2004 GOP nominee if Bush lost Supreme Court ruling

[Suburbia]

If then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush lost the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 to Al Gore, who would have been the 2004 GOP nominee?

[dw93]

McCain, especially if 9/11 still happens. McCain would maintain his status as a maverick moderate and get nominated after 12 years of Democratic rule. 2004 would be the GOP's 1992 with Gore in the White House.

[vanteran]

I'm thinking Giuliani would for sure run given he ran in 2008 and he would maybe gain some steam given his insane popularity post-9/11 which is obviously more recent. But I do think McCain would defeat Giuliani to win the nomination given that he was the runner-up in the 2000 primary, is a war veteran, and would be perceived as strong on national security issues. McCain maybe picks Giuliani as his running mate to show GOP unity and make the ticket more moderate to appeal to swing voters. Assuming the 2000 map in this scenario is the same + Gore winning Florida, I could see McCain flipping New Mexico and Florida (Gore narrowly holds onto the rust belt + IA). McCain/Giuliani defeat Gore/Lieberman in a 283-255 electoral college tally.

[brucejoel99]

A lot of this depends on how Gore acts between 2001-2003 or so. Given the Clinton Administration's actions & attitudes regarding Iraq, I actually wouldn't be surprised if Gore were to invade Iraq. And some action in Afghanistan, of a more drastic nature than what occurred under Clinton, is almost an inevitability. I'm not saying that Gore's foreign policy would be a complete replication of Bush's, but there'd definitely be some distinct similarities.

Now, politically, Gore would be in a weaker position than Bush. If the 2000 campaign provides an indication as to how well the political side of the Gore Presidency would've been run, then Gore's in trouble. Sure, in the days, weeks, & even months after 9/11, Gore's gonna have a very high approval rating, but that's gonna wear off. Come the 2002 midterms, I'd expect the Republicans to implicitly blame President Gore for 9/11, & argue that he isn't doing enough to ensure that the tragedy never happens again. In the first part of what I think the Republican anti-Gore argument would be, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories finding popularity, though such thoughts will find an audience. I mean that if the same circumstances & the same comedy of errors as they occurred in real life had led to Gore's 9/11, then the Republicans would be less shy about accusing the President of fatal incompetence. Also, the conservative talking point that 9/11 can be blamed on Clinton's allegedly poor response to bin Laden in the 1990s would be directly attached to a criticism of President Gore. The Democrats, unfortunately, aren't gonna be as successful in exploiting the rally 'round the flag effect. In the second part, I believe that the Republicans would make this argument regardless of what Gore actually does. So, the Democrats aren't gonna regain control of Congress in 2002, meaning it's hard to see Gore having much success in terms of legislation, though I'd half-expect campaign finance to be a bigger issue under President Gore than under President Bush.

So McCain is the nominee, & his argument against President Gore would probably be exactly what I've suggested the conservative attitude towards Gore would generally be; however, McCain would be more subtle about it. Since McCain doesn't have a guaranteed running mate, all things equal, I think this might be the one time that Giuliani can end up on the ticket. Sure, under normal circumstances, he'd never be acceptable to the base, but in 2004, I think the Republican base would more than be willing to accept "America's Mayor" on the ticket, particularly if he's just the running mate. This probably depends on how relations are between McCain & Giuliani. I know that, from a conservative perspective, such a ticket would seemingly be unacceptable, but in the climate that would exist in Gore's 2004, it just might happen.

The campaign that follows would be very different from the 2004 that actually happened. For one thing, Karl Rove wouldn't be involved, which probably means no conservative exploitation of opposition to gay marriage so as to bolster the Republican ticket. But Gore's campaign would've needed an overhaul from 2000 to win, & it's hard to see that happening.