What if Gore Won?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Lets say Al Gore won Florida and squeaked out a win in the election.  Who would the Republicans be running right now?  Would gore be popular?  What would be different?

I think Frist would be the republican frontrunner.

[Gustaf]

Lets say Al Gore won Florida and squeaked out a win in the election.  Who would the Republicans be running right now?  Would gore be popular?  What would be different?

I think Frist would be the republican frontrunner.

Hm, the question is whether the whole international situation would be different and that is very biased. I think Gore would have been under a lot of pressure initially and most likely would have attacked Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure on Iraq. And that could make the situation today rather different. I think Gore would be much less popular than Bush is right now, b/c he will either be hated by his own base or by centrist voters, regardless of what he does.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Gore would not be as popular right now because he wouldn't have attacked Iraq.

[Nym90]

It depends on exactly how things had played out in Florida, I remember hearing during the recount that several prominent Republicans were saying that even if he loses, Bush would probably run again and be nominated in 2004 since he had run such a good race against long odds, especially if he had lost on the recount since the GOP would have been motivated to choose Bush again under the "we was robbed" argument.

[© Tweed the Younger]

It depends on exactly how things had played out in Florida, I remember hearing during the recount that several prominent Republicans were saying that even if he loses, Bush would probably run again and be nominated in 2004 since he had run such a good race against long odds, especially if he had lost on the recount since the GOP would have been motivated to choose Bush again under the "we was robbed" argument.

I was saying if Gore won Florida without all the recount hubbub.

[Gustaf]

It depends on exactly how things had played out in Florida, I remember hearing during the recount that several prominent Republicans were saying that even if he loses, Bush would probably run again and be nominated in 2004 since he had run such a good race against long odds, especially if he had lost on the recount since the GOP would have been motivated to choose Bush again under the "we was robbed" argument.

I was saying if Gore won Florida without all the recount hubbub.

If the election still was as close thre would still have been calls of a recount and basically the same kind of discussion.

I think Gore would lose this time, but I'm not sure.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I believe the Florida rule is if the election is within 2000 votes, so if Gore won by 2001 votes, no recount necessary.

[jravnsbo]

Bush would easily be a strong candidate ina race that close and Bush would not have looked petty by dragging it out like Gore did.


Another theory would be for Jeb to take on Gore as FL was close and Jeb is the Gov there.

[angus]

Miamiu1027,
Just a clarification.  Under Florida law, a manual recount is required when the difference is equal to, or less than, 1/4 of one percent of the total number of votes cast.  

[TheWildCard]

Well this is an interesting question.

Frist would be a contender but only under certain circumstances. The question is if Gore won would Trent Lott have been booted from his spot as Senator Minority Leader? If he did retain that spot Frist would not be in the picture at all.

George W. Bush would be in there for sure more then likely because he almost beat Gore and would more then likely pick someone from Florida to be his running mate.

Jeb would be considered to run aginst Gore but I think George would still get first dibs to run and Jeb would sit out.

McCain is another name that comes to mind even though he did say he wouldn't run again he might reconsider that under certain conditions

But theres one person who could be a major player in this case Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor" would be a hard candidate to beat.

Colin Powell would also be in the runnings as well and I'd say it would be a 3 way race between Powell, Giuliani and Bush to get the nomination.

As others have said, Gore probably would be less popular then Bush is right now due to the fact he wouldn't have gone into Iraq(not to mention Libya would not have ended their weapons program and N.Korea would also be a much bigger topic) but under a lot of pressure would have probably reluctantly gone into Afgahnistan.

Gore is a nice guy and all but I think he more then likely would have lost in '04 if he had pulled it out in 2000

[jravnsbo]

Welcome to the forum Wildcard!  Always nice to see another Republican.  Check out the atlas forum when you are done here, when you post 10 times you'll be eligible to vote.  We are having forum elections, look strongly at the GOP candidate supersoulty.

--Back to topic.  GWB would probably be nominee and maybe reach out to Mccain to draw in support.  Tough pill to swallow but enough to put him over hte toip, or possibly Powell for the ticket, slicing into Black vote some.

Plus case of lax foreign policy under Clinton leading to 9/11 could be made stronger rather than achange in administrations as we had now.

[12th Doctor]

Well this is an interesting question.

Frist would be a contender but only under certain circumstances. The question is if Gore won would Trent Lott have been booted from his spot as Senator Minority Leader? If he did retain that spot Frist would not be in the picture at all.

George W. Bush would be in there for sure more then likely because he almost beat Gore and would more then likely pick someone from Florida to be his running mate.

Jeb would be considered to run aginst Gore but I think George would still get first dibs to run and Jeb would sit out.

McCain is another name that comes to mind even though he did say he wouldn't run again he might reconsider that under certain conditions

But theres one person who could be a major player in this case Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor" would be a hard candidate to beat.

Colin Powell would also be in the runnings as well and I'd say it would be a 3 way race between Powell, Giuliani and Bush to get the nomination.

As others have said, Gore probably would be less popular then Bush is right now due to the fact he wouldn't have gone into Iraq(not to mention Libya would not have ended their weapons program and N.Korea would also be a much bigger topic) but under a lot of pressure would have probably reluctantly gone into Afgahnistan.

Gore is a nice guy and all but I think he more then likely would have lost in '04 if he had pulled it out in 2000

Plus, with Gore as president, people would be more inclined to blame the ressession (which has been long over) on Clinton and the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to scape-goat for it.

[jravnsbo]

PLus with Gore, that means no tax cuts and thus no recovery too, so he would have a recession yet to deal with in2004.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Gore would have attacked to Afghanistan. No doubt! And also he would have been very popular after September 2001. He would have done exactly same things than Bush but with different style of cource! I don't know what kind of situation would be right now without Iraq War. Perhaps there would not been lot of pressure  to war without Bush's goverment at all. O'Neill told what we all already knew. Bush wanted that war earlier than in September 2001. Saddam is murderer and my opion is that he deserve to death sentence but he didn't attack to New York and Washington. It was Osama and where he is. USA operation in Afghanistan was/is very very justifield, but in Iraq it is...well at least doubtful.

[© Tweed the Younger]

And good points I completely forgot about the ressesion which in my opinion started in the last year of the Clinton administration(Believe me I own stocks and mine started falling before Bush took office)

Stocks started to fall because of the posibility of a Bush presidency, which killed the economy 8 years before.

Thanks for the clarification, Angus.

[Michael Z]

I can only echo what other members have said: there's no doubt Gore would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. Any President would have done so.

However, it's extremely unlikely that Gore would have attacked Iraq; in all likelihood his emphasis would have been on finding a peace accord between Israel and Palestine, which, possibly would have failed and resulted in a Carter-esque defeat in 2004 against Giuliani or McCain.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Giuliani or McCain.

Why do you think the GOP would have nominated a moderate?

[Michael Z]

Giuliani or McCain.

Why do you think the GOP would have nominated a moderate?

Good question, and one I don't actually know the answer to if I'm honest (LOL). Perhaps the moderates would have taken over the Republican Party after the Neocons' choice of candidate, GWB, failed to secure the White House? Either way, I don't think they would have chosen GWB a second time. Choosing his brother Jeb would have aroused cries of "Dynasty!". Rumsfeld or Cheney lack the necessary mass appeal. The logical conclusion would have been Giuliani (easily one of the most popular politicians on the country after 9/11) or McCain (the most prominent Republican after the ones I just listed).

Like your new sig, btw.

[TheWildCard]

And good points I completely forgot about the ressesion which in my opinion started in the last year of the Clinton administration(Believe me I own stocks and mine started falling before Bush took office)

Stocks started to fall because of the posibility of a Bush presidency, which killed the economy 8 years before.

Thanks for the clarification, Angus.

Come on man all I'm doing is speaking the truth for myself anyway. all my stocks took a major slide the first week of Jan. 2000 and never started to regain what they lost until now. Don't believe me? Well thats cool you're entitled to your opinion and I have mine.

[WONK]

President has very little to do with economy.  Capitalist economy, by nature, runs on this cycle.  Any claims to the contrary i.e., Clinton responsible for 90's boom, Bush responsible for recession, and yes, even Bush responsible for end of recession are simply false.  They are simply economic trends which happened on each president's watch.

[TheWildCard]

President has very little to do with economy.  Capitalist economy, by nature, runs on this cycle.  Any claims to the contrary i.e., Clinton responsible for 90's boom, Bush responsible for recession, and yes, even Bush responsible for end of recession are simply false.  They are simply economic trends which happened on each president's watch.

That I can certainly agree with.

[Gustaf]

President has very little to do with economy.  Capitalist economy, by nature, runs on this cycle.  Any claims to the contrary i.e., Clinton responsible for 90's boom, Bush responsible for recession, and yes, even Bush responsible for end of recession are simply false.  They are simply economic trends which happened on each president's watch.

That I can certainly agree with.

Yes, good point. It's about timing, you want to win in a recession year and then go into reelection in a boom year. A fact that the Swedish right has never managed to appreciate...

[NHPolitico]

Lets say Al Gore won Florida and squeaked out a win in the election.  Who would the Republicans be running right now?  Would gore be popular?  What would be different?

I think Frist would be the republican frontrunner.

Hm, the question is whether the whole international situation would be different and that is very biased. I think Gore would have been under a lot of pressure initially and most likely would have attacked Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure on Iraq. And that could make the situation today rather different. I think Gore would be much less popular than Bush is right now, b/c he will either be hated by his own base or by centrist voters, regardless of what he does.

I don't think you can assume Gore would attack Afghanistan. Al Qaeda attacked us or planned to do so 6 times while Clinton was president and we never attacked Afghanistan {2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center, 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia, 6/1996: Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 9/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S., 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen}.  Would Gore lob a missile or two? Probably. But that's not the same as what Bush did after 9/11.  

[Gustaf]

Lets say Al Gore won Florida and squeaked out a win in the election.  Who would the Republicans be running right now?  Would gore be popular?  What would be different?

I think Frist would be the republican frontrunner.

Hm, the question is whether the whole international situation would be different and that is very biased. I think Gore would have been under a lot of pressure initially and most likely would have attacked Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure on Iraq. And that could make the situation today rather different. I think Gore would be much less popular than Bush is right now, b/c he will either be hated by his own base or by centrist voters, regardless of what he does.

I don't think you can assume Gore would attack Afghanistan. Al Qaeda attacked us or planned to do so 6 times while Clinton was president and we never attacked Afghanistan {2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center, 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia, 6/1996: Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 9/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S., 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen}.  Would Gore lob a missile or two? Probably. But that's not the same as what Bush did after 9/11.  

That is really biased. You can't compare any of the incidents you mention with 9/11, that is ridiculous. Do you think a Republican president would have invaded countries during the 90s, if they had been in Clinton's position? I strongly doubt that.

[NHPolitico]

Lets say Al Gore won Florida and squeaked out a win in the election.  Who would the Republicans be running right now?  Would gore be popular?  What would be different?

I think Frist would be the republican frontrunner.

Hm, the question is whether the whole international situation would be different and that is very biased. I think Gore would have been under a lot of pressure initially and most likely would have attacked Afghanistan. But I'm not so sure on Iraq. And that could make the situation today rather different. I think Gore would be much less popular than Bush is right now, b/c he will either be hated by his own base or by centrist voters, regardless of what he does.

I don't think you can assume Gore would attack Afghanistan. Al Qaeda attacked us or planned to do so 6 times while Clinton was president and we never attacked Afghanistan {2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center, 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia, 6/1996: Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 9/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S., 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen}.  Would Gore lob a missile or two? Probably. But that's not the same as what Bush did after 9/11.  

That is really biased. You can't compare any of the incidents you mention with 9/11, that is ridiculous. Do you think a Republican president would have invaded countries during the 90s, if they had been in Clinton's position? I strongly doubt that.

I do think that Bush would have responded differently to those events.