What if Gore Won? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:58:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  What if Gore Won? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What if Gore Won?  (Read 16038 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« on: January 14, 2004, 06:06:34 PM »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2004, 06:20:30 PM »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2004, 04:03:40 PM »

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... Sad
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2004, 04:45:29 PM »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2004, 06:56:38 AM »

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.

I think you're wrong. 9/11 hadn't happened. Bush was against nation building, he was essentially an isolationist before 9/11 and he wouldnät have done the things he did after that without that incident.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2004, 07:06:51 AM »

Agreed. If the Republicans would have done things differently, then Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000 would have both brought that up at some point during the campaign, criticizing Clinton's performance against Al Qaeda. This was not brought up by either as an issue.

That is actually a very good point. Times change, and that's that.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2004, 04:02:56 PM »

How come you know so much about military stuff? Just curious...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2004, 04:09:01 PM »

When I was about 11 or 12 I became interested in politics because I saw Clinton gut the military.  Military affairs came before even politics for me.  I still think national security is the most important issue America faces, and I've thought that since before 9/11.  So naturally, I try to know all that can be known about it.

OK.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.