Post-Gore US Elections

[oshron]

hey, all. as part of my ATL, i decided to do a reverse of the 2000 election due to butterflies in which Gore is elected instead of Bush, but there's controversy over his election which results in him being just a one-term president. another effect of this ATL is that there's no 9/11, and therefore no war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

so i'd like to get some opinions as to what elections from this point onward would be, including projections for what the 2012 election ITTL could be. i currently have the election in 2004 going to Jeb Bush--who, due to butterflies, has presidential aspirations ITTL instead of W--but what does everyone else think?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I think 9 11 gives Gore the same boost it gave Bush. Also since Gore does not invade Iraq, he is not dragged down by an unpopular war Gore wins in 2004. Due to the economic collapse, a Republican wins in 2008. In a Republican adminstration there is no stimulas package. The recession is worse and a Democrat wins in 2012.

 

[oshron]

well i imagine that gore would have been re-elected under normal circumstances, but im mainly asking about what it would look like if he was nearly impeached due to an election controversy. for TTL, the one who gets elected in 2004 is a republican

 

[wolf_brother]

I think you're making the big assumption that 9/11 happens on schedule, or even an analogue, with a POD in or before 2000. Besides the Clinton administration was big on hunting down terrorists; there's no reason to believe that Gore wouldn't continue that tradition.

 

[oshron]

im not saying that there's no Al-Qaeda or terrorists ITTL, but 9/11 itself is just butterflied away. maybe OBL happens to be killed during the Gulf War, or maybe Clinton's administration gets him.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Please use the search function as there are numerous threads which discuss the very questions you're asking. Recent ones include:
Gore wins in 2000, McCain the Republican challenger in 2004...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=214173
Foreign policy of an Al Gore Administration (and his successor(s))
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=213789
2000: Gore wins, loses to Bush in a rematch in 2004
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=209631

There are also several "WI no 9-11" threads as well.

 

[DanMcCollum]

im not saying that there's no Al-Qaeda or terrorists ITTL, but 9/11 itself is just butterflied away. maybe OBL happens to be killed during the Gulf War, or maybe Clinton's administration gets him.

The problem is that thew clinton administration had plans to go after Bin Laden. The plans were, for lack of a better term, left on the desk for W who ignored them. Gore is less likely to do so; which means that there is a very good chance that *9/11 doesn't happen under Gore, because the terrorists are caught before hand.
Now, in that situation, i suspect that Gore continues most of the economic policies of the Clinton administration. He will strengthen the EPA and so forth, but I don't see Gore really doing anything radical. Come 2004, Gore may face McCain (the most electable Republican) and I think he manages to win.
The economic panic of 2008 still occures, and we're likely looking at President Romney or Huckabee in that case. As 2012 dawns, the Democrats find themselves in a three way race between Senators HIllary Clinton, Barrack Obama and former-governor Howard Dean (Or, and this is the Wisconsinite in me, maybe Senator Russ Feingold)

 

[January First-of-May]

I think he means something like one of my started-but-never-continued TLs That is, a POD in November 2000, some sort of reverse Bush v. Gore, and then, on January 5 or so, the recount results come in - and Gore wins (Florida, that is) by one or two votes. And Bush can't do anything, because it's Jan 5 already, and the House has to count the electoral votes next day, and it can't do it if there aren't any... that will certainly stir the controversy over the election.

 

[Tom Veil]

Gore is elected instead of Bush, but there's controversy over his election which results in him being just a one-term president.

If Bush's 2000 election wasn't controversial enough to get him beat in 2004, I doubt Gore is capable of doing anything worse. Short of ordering the CIA to assassinate Bush, how do you get more controversial than the Supreme Court ordering Florida to not count all the ballots?

 

[oshron]

my main thought was that there's controversy over the election from day one and seeming evidence comes up in 2003; it turns out to be false, but the damage is done and gore's reputation is ruined. this is also coupled with the 2002 stock market crash and the fact that there's no major war to convince people that the guy in office is the best option

 

[Apollo 20]

...The economic panic of 2008 still occures...

Probably, but not certain. A few different appointments, perhaps a different Congress that has a more pro-regulatory bent and a few people in power who see the danger in the housing bubble might lead to a somewhat different outcome. In fact, with no 9/11, Enron-style corporate corruption might get greater scrutiny and lead to more oversight. The Enron mess, which came to light a month after 9/11, was overshadowed by post-9/11 coverage and the war in Afghanistan. It was a big story even then, but probably would have been much bigger in the absence of 9/11 -- and Ken Lay's ties to Bush would certainly have come to light, which any Democrat with half a brain would have found a way to exploit. I think in that case you get a weaker GOP and a political environment far more conducive to taking a critical eye at Wall Street and what's happening there. There was nothing inevitable about either the housing bubble or the financial crisis of 2008 and plenty of people who saw the potential for trouble.

 

[oshron]

i decided to stick with my original idea of (due to butterflies) Jeb Bush becoming president in the 2004 election. ITTL, Jeb is popular with several minority groups, but only got more of a base because of Gore's unpopularity in the previous administration. this and the recession mean that a democrat is elected in 2008, as IOTL, though for different reasons than IOTL

now im trying to figure out who the president from 2008 to 2012 will be ITTL. i'll default back to obama if all else fails, but would like to explore other realistic options as well. one that possibly comes up could be Ralph Nader who, due to butterflies, would be on the democratic ticket ITTL instead of going as an independent. chances are, whoever gets picked here will also be re-elected for the 2012 election ITTL, but after that, who knows? i may well have to make a new thread for the 2016 election and onwards

 

[Francois]

9/11 still occurs since the planning was already underway by that time and since Clinton's response to terrorism was way too weak in OTL and Gore simply continues his policies.

2004: Gore narrowly beats McCain in an election focused on the threat of terrorism.
2008: George Allen or Jeb Bush beats Hillary Clinton in a landslide once the financial crisis and Great Recession occur.
2012: Allen or Bush is defeated by Mark Warner after he fails to significantly improve the economy.
2016: Mark Warner is reelected due to the economic recovery
2020: Mark Warner's VP wins the Presidency