Gore wins in 2000
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:54:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Gore wins in 2000
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Gore wins in 2000  (Read 6823 times)
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2012, 04:22:32 PM »

You should be thankful he lost.  George W. Bush did more for the Democratic brand than Al Gore ever could.

Quote of the Thread.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2013, 07:06:57 PM »


No. Al Gore or Vice-President Carl Levin (I see him as the difference -- Gore wins Ohio) reads the intel on al-Qaeda and the FBI and INS go into action.  The 9/11 plot is thwarted, and two giant towers remain unmolested in New York City. Figures of the plot go on trial, are convicted, and end up in ADX Florence.

He might be only a one-term President, but we don't have the incompetent Dubya as President.   
Logged
sdu754
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2013, 01:29:31 AM »

What happens to the Republican party? Is George Bush blamed for losing because he was too moderate, running as a "Compassionate Conservative? Or is he consider too right wing and the moderates in the party take over?

I don't see how a Republican can be much more liberal/moderate than Bush. After all, Clinton was more conservative on many issues than Bush was. The moderates have already taken over the party. If anything, the republicans may have went more conservative. I don't think they would have, though, since the nominated Romney after McCains defeat.

Universal Healthcare, Green Energy, Peace, Surplus

"Universal Healthcare"
I really don't see how Al Gore could have gotten Universal Healthcare when Clinton and Obama failed. Obama even had a super majority in the Senate.

"Green Energy"
The government has been trying to push this. Solyndra anyone? It's impossible to force it down peoples throats when they don't want it. Bush put in a good deal of green subsidies

"Peace"
So 9/11 would have never happened, or Gore would have done nothing about it, so no Afghanistan war?

"Surplus"
First of all, the surplus was only on paper, the US government had to borrow more money every year Clinton was president. The surplus was due to taking money out of Social Security. Secondly, the surplus evaporated as soon as Bush became president. The tech bubble and 9/11 put an end to it. The only way Gore would have avoided spending more than Bush would have been if he would have had a harder time enacting Legislatioon.

Logged
sdu754
Rookie
**
Posts: 131
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2013, 01:36:40 AM »

I don't think we would have avoided 9/11.  Gore probably wouldn't have responded the way the Republican administration did, and with less money devoted to war expenditures, the economy wouldn't be as bad as it was in 2008 (but it would still be bad in 2004 due to 9/11).
The 2004 election against McCain would have been very close.
On one hand, Gore would have been sympathetic to the public due to being a leader through tough times, on the other hand, many would accuse him of not taking enough action against the terrorists.  People would probably also be tired of having a democratic administration for 12 years.

Depending on what happened in '04, America would be a completely different country now.

He probably wouldn't have gotten the popularity boost from 9/11 that Bush did.  I mean, I can't see him hugging the firefighters and not seeming awkward.  The Republican would start making a fuss about Iraq having WMD's, and then McCain would probably win.  Then, I guess we'd get the Iraq war in 2005 or so, but he wouldn't have supported the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Lieberman, as the former VP, would be the clear frontrunner for the nomination in 2008 at this point, so his support for the Iraq war would seriously boost its popularity, though Gore and probably Hilary Clinton would oppose it due to the information they'd gotten.  So by 2008, the war would be unpopular and the Dems would nominate Hilary for President (the anti-establishment/change feeling wouldn't be as much as in RL, so Obama wouldn't get it), and she'd probably pick someone like Feingold or another leftie to balance out her "establishment" feel.  And the financial crisis wouldn't come quite as bad without the Bush tax cuts, but it'd still be severe, and Hilary would probably beat McCain. 

I really don't understand how you can say the economy wouldn't have been as bad in 2008. The crisis had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts. It was due to the governments interference in the housing market via fannie mae & freddie mac. If anything the Gore economy would have been worse. Bush inherited a slumping economy that got worse because of 9/11. The tax cuts didn't take full effect until 2003, at which point, the economy picked up until the housing market bubble.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.031 seconds with 13 queries.