Since John Kerry nearly won the Presidency, coming short by about 25 or so electoral votes, I feel that it's plausible that the Democratic nominee in 2004 could have pulled off a narrow victory against Bush. If Gore ran again in 2004, could you see him pulling a Nixon and defeating the party that narrowly took away victory from him? Assume that the economy is perhaps slightly worse in this TL. Another POD is that Saddam Hussein has fled from Iraq and the US government's failure to capture him reflects negatively on the Bush administration, since not only has he failed to capture the leader of Al'Qaeda, but also the leader of Iraq.
WI: Gore Runs Again in 2004?
- Thread starter TheGuyWhoHeartsHistory
- Start date
A Gore victory is plausible. He likely has less competition in the Democratic Party presidential primaries of 2004. With all of what you described not going for Bush, they'll view Gore as who they should have elected to avoid all of Bush's failures, especially Saddam escaping Iraq and the economy worse. Unfortunately, Gore and the Democrats take the fall for the 2008 Economic Collapse.
Last edited:
What I mean by the economy being worse in 2004 is that the crisis of 2008 would simply happen sooner. It's up to you to figure out if he improves the economy by 2008 or not.A Gore victory is plausible. He likely has less competition in the Democratic Party presidential primaries of 2004. With all of what you described not going for Bush, they'll view Gore as who they should have elected to avoid all of Bush's failures, especially Saddam escaping Iraq and the economy worse. Unfortunately, Gore and the Democrats take the fall for the 2008 Economic Collapse.
Al Gore 2004 Victory:
Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)/Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-MO): 279 Electoral Votes
President George W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY): 259 Electoral Votes
Gore would focus on withdrawal from Iraq and end the Bush tax cuts and fiscal policy. He'll have to deal with a hurricane season, as OTL, and will likely get blamed for increasing gas prices. The Republicans retain the House and Senate in 2006 and obstruct him. So the economy improves, but hurricane season, gas prices, and Republican obstructionism weigh Gore down in 2008.
*UPDATED ELECTORAL MAP*
Gore wins New Mexico, but loses New Hampshire:
Al Gore 2004 Victory:
Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)/Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-MO): 280 Electoral Votes
President George W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY): 258 Electoral Votes
Last edited:
I feel Gore's problem was that he had already checked out of a political future after 2000. Therefore, from 2001 to 2004 (never mind the 2008 scenario), he was not being "politically correct"; he was not pruning and managing his speech and personal brand in a proper way, he was not building a coalition or a political network, he was not pulling strings in case he did decide to run, and so forth.
Kerry's campaign looks bad because he lost. Every loser is said to have run a terrible campaign. Yet Kerry actually did pretty well in the debates according to the polls. For the first debate, "Overall, 53 percent of Thursday's debate watchers interviewed said Kerry did the better job, compared with 37 percent who favored Bush." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html For the second, " respondents gave a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, 47 percent to 45 percent." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/snap.poll/ Third debate: "Sen. John Kerry won the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night, 52% to 39%, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of registered voters who watched the event." http://www.gallup.com/poll/13642/kerry-wins-third-debate.aspx I realize of course that the debates are not all of the campaign, but I am just not convinced that Gore would carry Ohio. Bush's victory there was not all *that* narrow (over 3 percent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 and if it was partly due to long lines and the gay-marriage referendum, well, those things would be around to hurt Gore, too. (BTW, I can think of at least one state Kerry won Gore might have lost--Kerry's neighbor state of NH, which Gore in fact lost in 2000...But it really doesn't matter. Gore could carry NH and even the states that Kerry very narrowly lost--NM and IA--and he still will probably lose Ohio as he did in 2000. Without Ohio, he is not going to win. FL is not going to be as close as it was in 2000--for one thing, the Jewish vote will be at least marginally less favorable for the Democrats than it was in 2000. )
There are three other instances of a presidential candidate winning the nationwide popular vote but not being elected President, in 1824, 1876, and 1888, with 1960 as a possible fourth depending on which method you use to divide the Alabama votes cast for the mixture of Kennedy and Byrd electors.
In 1824 and 1888, the popular vote winner came back and won the next round. Tilden didn't bother in 1876. For that matter, Nixon came back later and won after 1960. This strongly suspects that Gore would have been elected in 2004 or even 2008 if he had wanted it. He didn't want it. He was apparently ambivalent about entering electoral politics in the first place.
In 1824 and 1888, the popular vote winner came back and won the next round. Tilden didn't bother in 1876. For that matter, Nixon came back later and won after 1960. This strongly suspects that Gore would have been elected in 2004 or even 2008 if he had wanted it. He didn't want it. He was apparently ambivalent about entering electoral politics in the first place.
Guys, I want someone to give me a detailed synopsis of a hypothetical Gore Presidency starting in 2005. How do you think he'd handle the problems in this scenario? Remember in this one, the economy has tanked to 2008 levels and the US has failed to capture both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
In order to make the horrific economy idea plausible, Dubya does something similar to what his father did by raising taxes, despite initially lowering them. As for Iraq, believing that installing democracy is now impossible, he withdraws the troops, leaving the country in a fractured, anarchic state. By 2004, remnants of Al-Qaeda invade Iraq and expand the Taliban government into it. This ineptitude enrages the neo-cons, who feel that he betrayed them.
That second part is unrealistic as hell. Bush had been committed to rebuilding Iraq as a liberal democracy since well before 9/11, and honestly saw it as a big part of transforming the Middle East in a way that would win the War on Terror. He'd push single-payer health care long before ditching all of that.
Yes, but would he realistically continue with the economy in the shitter and the debt levels rising rapidly? Even a neo-con has to have some degree of common sense.
The link between the two would be tenuous at best; the Iraq War didn't drain our economy that much and that quickly, so he'd call the problems unrelated to each other. And you'd probably need some really adventurous PODs in order to get things that ugly that quickly on the home front, anyways.
Okay, maybe the economy doesn't tank to 2008 levels. But because Bush raises taxes, coupled with the rising costs of the wars, the US enters a moderate recession. His gross incompetence regarding foreign matters, as well as the recession would severely damage his reputation, making it almost impossible for him to win re-election. If his father could get de-throned by a minor recession despite winning a war quickly and neatly, then Dubya surely will get defeated by his incompetence.
Sure, that's fine. Still, doesn't lead to a withdrawal any more than the OTL recession did. There was the beginning of a drawdown under Obama, but he'd been campaigning on that before the economy crashed. Now, I could see a President Gore possibly leaving by the end of his first term, perhaps.
Fairly irrelevant question, but how is Dubya viewed in this timeline? He failed to destroy the Taliban government, or capture two of the US' biggest enemies.
One term loser like his father, faced a generational challenge and screwed up badly, I'd say. He'd also get associated with whatever screws up the economy, of course.
Fair enough. I had an even more interesting idea for this timeline that I feel would be plausible, considering Bush's even greater incompetence in this timeline. While campaigning in New York City for re-election, he is assassinated by some maniac neo-con for his failures abroad. This would occur in October 2003. What would happen with Cheney as President now?