What if 9/11 occurs a year earlier?

[nini2287]

I think Gore wins because some Bush voters switch fearing Bush's lack of foreign policy experience.

[Q]

The same candidate would have received the most votes in that election.

[True Democrat]

Nader would have dropped out for unity's sake.  Here's a potential map:



New York might be stretching it, but: Gore wins 413-125

[George W. Hobbes]

North Carolina and Indiana become shaky as well, IMHO.

[© tweed]

Gore by about 55-43-2 Gore/Bush/Other

Bush wins in 2004 however in the rematch...

[Bdub]

Gore would win.

[Yates]

Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Gore.  I believe he would have kept the race close.

[Nym90]

Gore would win fairly easily.

[Gabu]

Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Gore.  I believe he would have kept the race close.

Maybe so, but you may recall what occurred immediately after 9/11: i.e., approval ratings of over 90%.  Had 9/11 happened a year earlier, it would have been less than two months from the presidential election.  If LBJ could carry the "rally around the president" feeling for a whole year after JFK was assassinated, I have no doubt that Gore could do the same for all of two months.

[minionofmidas]

Nader would have dropped out for unity's sake. 

No way. Nor should he have. He'd have struggled in vain to keep some rather more relevant issues at least somewhere on the national radar with his campaign, and probably gotten very bitter indeed.

Everything else said in this thread is fairly reasonable, btw.

[7,052,770]

depends on how the media spins it...

[Gabu]

depends on how the media spins it...

The media didn't particularly spin 9/11 all that much.  People just naturally gravitated towards support of the president in response to fear of the unknown.

[minionofmidas]

depends on how the media spins it...

The media didn't particularly spin 9/11 all that much.  People just naturally gravitated towards support of the president in response to fear of the unknown.

No ... the whole insistence on America (rather than New York, or the WTC and the Pentagon) Under Attack is definitely spin.

[WoosterLibertarian]

depends on how the media spins it...

i concur

[Reignman]

Gore wins comfortably, but not in a landslide.

I'm not so sure Nader would've dropped out tho.

[adam]

Gore probably. At a time like that, the last thing people want to do is change administrations and policies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush would win. Disaters only help Republicans.

[Frodo]

This would give Gore the landslide that he should have had all along. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Gore gives Bush the hiding that should have happened anyway.

Gore - 366 - 53.7%
Bush - 172 - 45.3%

[DownWithTheLeft]

Clinton probably doesn't do the gretaest job of handling it, people have a hard time rallying around him and like the usual people feel the Republicans do a better of handling National Security.  For this reason, usually safe Dem states still in a state of panic vote GOP and so do some other states that feel the GOP is tougher on terror:

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

Bush/Guillani 472
Gore/Lieberman 66

[nini2287]

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

The convention was in late July/early August so Bush would have had to have dumped Cheney in favor of Giuliani.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Assuming this happens in September 2000, after Bush had already chosen Cheney and less than 2 months before the election to change a VP candidate would've looked like patheitc opportunism- by that stage Clinton's approval ratings would be well into the 80s' and it's not long enough a period for Clinton to have fouled things up (and I think it's silly to make assumptions that he would) - I don't see how Gore doesn't wipe the floor with Doofus.

[Reignman]

[Lincoln Republican]

Clinton probably doesn't do the gretaest job of handling it, people have a hard time rallying around him and like the usual people feel the Republicans do a better of handling National Security.  For this reason, usually safe Dem states still in a state of panic vote GOP and so do some other states that feel the GOP is tougher on terror:

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

Bush/Guillani 472
Gore/Lieberman 66

That map is terribly exaggerated.  Even with Giuliani, under no circumstances does Bush win by that overwhelming margin.

No way Bush wins New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, California, likely not Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, possibly wins Iowa, Oregon, only possibly.

One must consider how Clinton handles the terror attacks, if he does well, Gore wins, if he drops the ball, Bush wins.    

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It would have to be a cock-up of spectacular proportions.