One Term Gore?

[SilverPhantom2]

Really rough. Just a few ideas I want to throw around.

Gore wins Florida by a couple hundred votes. 9/11 hits, and Gore sends troops to Afghanistan. Of course, thanks to Clinton's slipshod military "advancements" Afghanistan brings ugly memories forward of Vietnam. President Gore brings NATO into the war, but American troops remain the majority of ground forces in the country. Gore tries to offset his bad international relations reputation by bringing up domestic issues such as global warming and the economy. Both of which he makes minor progress in.

2004 rolls around and the Democrats easily renominate Gore/Lieberman. The Republicans, seeing what Gore's done with the war, campaign off his failures and nominate who they should've nominated four years earlier: John McCain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[SilverPhantom2]

McCain's military experience proves enough to push him far over the edge against President Gore. He takes Florida, Iowa, and New Mexico over from Democratic hold. McCain wins 290 to 248.

McCain's term goes well. He beefs up the military, sends thousands more to Afghanistan. After plenty of international debate, in 2006 McCain allows US troops to spill into Pakistan and topple the corrupt regime. Intelligence estimates are reporting to the McCain Administration that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is supplying al-Qaeda and harboring terrorist agents. McCain debates going into Iraq as well, even going as far as setting up cabinet meetings with Hussein. Ultimately, they prove futile and nothing is done. McCain never invades Iraq, however he continues the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2008. The Democrats have an uphill battle. Terrorist leader after terrorist leader has been captured since they can hardly retreat into safety to Pakistan. India is all too happy to be an ally in capturing al-Qaeda agents retreating east. While Hillary Clinton, a Senator from New York is many Democrats first choice, memories of the Clintonian Gore administration come to memory. A young Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama becomes the prime candidate for the 2008 election. Yet, a young North Carolina senator, John Edwards becomes the Democratic dark horse candidate... and their sacrificial lamb against the popular John McCain. Of course, there are some issues some voters won't be moved on: global warming and the economy, which McCain hasn't helped with much. 

[Psychic Octopus]

Something tells me McCain would not have been the nominee. The GOp would nominate someone along the stripes of a George Allen, and he would choose Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas as his running mate.



McCain/Thompson: 328
Gore/Lieberman: 210

McCain is re-elected narrowly in 2008.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gore : 51%, 338 E.V.
McCain : 47%, 200 E.V.

Gore would certainly have led the war more efficiently than Bush, and he would be able to continue Clinton era's economical prosperity. He would not invade Irak for nothing. Oppositions would have been very strong, but he would win by a narrow margin.

[tmthforu94]

I think McCain would have gotten it, since he was a serious candidate in 2000. I wonder if Bush would have gone for it again...

McCain wins comfortably.

McCain: 338
Gore: 200

[Psychic Octopus]

Gore would certainly have led the war more efficiently than Bush, and he would be able to continue Clinton era's economical prosperity. He would not invade Irak for nothing. Oppositions would have been very strong, but he would win by a narrow margin.

Doubtful. McCain was a very strong candidate. It's hard to see a scenario in which McCain loses, barring 2008 of course. No Iraq of course, and there's no evidence he would have led the war in Afganistan more efficently then Bush, It would be about the same. As for economic prosperity, the dollar would have collapsed, as in real life, and the economy would be in a recession for a while.
But anyway, Gore would probably defeat a candiate other then, let's say, McCain, Allen, or Giuliani.

[Progressive]

BACHMANN FOR PRESIDENT??? GOD SAVE US ALL

[Daniel Z]

I believe with 9-11 Gore would have been able to win reelection in 2004, probably even against someone like McCain.  Really the only reason Kerry even came close to Bush in 04 was because of Iraq, and unless Gore had a much much larger involvement in Afghanistan that was wildly unsuccessfully I doubt Afghanistan would be an unpopular war three years after 9-11. I think the final map would look something like this:

Gore: 322
McCain: 216

Of course the Republicans would be a lock in 2008.

[SilverPhantom2]

Gore knows jack about the military. Clinton let our military rot. I don't see how Gore, with a Clinton-era military could outperform the Taliban in their homeland. I'm not saying Afghanistan is an unpopular war, just Gore's handling of it. McCain was a strong candidate in 2000, I would see Bush as a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2004, but with McCain's military background (which is basically what Kerry campaigned on, and McCain's a lot stronger in that area than Kerry) he can probably pull the nomination easily.

Might as well put it out there that Presidents have no control over the economy. 1940, the New Deal was ingrained into American society, unemployment STILL went up 11% going into 1941. It wasn't until the war that the NEw Deal began to make differences. Had there been no war, Roosevelt would've been done very fast.

[Daniel Z]

Gore knows jack about the military. Clinton let our military rot. I don't see how Gore, with a Clinton-era military could outperform the Taliban in their homeland. I'm not saying Afghanistan is an unpopular war, just Gore's handling of it. McCain was a strong candidate in 2000, I would see Bush as a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2004, but with McCain's military background (which is basically what Kerry campaigned on, and McCain's a lot stronger in that area than Kerry) he can probably pull the nomination easily.

Might as well put it out there that Presidents have no control over the economy. 1940, the New Deal was ingrained into American society, unemployment STILL went up 11% going into 1941. It wasn't until the war that the NEw Deal began to make differences. Had there been no war, Roosevelt would've been done very fast.

I agree that the President's control over the economy is overstated. However unemployment did not go up between the start of the New Deal and WW2. In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6 and by 1940 it had fallen to 14.6. Also Roosevelt was doing fine in terms of popularity before the war, he did win reelection in 1936 and 1940 by two of the greatest landslides in US history after all.

As for Gore losing reelection, I still don't see Afghanistan being unpopular enough to drag down Gore's numbers significantly. There is no reason to believe that he would have done any worse than Bush there and Afghanistan was still a popular war in 2004 for Bush. It was Iraq that Kerry really attacked on and without Iraq Bush probably would have won by a much larger margin.

[JWHart]

Gore knows jack about the military. Clinton let our military rot. I don't see how Gore, with a Clinton-era military could outperform the Taliban in their homeland.

You mean the same "Clinton-era military" that George Bush went to war with? Or do you honestly think he rebuilt the army from the ground up in nine months?

[hcallega]

First off, McCain would probably receive the nomination without much trouble. The GOP is very much a party of elder statesman and winning because it's "your time". McCain's INITIAL status as front runner in the 2008 GOP nomination (aka before the summer of 2007) would qualify as this. We also see this in 1996, 1988, 1980, and 1968. The GOP generally favors candidates it has seen before and that have been around the block. Thus McCain would probably only have to deal with the likes of Giuliani or Bush.

Second, I believe that Gore would have a lot of trouble defeating McCain. One has to assume that McCain is much more like the maverick of 2000 than the conservative of 2008, allowing him to do better in non-conservative areas like the Midwest. I believe that he would chose his good friend Fred Thompson as VEEP, to bring a degree of southern fried conservatism to the ticket.

McCain wins, 314-224.

As far as 2008 in this scenario, I believe that Hillary would win the nomination and potentially defeat McCain. Edwards would likely run, as would Richardson, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and Joe Lieberman. I don't believe Biden, Dodd, or Obama would run, as they would rather stay in the senate. Hillary wins and chooses Bill Nelson of Florida as her VEEP.

Hillary barely wins, 280-258

[SilverPhantom2]

Why would Hillary win? What changes?

[hcallega]

Well obviously a lot of things have changed. If you are referring to Obama, in this world he wouldn't even be a factor. The only reason he ran was that the war was going so poorly (when he declared) that he believed he had a shot (albeit small) to rest the nomination from Hillary. So if we don't go into Iraq (or start out with a larger ground force) then he probably just stays in the senate. I believe Hillary would beat McCain because of her fund raising base, her support among blue collar whites, and the fact that she would probably trounce her primary competition.

[Psychic Octopus]

Something tells me McCain would have won re-election in 2008. It would have been a close race against John Edwards, but some may hold his affair against him and mcCain will win re-election with 283 Electoral votes.