What if: If Al Gore had been elected President in 2000, what would have happened in 2004?

[Polybius]

I love "what ifs" so I might do more of these in the future. Anyway, let's say Florida had no hanging chads (or the votes were simply allowed to be counted) Gore won the state, and was elected President in 2000.

How would those four years have gone, and more importantly for this thread, what do you think would have happened in 2004? Who would have run against him? Would Bush have run again, since he had barely lost the last time and he was still young enough? My guess is yes, but this time he doesn't win the nomination. Not sure who else would have run, but maybe McCain? Romney? Maybe. Quayle? Phil Gramm? Probably not. Pat Buchanan? Nah, whoever it was probably wouldn't be a far-right nutcase that's likely to lose in a landslide.

And in the general election who wins? Obviously, this all depends on how his four years went. There might not have been a 9/11, since Gore would have probably taken the threats more seriously than that idiot Bush. If no 9/11, then that means no war in Afghanistan, and probably no war in Iraq, provided Saddam didn't violate anything major.

We also have to factor in that it would have made 16 years of one-party rule. That would have been unheard of in the modern era.

A lot of us always talk about Bush picking two Supreme Court Justices when they should have been Gore's. However, keep in mind that both of those picks came after the 2004 election.

[BostonBlue]

1. McCain would have been likely opponent

very hard to tell how a Gore presidency would have played out in the aftermath of 9/11. Certainly would have been a smarter more targeted response than Ws never ending disaster.

[apnu]

4. Clinton had his eye on Bin Laden and Al-Queda. He warned the W Admin and gave them everything

W ignored all that. And when his own security people were sounding loud alarm bells before the attack, W did nothing.

No way Gore, Clinton's Veep, would have been a sleep at the wheel.

9/11 has high odds of never happening if Gore was POTUS in 2001.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. Absolutely

[BostonBlue]

15. No doubt. Would it have been enough to stop it

who knows? It's painful to even think about that period. IMO we were irreparably damaged by the 2000 election and the subsequent reaction to 9/11.

[LisaM]

27. Al Gore also authored the Gore Commission on Airline Security, which the Bush administration ignored

After 9/11, I was watching 60 Minutes or one of those shows, and they went through that report with someone they were interviewing, and pointed to some items (example, tracking people with expired visas more closely) and concluded that if many of the items had been implemented, it was very likely 9/11 would not have happened.

The really frustrating thing to me watching that was that they never, not once, said that Al Gore had been the author of the report. I remember turning to my boyfriend in amazement and saying, "you know who wrote that, don't you? Al Gore".

[irresistable]

2. There might not have been a 9/11, but...

If the attack had still occurred, the Republicans would not have been patriotic in the way that Democrats were.

They would have tried to destroy Gore.

[Dennis Donovan]

11. Of course they would...

I used to have a link to the DU OP posted on 9/11/01. The post said "TURN ON CNN NOW!".

What I found fascinating about it (after the fact) was the amount of skepticism shown by DUers during the initial moments of the attack. But then, everyone fell in line, "we have to support Bush because we were attacked."

The confusion in the 2 weeks after was a period that's hard to forget. Searching eBay for gas masks; being pulled between anger and fear; dealing with the repeated showings of the Towers coming down.

I was born a year and a half after the Kennedy Assassination, so that was my first experience dealing with that kind of thing. And, it was terrifying.

[NewJeffCT]

37. I remember seeing a "what if" scenario years back

where the FBI or NSA arrested 20 Muslim immigrants who were here attending flight school on charges of suspected terrorism and there was a quote from Ann Coulter criticizing Democrats for targeting Muslims.

[bearsfootball516]

3. It's not guaranteed that there would have been 16 years of one-party rule

Part of why Obama did so well was the uncalculable rage toward the GOP for the Iraq war and the financial crisis, which allowed Obama to run on the Hope and Change mantra. And "change" elections tend to happen after every 8-year presidential runs, even if things are getting better, hence Trump winning in 2016.

[Dennis Donovan]

5. Utopia. Dogs and cats will dance in the streets together...

Not kidding. Well, a little bit.

9/11 wouldn't have happened because the Gore Commission recommendations would've been implemented (so no war in Afghanistan since we would've stopped the perps before they even got off the ground).

The Iraq War wouldn't have taken place, saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and several thousand American lives.

The USSC wouldn't be as fucked as it is now, since we wouldn't have Alito or Roberts.

There's probably tomne more I could add, but those are the big 3 for me.

[Polybius]

8. You are incorrect about one thing

The USSC. As stated in my OP, both Roberts and Alito came after the 2004 election.

[Dennis Donovan]

12. President Gore would've easily won re-election

[Polybius]

19. Perhaps

But he'd have no war to run on, which could boost popularity. Bush ran on it with lies and barely won reelection. Also, 16 years of one-party rule is the big thing. Could he have done it? Perhaps.

[Dennis Donovan]

21. Easily...

His stewardship of the economy, national defense, and his own personal conduct would've carried him to a second term.

[Polybius]

26. After 2016, I'll never say easily

Although technically you could say "2004 wasn't after 2016."

Seriously though, people suck. If no 9/11, those 4 years might have been to uneventful. Morons might have said "Saddam keeps violating the no-fly-zone!" if Gore did nothing about it. Gore also wasn't charismatic at all (and neither was Bush), so that could have been a factor had he gone up against a fiery speaker. Then again, I can't think of any Republicans from 2004 with charisma, so that would have likely balanced out.

I think his personal conduct would have been amazing. Probably zero scandals, and a great family man. National defense would probably have been no major wars (perhaps a bombing or two), similar to Carter's (or <gasp> Trump's) term. Economy? I have no idea at all.

The 16 year of one-party rule is what would most concern me. Every Bush voter would have been furious at the close loss and heavily turned out. I wish there was a way to find out for sure, like in an alternate universe. Gore would have been so great. Wish he ran again in '04.

[jalan48]

7. I've read that the ME wars will cost $4-$6 trillion when all is said and done. Wars are big

money makers for those involved. I think we would have had an ongoing war regardless-there is no appetite for cutting back on Defense spending in Congress.

[rusty quoin]

9. Gore's Supreme Court picks would have ruled right in citizen united

meaning money control over elections much less so now we would be more a democracy.

[Polybius]

20. Only if he won reelection in 2004

Both of Bush's picks were 2005.

[LisaM]

29. Sandra Day O'Connor MIGHT have retired anyway.

She was on the verge of it, and there were reports that when she thought Gore might win on election night 2000, she was saying things like, "this is terrible!"

Of all the people on the SCOTUS who voted to stop the vote counting, I think she is the only one who's expressed any doubt that she did the right thing.

[Polybius]

41. Maybe

Souter might have too, but it's unlikely since he already was super-young when he retired in 2009.

[manor321]

10. We'd be 1,000,000 times better off. Thanks Nader voters!

[shanny]

17. Debunked a brazillion times.

Thank the pukes and the SC.

[tritsofme]

42. Nonsense. If Nader did not appear on the ballot, Gore would have almost certainly netted 500 votes.

[shanny]

43. oh ffs

learn something, beyond your preconceived and very convenient beliefs

[tritsofme]

44. lol, water is wet, the sky is blue, Nader presence on the ballot caused Gore to lose FL

Sorry admitting that gives you a sad!

[shanny]

45. sorry that is so stupid

any one of ten factors "caused" Gore to "lose"

but some people think hippie punching is the way to win elections. guess what? that genius play is...not

otherwise we would have been winning all this time and we haven't QED

[tritsofme]

46. 537 votes between Bush and Gore. Nader received what? 90,000+?

If Nader does not appear, it defies logic and reason to argue that Gore would not have picked up some 500 votes from this group. It is the definition of a spoiler.

[shanny]

47. blinders. clearly. I understand: it is much more comfortable.

24,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Nader.
340,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for BUSH.

and of course:
the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County.
the voter purge*.
the stopped recount.
the Supreme Court declaring that a full recount was...unfair.

but yeah, blaming Nader is so easy, so convenient, so not-requiring-any-introspection-or-y'know-learning-process

carry on.
.
.
*and why is it that almost 20 years on we are just now addressing THAT issue?.

[tritsofme]

48. Yes, if more people voted for Gore, he also would have won, astounding analysis.

If other things happened that didn’t, Gore also might have won.

It doesn’t change the fact that if Nader did not appear, Gore would have been incredibly likely to pick up the votes he needed to win.

[shanny]

49. thank you for making my point.

[tritsofme]

50. I'm not sure what you thought my point was then?

But I’m glad you agree that had Nader not appeared, Gore would have won FL.

[themaguffin]

13. Well, he essentially was elected. We've been screwed twice in less than 20 years

[Moostache]

14. What if...ok, I'll bite...

IF Gore had won, 9/11 would still have happened.

Think about it. By the time the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo was prepped, the plot was already in place and the measures to prevent the specific attack - box cutters smuggled on-board planes and killing of flight crew / storming cockpits - would have remained vulnerable even under heightened vigilance from the top levels of government. There was no TSA, there was no "no-fly list" and there was no locks on the cockpit doors to make them inaccessible from the cabins (which there STILL are not even though that is the one, 100% surefire way to stop hijackings).

It was true to an extent that one of the great failures of 9/11 security was the failure of creative thinking - even though Tom Freaking Clancy had written a novel practically detailing the how to destroy American governance with an airplane years earlier (Debt of Honor, 1994), and we had gamed out scenarios in the 1960's using jetliners as attackers. We were collectively not prepared to think that someone would hijack multiple planes to use as weapons against us; and while Bush and his cavalier attitudes certainly made us less prepared, I doubt the event would have been avoided by Gore completely. I remember the shock that morning as fresh today as I did 18 years ago...it seemed like a Hollywood movie more than reality for the first few hours. There was an other-worldly quality to the whole day that just sucked the air from every room and every conversation. It was truly a sucker punch that we never believed could land on us.

What would have been very different would have been the response to the crisis. Al Gore was not a go-it-alone, rest-of-the-world-be-damned kind of guy. There would have been a much greater emphasis on international cooperation and coordination (no "you are with us or them" ultimatums). The good will toward America that was omnipresent on 9/12 would have lasted longer. The other major shift would have been contextualizing the wider issues to include climate change and dependence on Middle Eastern oil as the engine of the economy.

Gore would have seized that opportunity to tie national and global security to energy divestment from fossil fuels to renewable sources and he would have had a shocked nation behind him. The GOP would have attacked him as excessively weak and nerdy - thinking that belittlement and fear would win the day...but I think the global social path to climate change destruction just might have been averted...

Now? It's too late to stop the worst, the best outcomes now are merely survival and avoiding the worst case scenarios alone. Coulda....shoulda....woulda....indeed.

[Autumn]

22. Also the evidence that Iraq had WMDs would have never been faked and used.

It would have been a different world. In 20 years, if we are still here we will look back and see how different the world would be had Trump not been installed as president.

[Awsi Dooger]

32. 9/11 would have happened, Democrats blamed, leading to Gore defeat in 2004

Moostache detailed all the reasons 9/11 unfolds the same way. Republicans would have been supportive initially then thrown away the patriotism in favor of all-out blame on Clinton and Gore. At that point the GOP was considered the national security party so an attack of that magnitude amidst 9 years of Democratic rule would have ignited all the convenient stereotypes. Imagine what the Dick Cheney types and Robert Novak types would have been saying every day.

The 2002 midterm would have been a disaster, comparable to 1994 if not worse.

Gore would have handled 9/11 extremely well but toward 2004 it really wouldn't matter, given the situational aspects in play. The country would have been restless after 12 years of the same party controlling the White House, and combined with the conventional wisdom that 9/11 could have been prevented under Republican rule, Gore would have been defeated rather soundly. The incumbent advantage only applies if the party has been in power one term, not three or more. McCain or Bush likely would have been Gore's opponent. Probably edge to McCain winning the nomination, since Bush would have been blamed for losing a 2000 race in which he held the polling lead for the final 5+ weeks.

Keep in mind that 9/11 caused the security mom shift toward the GOP. And in 2004 the nation was still 33% self-identified conservatives to 21% liberals, compared to the current breakdown of 36% conservatives and 27% liberals. We were a less-polarized nation but the gap between conservatives and liberals was greater than today.

That's my best crack at the situational landscape, anyway. Countless variables associated with a 9/11 response and how the public reacts to it, but that four-term aspect and Democrats blamed for 9/11 makes that combo the tipping point.

[mahina]

56. Thank you b

[WhiteTara]

16. He would have been re-elected

and we would not be in the midst of a climate crisis.

[Polybius]

24. The rest of the world would have had to cooperate though

Even if America made dramatic climate rules in 2001, China and India would have to play their part in cleaning too.

[WhiteTara]

25. well, it's all just

woulda shoulda coulda but didn't

[yankeepants]

18. Climate change would have been paramount on the Gore agenda n/t

[book_worm]

23. The Gore/Lieberman ticket would have been re-elected setting up 2008 primary between...

Vice President Lieberman, Senator Clinton of New York and an exciting and dynamic young U.S. Senator named Barack Obama.

[Polybius]

31. Republicans were hated in 2008 because of Bush

No matter what McCain did, he would have lost in reality year 2008. However, in alternate year 2008, it would have been a whole new ballgame. It could have been Romney vs. Clinton. I don't think Lieberman would have won, and Obama might have split the Lieberman vote.

With less hate for Republicans in alternate year 2008, plus with the possibility of an unheard of (since FDR and Truman at least) 20 year one-party rule, I'm gonna have to give this one to the enemy. They eventually would have had to win one day again had they lost in 2000 (and presumably 2004).

[mcar]

28. 9/11 wouldn't have happened

So no 18 years of war.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. +1000s

n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

33. You want a non-popular answer? Gore is a one-term president.

There's still a massive terrorist attack in America. It may not have been a 9/11-like attack if Gore had properly handled the threat, but even then, it's not a slam dunk that 9/11 doesn't happen exactly like 9/11 happened. I say this because this type of attack had been in the planning stages for years and only happened months into the Bush presidency. Sure, Bush was warned about the threat but I suspect something was going to happen.

So, a major terrorist attack in the United States. It may not have resulted in the lost lives like 9/11, though potentially a great deal of causalities and, let's be honest, if it approaches the hundreds, which is entirely possible, and there's no 9/11 for reference, we'd probably treat the response very similar. Gore would focus on Afghanistan, bin Laden and taking out al-Qaeda. He'd probably do as Bush did and give the Taliban an ultimatum or risk invasion. Everything like that would have panned out very similarly.

Ground war in Afghanistan.

I do not believe Gore would've gone into Iraq. The economy, which was destined for recession even before Bush put his hands on the bible and took the oath of office, likely still plunges into a recession. Gore touts his national security cred in 2002 as Democrats look to hold off Republican gains in a midterm election. But there's a growing number of conservatives who believe Gore let the terrorist attacks happen on purpose to wage war in Afghanistan and 'wag the dog' so to speak from the failing economy. This is pushed by Rush Limbaugh.

In this reality, Republicans may actually be opposed to more intervention, as was the case under Clinton as guys like Trent Lott opposed Clinton's strike against Iraq. This is not because of their non-interventionism but rather because the president is a Democrat and, as we've seen, we can't have Democrats doing anything of substance that may be viewed as good.

There would be no war in Iraq, as I said, and I do believe Gore would have seen an approval bump after the terrorist attacks like Bush did. However, Bush's approval slipped considerably heading into the US invasion of Iraq. He peaked at 90% after 9/11 and it dipped to 57% right before the war. It surged again in the initial days of the war, and his approval, while it dipped once the invasion became a quagmire, stayed above 50% for the remainder of his first term. It's possible with no Iraq, Bush's approval continues to drip, especially since the economy was very slow to grow between 2002-2004. In fact, I'd wager what won Bush reelection was Iraq. It wasn't near the shit-show it would turn into in his second term and, as a war-time president, he gained more than he lost.

No Iraq means Gore has nothing to distract the American people from the sagging economy. Of course, in this reality, Gore would still be a war-time president, since there would be Afghanistan. But 2004 was dominated by Iraq, where most forces were, while Afghanistan barely got mention. Maybe Gore goes all in on Afghanistan, which Bush didn't do because of his focus on Iraq, but that could prove very risky if there's a huge spike in causalities and deaths.

But if he doesn't, if he commits the same amount of troops as Bush, the war is largely on the back burner by 2004. Remember, in 2004, only 49 troops died. I say only not to be morbid, but compare that to Iraq, where, that same year, 848 American troops died, and you can see the drastic differences of the war. Afghanistan would likely be less and less an issue, though magnified more by Republican opposition and their, 'bring our troops home' rallying cry.

You'd also have those on the left pushing Gore to withdraw.

Ultimately, with the Democrats having been in power twelve years, which is a pretty long period of time, the Republicans win the White House due to dissatisfaction with Afghanistan and the economy.

There's no Supreme Court picks, as none retired in Gore's only term.

Gore leaves office with tepid support. Not a failure like Bush and Carter were perceived to be - but not near the success Clinton appears to be. There's no major legislative accomplishment due to a divided congress. But his legacy is mostly that of a president who steered the country through its most difficult times since World War II.

NOW had there not been ANY sort of terrorist attack? Gore flounders. The economy continues to be hit by a recession. He polls poorly because there's no terrorism bump. His legislative accomplishments are hindered by a divided congress, especially when the Republicans grow their majority in the House in 2002 and take back the Senate. Finally, in 2004, due to Democratic fatigue, a lackluster economy and nothing really to point to in terms of success, Gore loses.

In fact, I don't see how either Gore or Bush survive to a second term without a terrorist attack. The early 00s was shit for the economy and whoever replaced Clinton was going to get a bulk of the blame, despite the tech bubble bursting in 2000 being largely responsible.

[Lucid Dreamer]

51. Applause...

Your scenario stacks up with alternative histories by the likes of PK Dick, Roth, Turtledove, and Lewis. Nicely done, D. Irishman.

[NurseJackie]

34. We'd still have the WTC buildings standing and countless lives wouldn't have been lost...

... in the attack and the wars that followed.

[mainstreetonce]

35. I was just going to post this

Gore wanted to lock cockpit doors.

[Pobeka]

36. Yep -- Bin Laden launched an economic war, not a war of violence.

Same thing Al Que-da did with Russia. Spend a few thousands of dollars, and get the USA to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into a response. But you needed someone who'd take the bait, and Gore wouldn't be dumb enough to take that bait. It was necessary for the Cheney/Bush war profiteers to be in the whitehouse for the USA to engage in an economic war.

We're still digging out from all the money dumped into that war.

[malchickiwick]

38. Keeping global temperature rise under 2 degrees F. by 2100 would still be possible.

As it is, it looks like we'll be lucky if we can keep it under 4 ...

[Delarage]

39. Family Guy has my Dream Scenario

[link:

|

[NewJeffCT]

40. 9/11 likely would not have happened

and we would not have gotten involved in Iraq.

So, the defense budget would not have exploded, and subsequently the debt and annual deficits would not have exploded. Maybe we actually make some progress towards paying down the long term debt of the country over the 4 years.

Republicans likely would have run McCain in 2004 after the "compassionate conservative" Bush lost in 2000. McCain likely would have had a much better shot of winning than he did against Obama in 2008 because the media would have been all-in for McCain after 12 years of Democrats in charge.

Sadly, if Gore had lost to McCain in 2004, McCain would have replaced Rehnquist and O'Connor with conservative justices.

[rusty quoin]

52. You don't know that for sure. The thing is you hold onto as much power as you can.

If anything, we learned that from Republicans and the Democrats need to do the same.

If Gore won, which he did, there was a chance to stop the horrific stuff that happened. What actually happened just put us further in a hole.

I don’t think anyone can predict elections. It’s now all about doing things that keep the other guy from winning, like Mitch did with Obama’s Supreme Court choice.

If we get beyond that, maybe we can bring it back to normal and the ability to predict elections.

[Liberty Belle]

53. 911 would have never happened. Gore would have paid attention to the briefing

that warned bin Ladin was determined to strike inside the US with airplanes. He would likely have gotten info to all airport security personnel about everyone on the terrorist watch list and the hijackers would never have gotten on board planes.

That would mean no invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved, as well as taxpayer dollars spent on those wars.

We would have seen a massive effort to curtail climate change with the U.S. being a global leader.

Would he have been elected to a second term? Most likely barring something catastrophic. If so, we would have progressives controlling the Supreme Court today.

We might never have seen the disastrous Citizens United ruling.

Perhaps we would not have seen the disaffected blue collars workers turning en mass to elect Trump, but that 's hard to say.

On the other hand, if we hadn't had a disastrous George W Bush presidency, we might never have seen the election of Barack Obama, either. Since elections for president tend to swing back and forth party-wise, we might have had a Republican like John McCain instead of Obama.

But overall the world would be a much better place today if Gore had won, or if the votes for him had been allowed to be counted.

[roamer65]

54. Bingo. 9/11 would have been foiled.

Even if it had happened, Gore would have done surgical strikes in Afghanistan and there would have been no invasion of Iraq.

[mahina]

55. I can hardly bear to think of it.

No joke.

[Meowmee]

57. Gore won

He had bad legal advice and he didn't do a full state recount. It is hard to say what would have happened. I don’t think 9/11 would have happened. It would be a different world.

[D_Master81]

58. Hard to say

would 9/11 happened? Maybe, maybe not. I cant say it wouldn't have, b/c even had he taken it more seriously which he undoubtedly would've, that doesnt mean the attack would've been stopped. But even if it had been stopped, I think a Republican would've won in 2004. It would've been 3 straight Dem wins coming off a narrow victory I think the country would've swung back to the GOP. It seems the country doesnt like to have the same party in the WH for more than a couple terms.