Gore 2000, Dukakis 1988, Nixon 1960

[bobloblaw]

I am sure this has been posted previously.

Gore wins 2000:
I actually think very little would have changed. 9-11 still happens (it was planned back in 1995), tax cuts still happen though maybe a different type (There is no way Gore vetos a tax cut bill when the economy is losing 100-200k jobs per month in the summer of 2001). Nothing on AWG or gun control legislation. US still goes to war in Afghanistan. Iraq is less likely. But the blame for 9-11 falls squarely on the Dems.
Does Gore win in 2004?


Dukakis wins 1988:
I actually think this is the possible death knell for the Dem party.
The 1990-91 recession still happens.
Iraq invades Kuwait and Dukakis dithers.
Perot doesnt run in 1992.
Dukakis loses a landslide in 1992 to just about any GOPer.
After having screwed up 1977-81, so badly another screw up so soon, keeps the Dems out of power until 2004 or even 2008.


Nixon 1960:
I think nothing changes domestically as JFK didnt do anything domestically. Civil Rights could be a huge changer. Does nothing happen or does Nixon, not needing the South in 1964, push ahead where JFK couldnt (But LBJ could)? This outcome could change every election from 1964 onward.

On foreign policy, I think the biggest impact is No Cuban Missile Crisis. The Bay of Pigs still fails but the Soviets dont underestimate Nixon like they did JFK. They dont put medium range SS-20s in Cuba.

Historians think JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis well. He handled it as well as it could have been handled, but it never needed to happen in the first place. The Cuban Missile Crisis isnt inevitable. It was caused in response to the Bay of Pigs, get a straetgic advantage over the USA. But it mostly happend because the USSR thought they could get away with it with a young, unaccomplished playboy in the WH. With Nixon that is much less likely, with a 3rd Eisenhower term is is near impossible that the USSR would have made such a bold move.

Opinions?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think Gore would have had a hard time in '04 because of 12 years of the same party. Democrats would have completely owned 9/11 and the '01 recession I agree that some kind of tax cut was inevitable, but it wouldn't have been as large. Jeffords switch likely doesn't happen. And no, Democrats don't already control the Senate in this scenario..remember, Lieberman resigns his seat and Rowland (R) appoints his successor. Republicans nominate McCain. Sure, he's not popular with the base, but the base would've been so desperate to win back the White House at this point that they would've held their noses for him.

Dukakis '88: I'm not seeing Dukakis handling the end of the Cold War as competently either...he just didn't have all the diplomatic experience Bush had. On domestic policy, I could see him doing what Clinton and Obama did in the first two years and overreaching, producing a backlash in the '90 midterm elections. The D's House majority was probably too large to lose, but they might've lost the Senate. Whether he wins in 1992 depends largely on whether the economy has the same trajectory. If it's the same, he likely loses. One thing in his favor, however, is the'd be serving the first term for his party, unlike Bush. If Dukakis wins a second term, the R's win the House in '94 just like IRL.

Nixon '60: I don't see it being that different from his real life presidency honestly...

[bobloblaw]

I think Gore would have had a hard time in '04 because of 12 years of the same party. Democrats would have completely owned 9/11 and the '01 recession I agree that some kind of tax cut was inevitable, but it wouldn't have been as large. Jeffords switch likely doesn't happen. And no, Democrats don't already control the Senate in this scenario..remember, Lieberman resigns his seat and Rowland (R) appoints his successor. Republicans nominate McCain. Sure, he's not popular with the base, but the base would've been so desperate to win back the White House at this point that they would've held their noses for him.

Dukakis '88: I'm not seeing Dukakis handling the end of the Cold War as competently either...he just didn't have all the diplomatic experience Bush had. On domestic policy, I could see him doing what Clinton and Obama did in the first two years and overreaching, producing a backlash in the '90 midterm elections. The D's House majority was probably too large to lose, but they might've lost the Senate. Whether he wins in 1992 depends largely on whether the economy has the same trajectory. If it's the same, he likely loses. One thing in his favor, however, is the'd be serving the first term for his party, unlike Bush. If Dukakis wins a second term, the R's win the House in '94 just like IRL.

Nixon '60: I don't see it being that different from his real life presidency honestly...

Watergate was the result of Nixon losing in 1960 and almost losing in 1968. A President Nixon in 1961 wouldnt have been as criminal

[Kevin]

I am sure this has been posted previously.

Gore wins 2000:
I actually think very little would have changed. 9-11 still happens (it was planned back in 1995), tax cuts still happen though maybe a different type (There is no way Gore vetos a tax cut bill when the economy is losing 100-200k jobs per month in the summer of 2001). Nothing on AWG or gun control legislation. US still goes to war in Afghanistan. Iraq is less likely. But the blame for 9-11 falls squarely on the Dems.
Does Gore win in 2004?

I agree with some parts of that like AWG, Gun Control, Civil Liberties and the Iraq War being less likely to happen. Foreign Policy and conflicts abroad would have been a huge part of a Gore Presidency like it was for GWB. I think Gore still would have pursued free trade agreements and more public-private partnerships across the board like Clinton/Bush did, and a general Neoliberal outlook like the past 3 Presidents.

However, I don't see Gore pushing for tax cuts(except maybe for the lower income brackets) or allowing the Brady Bill to expire. I also think a Gore Administration would have pushed harder on things like global climate change, Social Security, and many aspects of Health Care.

Also I think him and the Democrats would gain politically from the 9/11 attacks and resulting crises throughout 2001-02.  The Dems would probably hold the Senate  from 2001-2007 and Gore probably would have won reelection 2004 over a weaker generic R despite the post 9/11 economy, various bad political moves, and Gore's general tone deafness dragging him down.

Gore's 2nd term would have been a disaster imo along the lines of Bush. His push for more progressive reforms on issues like social security, health care, and the environment go down in flames in Congress. While the war in Afghanistan and problems in the Middle East heat up and make Gore look like a poor leader on national security/foreign policy issues along with Katrina, and immigration. Meanwhile gas prices increase sharply, the housing market slows down, and the economy in general slows down dramatically. Combined with numerous scandals in his Administration and general dysfunction.

As a result of all of this and the oncoming Great Recession the 2006 Midterms and 2008 elections are disasters for the Democrats across the board. With the Dem's decisively losing 7-10 seats in the Senate in 2006, and sinking to a much lower point in the House. While they lose the Presidency in 2008 to ether Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. President Gore leaves office in January of 2009 with low approvals and with his party completely shut out of government on every level.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with everything here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tbh I have no idea about Nixon.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think Gore would have had a hard time in '04 because of 12 years of the same party. Democrats would have completely owned 9/11 and the '01 recession I agree that some kind of tax cut was inevitable, but it wouldn't have been as large. Jeffords switch likely doesn't happen. And no, Democrats don't already control the Senate in this scenario..remember, Lieberman resigns his seat and Rowland (R) appoints his successor. Republicans nominate McCain. Sure, he's not popular with the base, but the base would've been so desperate to win back the White House at this point that they would've held their noses for him.

Dukakis '88: I'm not seeing Dukakis handling the end of the Cold War as competently either...he just didn't have all the diplomatic experience Bush had. On domestic policy, I could see him doing what Clinton and Obama did in the first two years and overreaching, producing a backlash in the '90 midterm elections. The D's House majority was probably too large to lose, but they might've lost the Senate. Whether he wins in 1992 depends largely on whether the economy has the same trajectory. If it's the same, he likely loses. One thing in his favor, however, is the'd be serving the first term for his party, unlike Bush. If Dukakis wins a second term, the R's win the House in '94 just like IRL.

Nixon '60: I don't see it being that different from his real life presidency honestly...

Watergate was the result of Nixon losing in 1960 and almost losing in 1968. A President Nixon in 1961 wouldnt have been as criminal

Yeah, you're probably right there. What I meant he'd still be dealing with a heavily Democratic Congress just like in real life, so no major rightward turn on domestic policy. Hell, Nixon probably wouldn't have pushed for the tax cut that Kennedy did and thus no 60s economic boom. Also, it's very unclear what happens to the Civil Rights Act here. Nixon had a pro-civil rights record, but I'm not sure he would've made it a priority or could've gotten it through Congress (he wasn't as experienced a legislator as LBJ). Nixon probably does handle foreign policy better than it was IRL. Like what I said, ultimately not much different from his real life administration...