2000 Without Nader?

[H. Ross Peron]

Florida may or may not flip, but NH does. Nader absolutely cost Gore the election.

9/11 still happens, Gore responds with limited military action in Afghanistan. McCain crushes him in '04.

Why would Gore get crushed necessarily? Without an Iraq War and a stable economy, I'd expect Gore's approval ratings to stabilize in the high 50s.

[SATW]

I don't think 9/11 would have happened under Gore, because I doubt he would have ignored the warnings as Bush did.

As for the election, Gore would have carried Florida without Nader on the ballot. Of course, with Bush's brother in charge, it was possible that Florida was always guaranteed to go to Bush.

Riiiight

[© tweed]

Normally I agree with TNF that it's stupid to blame third parties, but come on, he lost by literally 500 votes. At least 500 Nader votes would have switched to Gore.

it's not so much that you're wrong, it's the entitled attitude the (D)s have when despite selling is out time after time.  a progressive activist would have every reason to despise the Clinton presidency.

this coming from a left-revolutionary who does believe in voting Democratic in 'swing states'/genuinely contested races.  voting, nothing more.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Normally I agree with TNF that it's stupid to blame third parties, but come on, he lost by literally 500 votes. At least 500 Nader votes would have switched to Gore.

but if gore had gotten, say, 1000 more votes, jeb, harris, &co would have just increased their contribution by as much.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think 9/11 would have happened under Gore, because I doubt he would have ignored the warnings as Bush did.

What, specifically, would he have done that would have led to Mohamed Atta getting caught?

No one can say for sure that 9/11 would not have happened under Gore, but I do think that warning signs would not have been ignored.

You're not actually answering the question.  What was "ignored"?  The vague "Osama bin Laden" wants to attack us" warning?  Hard to see how things would have played out any differently unless you have a specific idea for what the alternative course of action would have been.

[emailking]

I don't know that a Gore administration would be more likely to actively prevent 9/11. But it's entirely possible it would not have happened, or would have happened substantially differently, just due to random chance.

If I recall correctly, the date was moved up when Moussaowi was caught. Maybe a different date would have been selected. I know they wanted a Tuesday, and there's probably some reason they picked 9/11 specifically, but those reasons might have been different if a whole other slew of events have happened in the last 10 months.

It's also possible that a different set of planes may have been delayed that morning. Remember, everybody's lives would have had at least slight variances in the last year. A given delay has a cause of course, but overall there is some randomness to it. (e.g. the weather that day, and leading up to that day, across the country would be completely different due to the butterfly effect.) The White House or Capitol Building may be gone, if the Pennsylvania plane wasn't delayed. Or maybe one (or both) of the towers would still be standing, if one of those planes were delayed.

Maybe a different pilot would have been caught early. Or maybe additional plotter would have been caught (e.g. wrong place, wrong time). The additional information may have led somebody, somewhere on the right path to unravel the entire plot.

My guess is 9/11, more or less, would have still happened. But there's really no way to know.

[SingingAnalyst]

Gore wins. All it would have taken is a net of 1% of the FL Nader vote to go to Gore, for example 97% don't vote, 2% vote Gore, and 1% vote Bush.

Gore 292
Bush 246

However, that is not the whole story. Nader may have energized enough WA voters to vote in Maria Cantwell, so she probably would have lost, making the Senate 51 R - 49 D even with Gore President. Interesting whether Jeffords would have abandoned the GOP in that scenario.

[SingingAnalyst]

I don't know that a Gore administration would be more likely to actively prevent 9/11. But it's entirely possible it would not have happened, or would have happened substantially differently, just due to random chance.

If I recall correctly, the date was moved up when Moussaowi was caught. Maybe a different date would have been selected. I know they wanted a Tuesday, and there's probably some reason they picked 9/11 specifically, but those reasons might have been different if a whole other slew of events have happened in the last 10 months.

It's also possible that a different set of planes may have been delayed that morning. Remember, everybody's lives would have had at least slight variances in the last year. A given delay has a cause of course, but overall there is some randomness to it. (e.g. the weather that day, and leading up to that day, across the country would be completely different due to the butterfly effect.) The White House or Capitol Building may be gone, if the Pennsylvania plane wasn't delayed. Or maybe one (or both) of the towers would still be standing, if one of those planes were delayed.

Maybe a different pilot would have been caught early. Or maybe additional plotter would have been caught (e.g. wrong place, wrong time). The additional information may have led somebody, somewhere on the right path to unravel the entire plot.

My guess is 9/11, more or less, would have still happened. But there's really no way to know.

Interesting speculation. And would that poor girl have been near Gabby Giffords on 1/8/11 if her DoB had no real significance. Harrowing and sad at the same time. The butterfly effect is real.

[Sumner 1868]

Many of these voters won't show up to the polls without Nader, so I don't think a Gore victory would be inevitable.

[IceSpear]

Many of these voters won't show up to the polls without Nader, so I don't think a Gore victory would be inevitable.

It wouldn't take very many for a swing of a few hundred votes in Florida.

[Lincoln Republican]

Gore was a terrible candidate.

If he would have won his home state of Tennessee he would not have had to worry about Florida.

[WVdemocrat]

Gore was a terrible candidate.

If he would have won his home state of Tennessee he would not have had to worry about Florida.

It was because of Gore that 2000 was even close. You have to remember that he trailed Bush throughout most of the campaign. It wasn't until the fall campaign when he really began to turn things around. Okay, Gore was stupid to not campaign with Clinton, but other than that, he ran a really good campaign.

Anyway, Gore would surely have won without Nader in the race. At least a few hundred would-be Nader voters would still vote, and would vote for Gore, in Florida.

[Sir Mohamed]

The answer is simple: It would have saved us from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.

[The Other Castro]

One hypothetical future: Gore wins 2000, wins reelection 2004. McCain wins 2008, picks Sarah Palin for VP. McCain dies from stress, Palin becomes president, starts WW3, we all die. Nader saved the world.

[Sumner 1868]

The answer is simple: It would have saved us from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.

Even without Nader, I think some kind of "left alternative" candidate was bound to get certain traction after the 1999 WTO conference. Not as many as Nader for sure, but still enough to possibly throw Florida.

[Sopranos Republican]

I don't think 9/11 would have happened under Gore, because I doubt he would have ignored the warnings as Bush did.