economic damage, that dwarfs whatever cash the US might miss out on the coal industry fading slightly earlier or the fracking industry being curtailed.

But even if there is a impact on the economy, it would be vastly dwarfed by not being at war with Afghanistan, Iraq, unpaid for tax cuts, reckless security spending and other Bush admin failures. Gore continuing Clinton's policy would lead to a much healthier budget by 2004 at the end of his term. As long as the GOP doesn't blow that all, there is a lot more room for stimulus spending in a alt depression.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Why is no Iraq for certain? Deposing of Saddam somehow was bipartisan consensus and Gore would receive the same intelligence (not to mention played a role in increasingly "warming" the Cold War with Baghdad under Clinton -- it wasn't all "peaceful" sanctions).

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Like McGovern's: low probability of even happening, not the liberal part. He couldn't win enough popular votes in the right states to secure 270 EV, the relevant number or win the popular vote overall in a more or less best-case scenario OTL.

 

[Tjakari]

Gore would receive the same intelligence

I'm skeptical of this point, and even if Gore did receive similarly faulty intelligence, that's still a bridge he's gonna have to sell politically.

Republicans have a media machine to push their ideas (Radio, Fox, etc.) that Democrats just don't hold a candle to, as well as the ideological and financial scaffolding to actually consider a full blown invasion and occupation of Iraq as something vital to US foreign policy.

Invading Iraq is something that right-wing think tanks had been theorizing about for near on a decade at that point. New Democrats aren't liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but that's not a strain of politics that they're completely plugged into. A Gore presidency is a Clintonite presidency.
That's a different enough political structure that there'd be butterflies around the Iraq situation, at least.

 

[DocJamore]

There is actually a decent chance 9/11 would not happen as the Clinton administration took the threat of Al-Qaeda seriously. Though I understand that others may disagree, since it would render American politics unrecognizable.

 

[Scott Washburn]

I think we'd be living in a much better world today

 

[Mark E.]

Like McGovern's: low probability of even happening, not the liberal part. He couldn't win enough popular votes in the right states to secure 270 EV, the relevant number or win the popular vote overall in a more or less best-case scenario OTL.

Gore’s loss was attributed to a Florida ballot alignment problem, so he could have easily won the state. As for 9/11, the FBI was looking in OTL, but thought it was under the radar. So, there is a 50/50 chance it could have been stopped. Also, does catching the terrorists truly expose their mission? Is there a chance the attacks could have been stopped on one hit, not three? In terms of Iraq, small chance of the invasion we saw. It was based on faulty intelligence in the “Italian Letter” exercise, which could have been exposed as faulty with closer examination by an administration with no predisposition to attack Iraq.

 

[Blorg]

That is a VAST understatement.

wot

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Gore’s loss was attributed to a Florida ballot alignment problem, so he could have easily won the state. As for 9/11, the FBI was looking in OTL, but thought it was under the radar. So, there is a 50/50 chance it could have been stopped. Also, does catching the terrorists truly expose their mission? Is there a chance the attacks could have been stopped on one hit, not three? In terms of Iraq, small chance of the invasion we saw. It was based on faulty intelligence in the “Italian Letter” exercise, which could have been exposed as faulty with closer examination by an administration with no predisposition to attack Iraq.

If he had been a more electable candidate, he would have locked up a few more states and not needed to trust florida's elderly ballot staffers. It's not Florida's fault the dems chose to run someone that uninspiring.

 

[Mark E.]

If he had been a more electable candidate, he would have locked up a few more states and not needed to trust florida's elderly ballot staffers. It's not Florida's fault the dems chose to run someone that uninspiring.

I agree Gore was dull and he likely would not have been re-elected in 2004. But he came very close to winning in 2000 and had he done so, 9/11 and Iraq could have been very different, not to mention no Bush tax cuts and their effects. The 2008 meltdown? It might happened as it was the result of greed in the banking sector, but probably delayed a few months until after the election of '08.

 

[AussieHawker]

Like McGovern's: low probability of even happening, not the liberal part. He couldn't win enough popular votes in the right states to secure 270 EV, the relevant number or win the popular vote overall in a more or less best-case scenario OTL.

If he had been a more electable candidate, he would have locked up a few more states and not needed to trust florida's elderly ballot staffers. It's not Florida's fault the dems chose to run someone that uninspiring.

Gore was running for a third term for his party. In the modern political era, it has been achieved once.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1160693159158063104

Some random thoughts on a Sunday evening about Al Gore & John Kerry... I think both don't get their due when it comes to their prez bids... I'm gonna start with Gore and go onto Kerry...On Gore 2000, a lot of folks say "well he lost and the economy was good... Plus Clinton had a sky high approval rating." Well the economy was good on certain metrics but certainly mixed on others such as job growth really slowing down from June-Oct 2000. But let's talk about Clinton for a second. Yes, his approval rating was ~60%. But favorable ratings were really mediocre. His net fav in the final CBS News poll of the campaign was -1 pts. There was a reason why Gore kept his distance... Let's talk about Gore specifically... for such a "gaffe" machine, he actually was pretty darn popular. His net favs were positive and almost always +10 pts or more positive. Bush tended to match these during 2000. Be shocked if any 2020 candidate ends up as liked as Gore.

Let's talk about Kerry. Another "meh" candidate supposedly (see wind surfing, "Lambert Field", etc). What folks don't seem to acknowledge is it's not like Kerry lost a campaign he should have won. Bush had positive net approval & favs at end. Usually that means incumbent wins. Furthermore, the economy was fairly decent by most metrics (e.g. most fundamental models had Bush winning). Bush was well liked on terrorism. And Iraq, while would later be deemed a disaster, was really a 50/50 issue in 04. Both Kerry and Gore ended up losing by 2 points or less (a lot less in Gore's case) in the states that proved to be pivotal. I don't think their performances were below par.

And you really can't say it is low probability. A very minor swing in his favour gets the win. Jeb not being governor, or not suppressing votes. Means a victory. Clinton keeping his dick in his pants, and Gore could have easily stood closer to Clinton achievements. Another anti Bush scandal, or just a different media spin and he wins.

McGovern was a landslide loss by a trainwreck campaign against a still popular incumbent riding the new Republican south. You really can't compare them without being totally intellectual dishonest.

 

[Tjakari]

wot

The American right wing doesn't really engage with policy along secular lines. I'd say worse, but the moderator would not take that kindly.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

He had lots of "minor swings in his favor" the whole time -- no serious primary challengers, succeeding a popular POTUS, Bush's DUI, the GOP running someone whose level of evangelicalsim was pushing it even for 2000's norms, etc. If he couldn't do it with odds stacked in his favor well...

 

[AussieHawker]

He had lots of "minor swings in his favor" the whole time -- no serious primary challengers, succeeding a popular POTUS, Bush's DUI, the GOP running someone whose level of evangelicalsim was pushing it even for 2000's norms, etc. If he couldn't do it with odds stacked in his favor well...

Campaigns have good and bad things happen for a candidate. And you're still ignoring quoted evidence that disputes your argument.

That isn't evidence for your claim that 2000 is somehow the best ever timeline for Gore. You are also comparing him to Mcgovern, who got crushed by a 23.2 national margin. Vs Gore losing because of a 0.0092 margin. Arguing that McGovern had no shot, is maybe a legit argument. Still doesn't belong on a thread that isn't about it.

So stop trying to derail a thread, that isn't 'can he win' but what happens if he does. Which is extremely probable despite your odd complex about it.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

So assuming Gore wins in 2000 who wins the GOP primary in 2004 and does he/she win the general election?

 

[Tjakari]

So assuming Gore wins in 2000 who wins the GOP primary in 2004 and does he/she win the general election?

Depends on what being in the wilderness for 12 years does to the Republicans. I don't think they would moderate after a loss like that, but they might pull back on the evangelical dog pandering.

When the Democrats went through the same situation they didn't come out the other end the way they'd gone in.

 

[AussieHawker]

So assuming Gore wins in 2000 who wins the GOP primary in 2004 and does he/she win the general election?

I mean it really depends on Gore's term.

Gore could head off 9/11 and nothing else really flares up in terms of foreign policy. So the GOP candidates would tend towards and shift in favour of domestic policy standings. So successful governors or domestic focused legislators. Likely just a campaign of social issues, scaremongering about whatever Gore ended up doing in his term, and promising to turn Gore's surplus into tax cuts.

Gore could still have 9/11 happen under his watch. I doubt he would get the same impact as Bush thought. The right wing media would accuse him of being asleep on the job, and the mainstream media would mindlessly parrot it. So even if Gore is quite successful in the aftermath in hunting down the perpetrators and their allies, that could be seen as a weak spot, or at least something the Republicans need to balance against. Like picking Kerry because he voted yes to war. So the Republicans run a Hawk claiming he is fucking it up and America needs a Republican. That could be a dangerous scenerio if they not only want to go after Iraq, but also other Republican bugbears like Iran and North Korea. That could create a real Carter, considering the issues awaiting in that term. Katrina, the financial crisis and potential wars.

As for winning, I think the odds are against him no matter the scenerio. The 12 year itch will be tough to overcome. The last time a party had such dominance was the New Deal with the Republicans utterly wrecked and the Democrats holding a mega coalition.

But the Republicans could still botch it, and make a bad choice. Like America might want a 'tough guy' President but could still balk at multiple potential wars. Or just a terrible candidate generally.