How Come Gore Didn't Pick a Female VP in 2000?

[Bo]

Yeah, but don't you think that Republicans would have used Gore's extremely low job creation numbers and sluggish economic record against him in 2004 when Gore would have ran for reelection? I think that someone like McCain could hammer Gore well enough on those points without alienating moderate voters to defeat Gore in 2004. I think foreign policy would not have mattered too much in 2004 if Gore was President, since the economy was still sluggish and people would thus be mainly worried about domestic concerns, similar to 1992. Even though I agree about 2008 being a Republican landslide if Gore would have served two terms.

Doubtful that economic history would have exactly the same, but even if it had, I think Gore would have a good chance of running against a do-nothing Republican Congress a la Truman to gain reelection.  The only way Gore would be at a significant disadvantage going into 2004 would have been if the Democrats retained the Senate and retook the House, which while possible would have unlikely.

Too many variables concerning what the effects of a Gore presidency would have been on foreign and economic outcomes to say for certain what the political landscape would have been in 2004.

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently. BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes. Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress. Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Because Gore is a sexist pig.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently.

The lack of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would have had a significant effect on the economy, both for good and for ill. Though there probably would have been a milder, more sustainable tax cut passed in 2001 without the sunset gimmick the Bush taxcuts used to avoid running afoul of the PAYGO provisions. (No cut in inheritance taxes, or those on capital gains and dividends, while cuts in the income tax rates would have been skewed more to the lower end of the income spectrum.

With no War in Iraq to pay for, the budget would have been in much better shape both in the short and long term, which would have been a significant benefit to the economy.

BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes.

Given McCain's performance in the 2008 campaign, I can't see him as running a good campaign if the primary issue in the minds of the voters is the economy.

Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress.

Doubtful under any President that there would have been a recession in 2003-4.  At worst for Gore, the recession of 2001 would have extended into 2002, impacting the off-year elections negatively for the Democrats.

Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

McCain would have been a possibility, but not a lock.  Without being able to position himself as the anti-Bush of the GOP, I can't see McCain as being more than one of several contenders. Giuliani would have better able to take advantage of 9/11 in 2004 than he did in 2008. Huckabee and Tommy Thompson would also likely have run.  Probably some Republicans who declined to run in 2008 would have sought the Presidency in 2004, while neither Romney nor Fred Thompson would have run in 2004.  It's even possible that Dubya would have tried to set up a rematch with Gore.

[Bo]

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently.

The lack of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would have had a significant effect on the economy, both for good and for ill. Though there probably would have been a milder, more sustainable tax cut passed in 2001 without the sunset gimmick the Bush taxcuts used to avoid running afoul of the PAYGO provisions. (No cut in inheritance taxes, or those on capital gains and dividends, while cuts in the income tax rates would have been skewed more to the lower end of the income spectrum.

With no War in Iraq to pay for, the budget would have been in much better shape both in the short and long term, which would have been a significant benefit to the economy.

BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes.

Given McCain's performance in the 2008 campaign, I can't see him as running a good campaign if the primary issue in the minds of the voters is the economy.

Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress.

Doubtful under any President that there would have been a recession in 2003-4.  At worst for Gore, the recession of 2001 would have extended into 2002, impacting the off-year elections negatively for the Democrats.

Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

McCain would have been a possibility, but not a lock.  Without being able to position himself as the anti-Bush of the GOP, I can't see McCain as being more than one of several contenders. Giuliani would have better able to take advantage of 9/11 in 2004 than he did in 2008. Huckabee and Tommy Thompson would also likely have run.  Probably some Republicans who declined to run in 2008 would have sought the Presidency in 2004, while neither Romney nor Fred Thompson would have run in 2004.  It's even possible that Dubya would have tried to set up a rematch with Gore.

First of all, many voters consider a recession to be over only once there is long-term positive job creation and once the unemployment rate (%) begins decreasing. Job losses continued until late 2003 in RL, and the unemployment rate continued increasing until mid-late 2003. Even though the recession was officially over by then, many people still thought the U.S. was in one. This is similar to how the recession was officially over by 1992, but many people thought that it was still ongoing.  Thus, I could definietely see McCain aggressively attacking Gore for his poor economic record and lack of job creation. Also, McCain was either about even or ahead in most polls in 2008 before the finanicl crisis occured, despite the fact that the U.S. was already in a recession and the GOP was blamed for it since Bush was the incumbent President. If Gore was President in 2004, he would get the blame for the poor economy during most of his Presidency rather than the GOP and I think that would definietely help McCain. In regards to a balanced budget, I agree that Gore would have been more fiscally responsible (for the reasons you mentioned), but I don't think the budget has a large impact on short-term economic and job growth. The economy was booming in the 1960s and 1980s despite the fact that the U.S. had budget deficits (often large ones) for all but one year in those two decades. In contrast, the U.S. had many balanced budgets in the 1940s and 1950s but recessions in those two decades were much more freqeunt than in the 1960s or 1980s. Finally, I think there would be a good chance that McCain would be the 2004 GOP nominee because the GOP historically likes to nominate runner-ups (Dewey, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Dole, and McCain all come to mind) and because McCain could make a great argument for his electability by saying "We nominated conservative in 1992, 1996, and 2000 and lost each time. We need someone with a more moderate reputation who adheres to conservative principles in order to win back the voters that we lost after Reagan. I am that candidate." I don't think Giuliani or Tommy Thompson would be able to win because Giuliani would be too liberal for the GOP base, and I also think that 9/11 might be slightly less of a big deal than it was in RL because Bush made a huge deal out of it and I'm not sure Gore would have done that. As for Thompson, I just don't think he'd be well-known enough to win the nomination. He only got really famous after he served in Bush's cabinet, I believe.

[hcallega]

Gore probably would have lost in 2004 due in large part to the War on Terror and the economy. As we are seeing with Obama, no matter what a liberal does he will get hammered on foreign policy. Also the economy wouldn't have been so great, as we had relatively high unemployment in  03-04. Gore was a terrible campaigner and I believe would have lost to a half-decent McCain effort. If he passed a tax cut maybe the economy would be in better shape, but if not than it's doubtfull.

[Bo]

Gore probably would have lost in 2004 due in large part to the War on Terror and the economy. As we are seeing with Obama, no matter what a liberal does he will get hammered on foreign policy. Also the economy wouldn't have been so great, as we had relatively high unemployment in  03-04. Gore was a terrible campaigner and I believe would have lost to a half-decent McCain effort. If he passed a tax cut maybe the economy would be in better shape, but if not than it's doubtfull.

Bush passed two tax cuts in his first term and the economy was still not too great in 2003 and 2004. I don't think Gore would have done any better with one tax cut (I seriously doubt he would have passed a second one).