How Come Gore Didn't Pick a Female VP in 2000?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Who was available that wouldn't have been seen as a pander for the woman's vote as Ferraro and Palin were?  It's not enough to pick a woman, it has to be a credible woman who can legitimately be seen as a possible president.  Selecting a woman who's only obvious qualification to be on the ticket was her gender would have hurt Gore, not helped.  The only woman to make Gore's shortlist, Gov. Shaheen of New Hampshire asked to not be considered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The female support that Feinstein would have delivered might have very well compensated for the loss of Nader voters. Besides, many Nader voters were progressives, and voting for a female VP is pretty progressive, so Feinstein might have also helped with the Nader voters.

That's a rather cynical view of voters.  “Oooh!  I'm voting for a woman, so I must a progressive.”  Sadly, in some circumstances. cynicism is justified.

However, Feinstein suffered from the same problem as Shaheen in 2000, namely that she was already running for an office as she was up for reelection that year.  Even if California law would allow her to run for two offices simultaneously (some states do; some don't) it's generally not considered a good move.  There's also the question of whether either Feinstein or Murray would have wanted to trade a Senate seat for the Vice-Presidency.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They might have. Murray's seat was not up for election in 2000, I believe, so she had nothing to lose. Maybe one of them (and/or Shaheen) would have agreed to run for VP (and sacrifice their current office) if Gore promised them that he would also campaign with Clinton (thus almost guaranteeing a Gore win) and that he would support them if they ever ran for President themselves. I think that if someone was offered the Vice Presidency or a position in the Senate, most people would have picked the Vice Presidency, especially considering that they could return to the Senate after their Vice Presidential term(s) is/are over.

Even if Gore had won in 2000, the chances of the Democrats holding onto the White House in both 2004 and 2008 would be extremely small.  Being Gore's running mate was not a smart move for someone seeking the Presidency.  Nor would returning to the Senate later have been a sure thing.  More often than not ex-Vice Presidents seeking elective office afterward have failed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW, do you think Gore would have been reelected?

Possibly, but a lot would have depended on how 9/11and the response to it was (mis)handled. If he had, then after 16 years of one party in control of the White House, the public would have been antsy for change, so any Democrat would have an extremely rough time in 2008 even without an economic downturn.  Even a mild version of the housing bubble bursting in 2008 would have doomed a 16-year incumbent party regardless of which party it was.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, but don't you think that Republicans would have used Gore's extremely low job creation numbers and sluggish economic record against him in 2004 when Gore would have ran for reelection? I think that someone like McCain could hammer Gore well enough on those points without alienating moderate voters to defeat Gore in 2004. I think foreign policy would not have mattered too much in 2004 if Gore was President, since the economy was still sluggish and people would thus be mainly worried about domestic concerns, similar to 1992. Even though I agree about 2008 being a Republican landslide if Gore would have served two terms.

Doubtful that economic history would have exactly the same, but even if it had, I think Gore would have a good chance of running against a do-nothing Republican Congress a la Truman to gain reelection.  The only way Gore would be at a significant disadvantage going into 2004 would have been if the Democrats retained the Senate and retook the House, which while possible would have unlikely.

Too many variables concerning what the effects of a Gore presidency would have been on foreign and economic outcomes to say for certain what the political landscape would have been in 2004.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently.

The lack of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would have had a significant effect on the economy, both for good and for ill. Though there probably would have been a milder, more sustainable tax cut passed in 2001 without the sunset gimmick the Bush taxcuts used to avoid running afoul of the PAYGO provisions. (No cut in inheritance taxes, or those on capital gains and dividends, while cuts in the income tax rates would have been skewed more to the lower end of the income spectrum.

With no War in Iraq to pay for, the budget would have been in much better shape both in the short and long term, which would have been a significant benefit to the economy.

BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes.

Given McCain's performance in the 2008 campaign, I can't see him as running a good campaign if the primary issue in the minds of the voters is the economy.

Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress.

Doubtful under any President that there would have been a recession in 2003-4.  At worst for Gore, the recession of 2001 would have extended into 2002, impacting the off-year elections negatively for the Democrats.

Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

McCain would have been a possibility, but not a lock.  Without being able to position himself as the anti-Bush of the GOP, I can't see McCain as being more than one of several contenders. Giuliani would have better able to take advantage of 9/11 in 2004 than he did in 2008. Huckabee and Tommy Thompson would also likely have run.  Probably some Republicans who declined to run in 2008 would have sought the Presidency in 2004, while neither Romney nor Fred Thompson would have run in 2004.  It's even possible that Dubya would have tried to set up a rematch with Gore.