Reply #10: The original text [View All]

[liberalpragmatist]

Don't get me wrong. I liked Gore. He would have been lightyears ahead of Bush and certainly we'll never know what kind of President he would have been, but I honestly think this is what would have happened: Assuming Gore had won in a squeaker (i.e., had he requested a full Florida state recount that was allowed to proceed to completion), he would have entered office a minority President (48% of the a vote in which only 50% turned out), a Republican Congress, and a hostile attitude from the press and the right-wing, who's always been pugnacious and would have wasted no time in ripping Gore to shreds. Gore lacked Clinton's political skills, and it's likely much of his agenda would have been stalemated.

Though some believe September 11 wouldn't have occurred had Gore been President, we'll never know. My hunch is that it would have occurred and Gore would have acted in Afghanistan in much the same way Bush did, although NATO and possibly the UN would have been more involved. The commitment would've been stronger and more noble and we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. However, the Republicans would quickly have ended Gore's honeymoon far more quickly than the Democrats ended Bush's. By the following Spring, they would have been roasting Gore over nation-building and overextending our troops, all the while blocking his domestic agenda.

The economy would still be in a downturn. It's likely that more jobs would have grown under Gore than under Bush, and certainly our trade policies may well have been somewhat better, but remember that Gore was a free-trader as well, and would have been attacked for this on the left and by Nader. Part of our real-life economic sitation is a normal business cycle. That would still have happened, and I think that the economy, while it would have been better than under Bush, would still be only a mixed picture.

In the '02 midterms, the Republicans would likely have gained. While it's possible that Gore's response to 9-11 (had it occurred) and anger at the right-wing could have fueled a strong turnout by Democrats, I think it's more likely the usual midterm pattern would have held, with Democrats losing seats.

This year, Nader would have run again (as he is doing), and without a reactionary like Bush who has united Progressives against the right-wing, it's very possible that Nader, whose whole '02 candidacy was based on anger at Democratic centrism (something that Gore would likely have continued governing by) would have run, and, unlike real time, when he's unlikely to anywhere close to his 2.8% from last time, he would likely get close to 5 or 6% in the election.

Bill Frist would probably be the Republican nominee, although it's possible that Jeb would have been the nominee; I don't really get the inclination that W would have run again; although it's certainly possible (Republicans like picking previous losers) the Bush cabal was always grooming Jeb, and only picked George b/c he served 6 years as an executive sooner than Jeb. However, my hunch is the nominee would've been Frist - I think there would have been some resentment at Bush for blowing a race they expected to win and many of the party's rank-and-file may have been opposed to such dynastic rule. So I think Frist would have won the nomination and would be en route to winning the election by about 5% in the popular vote and taking victory in the e.c. by taking the same states as Bush did in real life in '00.

That's my alternate history scenario. Honestly, that's what I think would have happened.

President Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D): 2001-2005
President William H. Frist (R): 2005-