What if 9/11 occurs a year earlier?

[Wakie]

Bush wouldn't have won the GOP nom then.  I think we would have seen a McCain Presidency.

[Boris]

Bush wouldn't have won the GOP nom then.  I think we would have seen a McCain Presidency.

September 11, 2000 would have occured after the Republican National Convention.

But yeah, Gore would win.

[Mr. Morden]

Would Clinton have attacked the Taliban on the same kind of timeline that Bush did in real life (i.e., early October)?

[MarkWarner08]

Clinton probably doesn't do the gretaest job of handling it, people have a hard time rallying around him and like the usual people feel the Republicans do a better of handling National Security.  For this reason, usually safe Dem states still in a state of panic vote GOP and so do some other states that feel the GOP is tougher on terror:

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

Bush/Guillani 472
Gore/Lieberman 66

That map is terribly exaggerated.  Even with Giuliani, under no circumstances does Bush win by that overwhelming margin.

No way Bush wins New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, California, likely not Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, possibly wins Iowa, Oregon, only possibly.

One must consider how Clinton handles the terror attacks, if he does well, Gore wins, if he drops the ball, Bush wins.   

Impossible.  In 1936 the saying went, as Maine goes, so goes Vermont. Today, as Oregon goes, so goes Washington. Washington wouldn't go Democratic if Oregon's going Republican.

[True Democrat]

Clinton probably doesn't do the gretaest job of handling it, people have a hard time rallying around him and like the usual people feel the Republicans do a better of handling National Security.  For this reason, usually safe Dem states still in a state of panic vote GOP and so do some other states that feel the GOP is tougher on terror:

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

Bush/Guillani 472
Gore/Lieberman 66

That map is terribly exaggerated.  Even with Giuliani, under no circumstances does Bush win by that overwhelming margin.

No way Bush wins New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, California, likely not Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, possibly wins Iowa, Oregon, only possibly.

One must consider how Clinton handles the terror attacks, if he does well, Gore wins, if he drops the ball, Bush wins.   

Impossible.  In 1936 the saying went, as Maine goes, so goes Vermont. Today, as Oregon goes, so goes Washington. Washington wouldn't go Democratic if Oregon's going Republican.

Oregon is significantly more Republican than Washington.  It could happen pretty easily (and nearly did in 2000 and actually happened in 1968.)

[Josh/Devilman88]

Gore would have won, but not by much. FL and OH would have voted for Gore.

[MarkWarner08]

Clinton probably doesn't do the gretaest job of handling it, people have a hard time rallying around him and like the usual people feel the Republicans do a better of handling National Security.  For this reason, usually safe Dem states still in a state of panic vote GOP and so do some other states that feel the GOP is tougher on terror:

Also, Bush chooses Rudy Guilliani as VP b/c of his link to NY and how he saved the day

Bush/Guillani 472
Gore/Lieberman 66

That map is terribly exaggerated.  Even with Giuliani, under no circumstances does Bush win by that overwhelming margin.

No way Bush wins New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, California, likely not Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, possibly wins Iowa, Oregon, only possibly.

One must consider how Clinton handles the terror attacks, if he does well, Gore wins, if he drops the ball, Bush wins.   

Impossible.  In 1936 the saying went, as Maine goes, so goes Vermont. Today, as Oregon goes, so goes Washington. Washington wouldn't go Democratic if Oregon's going Republican.

Oregon is significantly more Republican than Washington.  It could happen pretty easily (and nearly did in 2000 and actually happened in 1968.)

I'm from Oregon and I can tell you this a great political overlap between the two states. In fact, 80% of the Oregon House delegation is Democratic every single statewide officeholder from Govenor to Treasurer is a Democrat. Gordon Smith, a highly vulnerable GOP Senator from Eastern Oregon is the only statewid Republican. Oregon and Washington are the two states with the longest streak of electing Democratic Governors. I'd argue that Washington is trending GOP, while Oregon is trending Democratic.

[Iamcornholio]

Gore would win Florida, Tennessee and maybe Ohio.

[barfbag]

This is a joke. Bush's credentials of being tough on terror would've been seen before the election. Clinton and Gore would've bared the burden of doing nothing regarding the first bombing of the WTC, Oklahoma City where McVeigh was in the Philippines with Muhammad Atta for two years, the bombing of our African embassy, the USS Cole, and now 9/11. All of these things would've surfaced and the administration would've been in shambles. It's a lot more intellectually in depth than waving the flags for whoever is in office when we're attacked. Maybe a 9/11 commission would've been called for by Republicans instead of Democrats.

[H. Ross Peron]

This is a joke. Bush's credentials of being tough on terror would've been seen before the election. Clinton and Gore would've bared the burden of doing nothing regarding the first bombing of the WTC, Oklahoma City where McVeigh was in the Philippines with Muhammad Atta for two years, the bombing of our African embassy, the USS Cole, and now 9/11. All of these things would've surfaced and the administration would've been in shambles. It's a lot more intellectually in depth than waving the flags for whoever is in office when we're attacked. Maybe a 9/11 commission would've been called for by Republicans instead of Democrats.

LOL. You do realize that Bush campaigned initially on an isolationist platform and when Clinton launched missile strikes they were denounced as distractions from the Lewisnky scandal.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why the hell is this back?

And barfbag... were you even old enough to remember the 2000 campaign? I was and Bush's foreign policy credentials, or lack there of, were a big feature of the campaign.

[barfbag]

Why the hell is this back?

And barfbag... were you even old enough to remember the 2000 campaign? I was and Bush's foreign policy credentials, or lack there of, were a big feature of the campaign.

Yes I'm old enough to remember. I was in high school. Foreign policy during a campaign can be quickly changed in the face of a terrorist attack such as 9/11 even if it means his foreign policy became criticism of Clinton's foreign policy.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yes Bush wasn't known for his foreign policy experience but Clinton had plenty of foreign policy botches in addition to still dealing with the fallout of Lewinsky(which he should've been removed over) and that would negatively impacted Gore's chances like it or not. I think Bush wins more comrortably and as a result Ashcroft beats Carnahan as well.

[Del Tachi]

Any criticism of Clinton's response to 9/11 or his policies relating to terrorism would have been seen as unpatriotic and insensitive to the legacy of the victims and their families.

Gore wins in a walk.

However, the potential for Gore to royally screw up the War on Terror exists as he would have most likely continued the failed policies of the Clinton Admin; the stage would be set for McCain or Giuliani to win the White House back for the GOP in 2004. 

[barfbag]

One way to look at it is to think back to 2000. President Clinton was still very popular, but during the election, Al Gore managed to cling to every single one of Clinton's negatives and not benefit from a single one of his positives. Look at Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Ohio. I can't be convinced that had Gore benefited in the least from Clinton, at least one of those states would've gone his way and he'd have won the election. Arkansas and Tennessee were their home states for crying out loud and they weren't as red as they are now. Even if Clinton's response to a hypothetical 9/11 was well received by the public, there's evidence we know of from a real scenario to suggest Al Gore wouldn't have benefited from it. Bush could play the "I'm going to do it better card" too by campaigning on how he'd carry out Clinton's policies and how he'd expand them once in office. With as little as Clinton helped Gore and as self-defeating it would've been for Clinton to attack his own policies, I see a likely scenario where Gore still can't manage to benefit from a single one of Clinton's likabilities.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Gore wins easily in this scenario.  Rematch in 2004 though?  That would be interesting to see.

[H. Ross Peron]

Gore wins easily in this scenario.  Rematch in 2004 though?  That would be interesting to see.

Assuming the War on Terror still is a major issue by then, the GOP probably would prefer to nominate someone seen as having better foreign policy experience like John McCain.

[Likely Voter]

Seems pretty obvious that Gore wins due to the factors mentioned above (collapse of Nader, rally around the flag, lack of Bush FP).

I do think the more interesting scenario is what if 9/11 happened in 1999. how do Dem and GOP primaries play out and the general. I do think in that case that McCain has strong chance of winning. Orin Hatch could have also been a bigger player in the GOP primaries. Also you could have seen the likes of Colin Powell, Rumsfeld and/or Cheney jump in for the GOP nomination (assuming they could make the deadlines for NH/IA/SC in time)

[old timey villain]

Yes Bush wasn't known for his foreign policy experience but Clinton had plenty of foreign policy botches in addition to still dealing with the fallout of Lewinsky(which he should've been removed over) and that would negatively impacted Gore's chances like it or not. I think Bush wins more comrortably and as a result Ashcroft beats Carnahan as well.

Was FDR blamed after the attack on Pearl Harbor? He had been president for 9 years and by your logic he should have been heavily criticized for not doing something about Japan or Germany earlier. Instead the country rallied around him and went to war to protect American interests.

Sometimes when a country feels very threatened from foreign invaders, its citizens will naturally support whoever is in power out of a basic need for protection, no matter what. That also would have happened with Clinton and Gore after 9/11

[President Johnson]

Imagine to have 9/11 in November 2000 instead of September and a single day before the election.

[barfbag]

If 9/11 happened right after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? People would wonder about our security and look for change. It's pretty sick to wonder who would have the political advantage if you ask me.

[Mr. Morden]

Imagine to have 9/11 in November 2000 instead of September and a single day before the election.

Or what if it had happened just a few days after the election, with the recount craziness in Florida starting to heat up?  Clinton prepares for war in Afghanistan, as the presidential race remains disputed.

It also would have been interesting if it had happened in December 1998, when Bill Clinton was being impeached, and the US and UK were bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox.