|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 03:38:01 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Dalla Piccola, Apocrypha)
  Bush vs. Gore 2004 with no 9/11
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Bush vs. Gore 2004 with no 9/11  (Read 2336 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 30, 2010, 07:07:51 pm »

There are thus no invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything else stays the same. You pcik the VPs. Discuss, with maps.
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderator
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2010, 07:09:21 pm »

Haven't you done this before?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2010, 07:10:34 pm »


I did, but I forgot to mention that there was no Iraq War.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2010, 07:26:25 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2010, 07:52:43 pm »

Bush/Cheney                330
Gore/Gephardt              208

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2010, 07:53:19 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2010, 07:54:02 pm »

Bush/Cheney                330
Gore/Gephardt              208



Even with Gephardt as VP, I think MI would have went Dem before MO.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2010, 12:13:43 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2010, 12:27:09 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2010, 01:52:49 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.
Logged
ComeAndTakeIt53
CalebR
Rookie
**
Posts: 58
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2010, 03:48:51 pm »

Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2010, 06:37:29 pm »


Hmm why Colorado may I ask?
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2010, 09:07:16 pm »



President George W. Bush / Vice President Richard B. "Dick" Cheney:  391 EV

Former Vice President Albert A. "Al" Gore, Jr. / Thomas J. "Tom" Vilsack:  147 EV
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 03:20:03 pm »

http://

I just realized after all my comments about this topic that I hadn't posted a map.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2010, 03:35:40 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2010, 03:44:00 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.

No but his outward and awkward behavior did.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2010, 03:45:05 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2010, 03:45:49 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.

No but his outward and awkward behavior did.

Again, if you're not going to provide any examples, I'm not going to believe you. I sure didn't see Gore acting any differently between 2001-2004 than he did as VP.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2010, 03:47:00 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2010, 03:49:54 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.

No but his outward and awkward behavior did.

Again, if you're not going to provide any examples, I'm not going to believe you. I sure didn't see Gore acting any differently between 2001-2004 than he did as VP.

Remember when he grew a beard and gained about 60 pounds in the 6 months following the 2000 election. That's not a sign of a healthy individual. His reaction to Abu-Grahib or whatever the democrats call it was completely off the hinges in tone when he said "he dragged the name of the U.S." regarding torture. His environmental policies would've been portrayed as over the top. I can see the ads right now of people driving down the highway in golf carts under a Gore Administration. Are those examples or are you just going to change the subject now?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2010, 03:51:08 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.

Tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. For instance, Clinton didn't cut taxes, yet job creation skyrocketed under his watch. And if Bush would have been successful in passing more tax cuts, that would have meant that our surplus would have either disappeared completely or shrank a lot, and that is another thing the Democrats could have hammered Bush for in 2004.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2010, 03:53:24 pm »

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

lol. Proof?

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.

No but his outward and awkward behavior did.

Again, if you're not going to provide any examples, I'm not going to believe you. I sure didn't see Gore acting any differently between 2001-2004 than he did as VP.

Remember when he grew a beard and gained about 60 pounds in the 6 months following the 2000 election. That's not a sign of a healthy individual. His reaction to Abu-Grahib or whatever the democrats call it was completely off the hinges in tone when he said "he dragged the name of the U.S." regarding torture. His environmental policies would've been portrayed as over the top. I can see the ads right now of people driving down the highway in golf carts under a Gore Administration. Are those examples or are you just going to change the subject now?

Gore shaved that beard before 2004 anyway, and thus it wasn't a big deal. If he gained some weight, he could just lose it later on and that wasn't a big deal either. Abu Ghraib was torture. And his environnmental policies were the same as they were in 2000 and the same as Clinton's, Kerry's, and Obama's. Thus, they wouldn't be considered extreme.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2010, 03:58:47 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.

Tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. For instance, Clinton didn't cut taxes, yet job creation skyrocketed under his watch. And if Bush would have been successful in passing more tax cuts, that would have meant that our surplus would have either disappeared completely or shrank a lot, and that is another thing the Democrats could have hammered Bush for in 2004.

No that's completely false. Clinton raised taxes and it killed the economy for another 2 years until the GOP took both houses and restored confidence in investments again. Computers and the dot come boom helped the economy, it was not the result of a government planned program written by bureaucrats and funded by tax dollars. Tax cuts do always create jobs and Bush's tax cuts led to 56 months of job growth. What you're referring to is a great economy that resulted from people inventing and selling without the help from big brother. Bill Gates and Microsoft are largely to thank. Remember too that by March of 2000 we had another recession starting that Bush can't be blamed for. That was from over investments and an overly extended boom in the 90's. So, it wasn't necessarily a great economy you're thinking of but one that only appeared to be great at that time.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2010, 04:05:26 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.

Tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. For instance, Clinton didn't cut taxes, yet job creation skyrocketed under his watch. And if Bush would have been successful in passing more tax cuts, that would have meant that our surplus would have either disappeared completely or shrank a lot, and that is another thing the Democrats could have hammered Bush for in 2004.

No that's completely false. Clinton raised taxes and it killed the economy for another 2 years until the GOP took both houses and restored confidence in investments again. Computers and the dot come boom helped the economy, it was not the result of a government planned program written by bureaucrats and funded by tax dollars. Tax cuts do always create jobs and Bush's tax cuts led to 56 months of job growth. What you're referring to is a great economy that resulted from people inventing and selling without the help from big brother. Bill Gates and Microsoft are largely to thank. Remember too that by March of 2000 we had another recession starting that Bush can't be blamed for. That was from over investments and an overly extended boom in the 90's. So, it wasn't necessarily a great economy you're thinking of but one that only appeared to be great at that time.

Actually, job growth was higher in 1993 and 1994 than in 1995, when the GOP regained control of Congress.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2010, 04:24:44 pm »



Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.

Tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. For instance, Clinton didn't cut taxes, yet job creation skyrocketed under his watch. And if Bush would have been successful in passing more tax cuts, that would have meant that our surplus would have either disappeared completely or shrank a lot, and that is another thing the Democrats could have hammered Bush for in 2004.

No that's completely false. Clinton raised taxes and it killed the economy for another 2 years until the GOP took both houses and restored confidence in investments again. Computers and the dot come boom helped the economy, it was not the result of a government planned program written by bureaucrats and funded by tax dollars. Tax cuts do always create jobs and Bush's tax cuts led to 56 months of job growth. What you're referring to is a great economy that resulted from people inventing and selling without the help from big brother. Bill Gates and Microsoft are largely to thank. Remember too that by March of 2000 we had another recession starting that Bush can't be blamed for. That was from over investments and an overly extended boom in the 90's. So, it wasn't necessarily a great economy you're thinking of but one that only appeared to be great at that time.

Actually, job growth was higher in 1993 and 1994 than in 1995, when the GOP regained control of Congress.

Uh-huh and what about 1996, 1997, and 1998. The only reason it was higher in 1993 and 1994 was because it had nowhere to go but up. Look at wealth creation though which is the real indicator of the economy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines