What if Al Gore had picked John Edwards to be his running mate in 2000 instead?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 06:26:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  What if Al Gore had picked John Edwards to be his running mate in 2000 instead?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What if Al Gore had picked John Edwards to be his running mate in 2000 instead?  (Read 3063 times)
ShadowRocket
cb48026
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,461


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 17, 2012, 04:07:51 PM »

Ignoring the fact that the guy is a scumbucket for a moment.

As with Kerry in RL, he wouldn't have flipped NC and would've been even less experienced at that point in time, but it seems to me that he would've given the ticket an energy boost like Palin did with McCain in '08.

Would it have made a difference?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 04:28:57 PM »

Nope.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 04:30:41 PM »

Ignoring the fact that the guy is a scumbucket for a moment.

As with Kerry in RL, he wouldn't have flipped NC and would've been even less experienced at that point in time, but it seems to me that he would've given the ticket an energy boost like Palin did with McCain in '08.

Would it have made a difference?

There wouldn't have been the controversy that had actually occurred in 2000 methinks.
Logged
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 05:18:37 PM »

Edwards had only been Senator since 1998, so I doubt he would have been picked. Gore probably should have picked Senator Bob Graham (FL) instead. I read once that Graham was not picked because he kept a diary of his life detailing almost every hour of his life, and that Gore's campaign was worried that people would find that odd.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2012, 09:07:45 AM »

Bush still "wins", and is reelected in 2004 (defeating whoever the Dems nominate, which might still have been Kerry, or even Edwards himself).  But the biggest change is for Lieberman.  Without his 2000 VP candidacy, he never gets the presidential bug himself, and doesn't run for prez in 2004.  He doesn't feel the same resentment towards his own party that he did IRL for rejecting him so soundly in the 2004 primaries, and so doesn't pick so many fights with the Democratic base.  (He still votes for the Iraq War, of course, but lots of other Dems did as well, so there's nothing remarkable about that.)  There's no Lamont primary challenge in 2006, and Lieberman is reelected as a Democratic rather than a 3rd party candidate.  He doesn't threaten to filibuster the Affordable Care Act in 2009 if it includes a public option.  In fact, all of the Senate Dems end up hanging together to vote for the ACA with the public option included, and it passes with 60 votes before Ted Kennedy passes away.  Since the act includes a public option, there's more of a distinction between it and Romneycare, and Romney has an easier time in the 2012 primaries, because he's less vulnerable on health care.  Pawlenty never tries to use the "Obamneycare" attack on Romney, and so never looks weak in the debate for not pressing that line of attack to his face.  Pawlenty thus doesn't do so badly in the Iowa straw poll, stays in the race through the implosions of Perry, Cain, and Gingrich, and ends up being Romney's most formidable challenger in the end.  Romney still wins the nomination in the end, but ends up naming Pawlenty his running mate.  Romney/Pawlenty loses to Obama/Biden, but Pawlenty performs well on the trail, and ends up becoming the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.  The 2016 presidential race turns out to be an all-Minnesota affair, between Republican Tim Pawlenty, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, and Independent Jesse Ventura.  Ventura does surprisingly well, because he uses the campaign ad maker from his 1998 gubernatorial campaign.  Pawlenty releases a series of movie trailers (in 3D), and Klobuchar initially has her campaign ads done by little-known documentary filmmaker Rielle Hunter, who attempts to have a lesbian affair with Klobuchar, but is rebuffed.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2012, 01:11:44 PM »

Bush still "wins", and is reelected in 2004 (defeating whoever the Dems nominate, which might still have been Kerry, or even Edwards himself).  But the biggest change is for Lieberman.  Without his 2000 VP candidacy, he never gets the presidential bug himself, and doesn't run for prez in 2004.  He doesn't feel the same resentment towards his own party that he did IRL for rejecting him so soundly in the 2004 primaries, and so doesn't pick so many fights with the Democratic base.  (He still votes for the Iraq War, of course, but lots of other Dems did as well, so there's nothing remarkable about that.)  There's no Lamont primary challenge in 2006, and Lieberman is reelected as a Democratic rather than a 3rd party candidate.  He doesn't threaten to filibuster the Affordable Care Act in 2009 if it includes a public option.  In fact, all of the Senate Dems end up hanging together to vote for the ACA with the public option included, and it passes with 60 votes before Ted Kennedy passes away.  Since the act includes a public option, there's more of a distinction between it and Romneycare, and Romney has an easier time in the 2012 primaries, because he's less vulnerable on health care.  Pawlenty never tries to use the "Obamneycare" attack on Romney, and so never looks weak in the debate for not pressing that line of attack to his face.  Pawlenty thus doesn't do so badly in the Iowa straw poll, stays in the race through the implosions of Perry, Cain, and Gingrich, and ends up being Romney's most formidable challenger in the end.  Romney still wins the nomination in the end, but ends up naming Pawlenty his running mate.  Romney/Pawlenty loses to Obama/Biden, but Pawlenty performs well on the trail, and ends up becoming the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.  The 2016 presidential race turns out to be an all-Minnesota affair, between Republican Tim Pawlenty, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, and Independent Jesse Ventura.  Ventura does surprisingly well, because he uses the campaign ad maker from his 1998 gubernatorial campaign.  Pawlenty releases a series of movie trailers (in 3D), and Klobuchar initially has her campaign ads done by little-known documentary filmmaker Rielle Hunter, who attempts to have a lesbian affair with Klobuchar, but is rebuffed.


Make this a timeline.
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2012, 02:33:54 PM »

Bob Shrum was one several top Gore adivers who suggested picking Edwards. They believed that the campaign lacked in enthusiasm. Edwards was seen as a "rock star" who could get out the vote among the Democratic base. Whether or not this is true, I don't think Edwards would have given Gore the bump necessary to help him win the election. He may have helped in the South, but not enough to swing any states. Also, Lieberman proved to be a major boost in Florida. So it's quite plausible that the results in Florida wouldn't have been as close as they were in real life. As far as the future goes, Edwards enters the 2004 Democratic primaries as an early fronturnner. There's a very good chance that he goes on to win the nomination with the added name recognition and fundraising that goes along with being the "next man up."
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 07:33:32 AM »

Bush still "wins", and is reelected in 2004 (defeating whoever the Dems nominate, which might still have been Kerry, or even Edwards himself).  But the biggest change is for Lieberman.  Without his 2000 VP candidacy, he never gets the presidential bug himself, and doesn't run for prez in 2004.  He doesn't feel the same resentment towards his own party that he did IRL for rejecting him so soundly in the 2004 primaries, and so doesn't pick so many fights with the Democratic base.  (He still votes for the Iraq War, of course, but lots of other Dems did as well, so there's nothing remarkable about that.)  There's no Lamont primary challenge in 2006, and Lieberman is reelected as a Democratic rather than a 3rd party candidate.  He doesn't threaten to filibuster the Affordable Care Act in 2009 if it includes a public option.  In fact, all of the Senate Dems end up hanging together to vote for the ACA with the public option included, and it passes with 60 votes before Ted Kennedy passes away.  Since the act includes a public option, there's more of a distinction between it and Romneycare, and Romney has an easier time in the 2012 primaries, because he's less vulnerable on health care.  Pawlenty never tries to use the "Obamneycare" attack on Romney, and so never looks weak in the debate for not pressing that line of attack to his face.  Pawlenty thus doesn't do so badly in the Iowa straw poll, stays in the race through the implosions of Perry, Cain, and Gingrich, and ends up being Romney's most formidable challenger in the end.  Romney still wins the nomination in the end, but ends up naming Pawlenty his running mate.  Romney/Pawlenty loses to Obama/Biden, but Pawlenty performs well on the trail, and ends up becoming the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.  The 2016 presidential race turns out to be an all-Minnesota affair, between Republican Tim Pawlenty, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, and Independent Jesse Ventura.  Ventura does surprisingly well, because he uses the campaign ad maker from his 1998 gubernatorial campaign.  Pawlenty releases a series of movie trailers (in 3D), and Klobuchar initially has her campaign ads done by little-known documentary filmmaker Rielle Hunter, who attempts to have a lesbian affair with Klobuchar, but is rebuffed.


Make this a timeline.
Logged
LiberalJunkie
LiberalJunkie99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 670
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 08:04:09 AM »
« Edited: September 19, 2012, 09:25:16 AM by LiberalJunkie99 »



Gore/Edwards 271 EV 46.7%
Bush/Cheney 266 EV 47.8%
Nader/LaDuke 0 EV 3.8%
Other 1EV
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,440
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 08:27:30 PM »

Hmm, interesting question.

I would guess that without Lieberman, Florida would not have been as close. Gore would still have lost, but there would not have been the controversial recount.

Edwards would start as the 2004 favorite in that primary. He might have a career-ending scandal even earlier, just because of his increased profile. That could have shaken up the race. It could have resulted in Dean being the nominee, as he seems the logical second choice for people who wanted someone more combative/ telegenic in the primary.

Without Edwards, there may have been more of an opening for Warner in 2008. So he might have been in the top-tier with Hillary and Obama.

Morden had a good point that Lieberman might not have been as polarized.

If Edwards didn't have a career-ending scandal, he probably would have been President in 2004. I think he would have been atrocious, due to his ego and personal failings. So 2008 would have been bad for the Democrats.
Logged
JFK-Democrat
Rookie
**
Posts: 193
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2012, 10:31:01 PM »

If Gore had picked Bob Graham he would've easily won Florida...no recount no Bush v Gore. Lieberman didn't get Gore any votes he wasn't going to get already. The increase turnout of African Americans - in Florida who were upset with Jeb Bush at the time won ...er..got Gore more votes in Florida.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.229 seconds with 12 queries.