2000 : Gore vs Bush if the Electoral College was a 269-269 tie (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 07, 2024, 12:17:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  2000 : Gore vs Bush if the Electoral College was a 269-269 tie (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2000 : Gore vs Bush if the Electoral College was a 269-269 tie  (Read 1336 times)
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,337
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

« on: March 25, 2019, 09:06:06 PM »

All 28 states would vote for W so W would win via the House.

I could see someone like Mike Castle abstaining for political cover, so I think he wins 27 states instead of 28
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,337
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2019, 08:20:00 AM »

Then i guess Barbara Lett-Simmons woudnt abstain and vote for Gore

270-268

No abstaining means, you don't vote so Bush's 271-267 victory was 271-266, in their scenario, she doesn't abstain, because Gore has 269 votes, not 268

Also with the House vote, I see Mike Castle abstaining for political cover, especially after Bill Roth's landslide loss

I see all Dem delegations go for Gore, including AR, WV, and MS, of these only MS is concerning, and Shows and Taylor would easily win reelection anyway

So, it's really 27-18, with 5 abstentions (Castle+the 4 deadlocked delegations)

The Senate is interesting, it would deadlock 50-50

Meaning that Dennis Hastert would be VP

But I think at least 1 or 2 of the following cross party lines and vote for the moderate Lieberman:Jeffords, Campbell, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Specter, Chaffee, Bennett, Warner

Ben Nelson and Zell Miller are the only possible Democratuc defections, and I doubt either defects


So we have in order of likelihood

Bush-Lieberman administration (still, pretty much the same as IRL, because Lieberman was a hawk, I think he would actually switch parties ITTL, because of the growing importantance of foreign policy, also Nancy Johnson probably fills his seat, she would probably beat Ned Lamont in 2006, and then lose to Murphy in 2012, but Senator Nancy Johnson means a 59-41 Dem majority during the Obama years, changing history forever)

Bush-Hastert adminstration (Here, the Senate deadlocks on party lines, and Speaker Hastert becomes VP, so Dick Armey becomes Speaker, but in 2003, Tom DeLay becomes Speaker, his scandals become a distraction to the GOP and the 2006 midterms are even worse, with Demixrats picking up some missed low hanging fruit (Gerlach), also Harold Ford probably becomes a Senator (only to be Blanched in 2012). So, then Roy Blunt is Speaker, and would be serving as Minority Leader in 2010, ITTL, I doubt, that he runs for Senate, it's basically a redux of the 2012 primary and Todd Akin happens two years earlier, Akin loses by double digits to Carnahan. Also in 2010, as Dems have an extra seat, Scott Brown's victory still leaves Dems with filibuster-proof majorityMeaning that the Senate is 55-45 in 2010, with two extra Dem seats. McCaskill goes down in 2012 to Sarah Steelman with no Akin, and Ford is Blanched, everything else is OTL. Everything else is same as OTL, except Carnahan wins reelection in 2016, over Ann Wagner. So, the Senate balance is 51-49, ND Doug Jones victory, deadlocks the Senate.

Bush-Cheney (requires Nelson and Miller to cross party lines, OTL, except Nelson and Miller likely buck party more, Miller may actually switch to Republicans, offsetting Jeffords switch
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.