Sunday, May 03, 2009
Alternative history question
If Al Gore had won the presidential election in 2000, what are the chances that Barack Obama would be POTUS today? If not Barack Obama, then who would be POTUS and VPOTUS, and how would the last 8+ years have played out?
I'd prefer not to get bogged down in the details of the Florida recount in 2000; let's just assume that Gore won Florida or NH and won the election, and go from there.
Have at it.
MORE: Minor clarification -- assume further for purposes of the questions above that the 9/11 attacks still happened in this alternative scenario.
28 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun May 03, 12:01:00 PM:
Prediction 1
All of the pissants running around hollering about torture would be silent.
By 
John, at
Sun May 03, 12:17:00 PM:
Hard to say. I doubt Lieberman would have stayed VP all 8 years. I honestly think it would have been a Republican, even one of the big players of the 08 elections, maybe Romney or Giuliani. But, wouldn't have been McCain, too similar. I think it would have been a Bush-style victory just delayed.
By , at
Sun May 03, 12:25:00 PM:
The problem with these sorts of questions is that it assumes nothing else changes, only this one thing. But...assuming that...it all depends doesn't it? It depends on how Gore would have reacted to 9/11. I think it's unlikely he would have adopted the "you're with us or you're against us" approach, he wouldn't have gone all in the way Bush did, would have tried for the typical "proportional" response the Democrats love so much. But the fate of his first term would have depended upon whether or not the US was hit again.
Assuming no second attack, Gore would probably have been reelected and assuming he handled Katrina better than Bush is perceived to have done (Gore would never have invaded Iraq so that war wouldn't have been an issue for him) and assuming no terrorist attacks on US soil in the second term, and no other scandals or huge dump in the economy, I think the 2008 election would have been as close as 2000 and 2004 and Obama wouldn't have been the Dem nominee. Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination and lost the election.
By Brian, at
Sun May 03, 12:27:00 PM:
Assuming 9-11 still happened, I'm pretty sure the conservatives would have gone completely insane in terms of demanding that Gore accept responsibility for failing to stop the worst attack on the US mainland since the War of 1812, demanding resignation and attempting impeachment. The resulting dynamic would have been so different from our reality that it's hard to predict outcomes.
By apex, at
Sun May 03, 12:28:00 PM:
A lot would depend on how a Gore administration would have acted in response to 9-11. But if we postulate that the response would have been weaker, possibly resulting in follow-up strikes succeeding, there would have been significant backlash in 2004. At that point, a Rudy Guiliani putting himself at the front of that movement would have been unstoppable.
Obama would be nowhere to be seen.
apex
By , at
Sun May 03, 01:19:00 PM:
Link will play:
9/11 still happens. Gore enjoys an initial surge of popularity, and invades Afghanistan.
But before the 2002 elections, it comes out that President Gore was warned by the CIA that bid Laden was up to something -- but that Gore didn't do anything. He's harshly criticized by the right for this. Congress passes the Patriot Act and Gore signs it. Unknown to most us, Gore authorizes secret squads to attack al Qaeda, often with the clandestine help of foreign governments -- some surprising. Gore opens Gitmo to handle prisoners from Afghanistan -- he's criticized by the left. Republicans strengthen their position in Congress in 2002.
2002-2004
The economy has been rocky, but settles out. There's no significant domestic issue in the run-up to the 2004 election. Gore tries to push programs -- like easier mortgage loans -- but the Republican controlled-Congress won't have it. Gore's prescription drug benefit proposal goes down in flames. Bush hasn't been heard of since he lost the election, and grew a beard. Gore has decent popularity -- but looks weak on defense and terror. Gore won't be easy to beat -- but Republicans really want to win. Although no attack have happened since 9/11, people are nervous. There's a steady drumbeat: "Why hasn't Gore caught bin Laden."
McCain and Giuliani fight it out for the nomination -- both saying "In tough times, you need a tough President."
McCain wins with Giuliani as his VP, or Giuliani wins with McCain as his VP. Flip a coin. Mine says McCain.
They do well in a lot of Democratic strongholds. They win 40% of the Hispanic vote, and 54% of the independents.
2004-2008
With control of Congress, McCain pushes for a series of domestic reforms. He's partially successful, sometimes frustrated by his own party.
2008
McCain does the unheard of -- citing his age and war wounds -- "It's not the years, it's the mileage" -- he defers to Giuliani.
In another surprise -- to address concerns that the ticket has been forgetting the base -- Giuliani picks an unknown Alaskan governor to be running mate -- to spice up the ticket. It causes a stir for a bit. After that Palin is found very effective at calling on small town America ... all that she's asked to do.
Giuliani-Palin win easily. But there's a concern that the economy has been slowing, we can't keep deficits below $100 billion, markets have been down 15%, and we still don't know how to fix Social Security / Medicare.
Iraq hasn't been mentioned in any major news story in ten years. If polled, most Americans couldn't name Saddam Hussein as head of Iraq. If asked, most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map. These questions aren't asked, because they'd sound pointless and irrelevant.
In 2009, stories start appearing in Chicago papers that Senator Obama has been a target of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's Rezko investigation. Following other revelations, Obama declines to run for re-election.
Link, over
By , at
Sun May 03, 01:53:00 PM:
Iraq hasn't been mentioned in any major news story in ten years.Not in the U.S. perhaps (though I doubt it) but in Iran, Iraq's supposed ongoing nuclear weapons program is cited continually as justification for a complimentary program.
By , at
Sun May 03, 02:02:00 PM:
By , at
Sun May 03, 02:03:00 PM:
PS from Link
After he lost in 2000, Bush grew a beard and retired to Crawford. He resurfaced in 2006 as Commisioner of Baseball -- promising to clean baseball of steroids. He does, and is much loved for it.
By Unknown, at
Sun May 03, 02:47:00 PM:
I think that President Gore would have taken his lead from his predecessor and tried to find a way to "strike" at the enemy without (initially) committing troops. He would have invaded Afghanistan, but much later and after the Taliban/Al Qaeda combination had grown considerably in strength and support. He would not have invaded Iraq which would have further emboldened the radical Islamists. The oil price fiasco would have lasted a lot longer as France would still be working with Saddam Hussein.
Four years later, Gore would be hustled out of office due to our failure to deter Islamic extremism and our faltering economy. We probably wouldn't have heard from Obama, but Colin Powell might have been drafted.
We would not have waterboarded any captured terrorists, the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay would not exist, and the world would be a more dangerous place.
By TOF, at
Sun May 03, 02:52:00 PM:
You go with the administration you have, not the administration you wish to have.
By , at
Sun May 03, 03:03:00 PM:
10 events in no particular order: 1) 9/11 happens. Gore asks for UN condemnation. No invasion of either Iraq or A-stan. Republican Congress blamed for attack. Dems sweep to power in Congress in 2002 2) Amensty for illegal immigrants. Incentives program enacted to bring an additional 5 million/year in. 3) Gore appoints two new SCOTUS judges. Court finds individuals no longer have right to bear arms. News laws: All arms must be registered. Anyone caught with unregistered gun to have all property confiscated as is done with drug laws. 4) 100% tax on fuel 'to save the planet'. 5)Hate speech laws widened to include thoughts. Government determines what qualifies as hate speech/thoughts on case-by-case basis. Proprietors of conservative blogs become 'persons of interest' to the FBI and have files opened on them. Employers 'encouraged' not to hire or retain such rabble rousers. 6) ACORN organized and funded to rig elections in battle ground states. Registering illegals to vote unofficially encouraged. 7) Cattle grazing banned on public land and confiscatory $ per head greenhouse gas tax on the rest of the nation's livestock herds dries up the supply of meat. Surplus grain from lack of cattle/hogs turned into ethanol. 8) Saddam supplies dirty bomb to a-Q. Detonated in Manhattan. Gov't blames right-wing extremists and starts rounding up out spoken conservatives. 9) National health care enacted. Care rationed. 10) Economic meltdown happens from combination of high energy prices, housing bubble, and oppressive taxes. Greedy bankers and Big Oil blamed.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun May 03, 03:40:00 PM:
Now that you in TH looney wingnut peanut gallery has weighed-in...and it's always better than American Idol...lemme tell the truth:
Surface differences, but trends, effects etc would pretty much have been the same, including a Hillary versus Obama fight in 08. Such is the USA...
By , at
Sun May 03, 03:56:00 PM:
Let's remember some important facts about Al "Internets" Gore.
Gore is a single-minded person, square and prudish, given to endless missionary-style proseletyzing and bent to see the world in stark white and black colors. Remember that besides Saving The Planet, his other earnest campaign was against rap music.
Comparing to Gore, W is a dissolute slacker. You just can't imagine W running around the world as a sole advocate for the Planet Earth for years on end.
Responsibility for 9-11 would be put squarely on Gore, so he would be bound to attack terrorist hideouts in the most vigorous manner to make up for his many previous mistakes.
Regarding secret rendition and torture, Gore is on record happily advocating both during his VP years.
Regarding Saddam, Gore is on record stating that Saddam is an urgent problem which needs to be resolved ASAP.
Those are the facts about Al "Internets" Gore...
As far as Obama, he seemed to have future in politics regardless of Gore and Bush and he always wanted to be President, so he would be in the position he is now or at least well on his way. What would be his stated positions under different circumstances no one can know and no one should bother to know: it could be anything.
By , at
Sun May 03, 05:02:00 PM:
I suggest the best guide is to look at Gore himself rather than 9/11 or Katrina or ??????
What does Gore advocate when he is not constrained by lack of power?
Well, Gore has been insisting for well over a decade that man-caused disasters and global warming is going to destroy civilization unless government totally reforms and controls our economy and directs our lives.
Of course he works only for our good. He is doing us a favour. The man is a self-recognised Saint.
His position on health care is the same. All government, all the time.
In fact it is impossible to cite any public concern that Al doesn't understand best. He has never made a mistake, and only wants others to agree - er, make that "obey" - for their own good.
And you will not find any matter about which Gore's platform is not more government and more conformity.
Whether he is correct or mistaken about global warming or anything else is not my contention. I merely say look at Al Gore.
The Gore administration would have started with a GOP Congress and with the GOP much stronger across the country than it is now.
So Gore would have began with a rather mild program continuing Clinton's policies. And I think that overall Clinton got government about right in his eight years.
(And about what Bill got from Monica? I really don't care who blows Bill; that doesn't affect me. Those concerned can discuss it with Hillary.)
When 9/11 came Al would have seen it not as a problem but as an opportunity to push whatever he wanted through a rattled Congress and people.
Or, in more recent words he would "never let a crisis go to waste".
Immediately he would have made 9/11 a reason to develop alternative energy. The subsidies for wind, solar, and geothermal would have dwarfed anything seen under Bush.
Coal companies would have been taxed and regulated into ruin.
(Anyone who pointed out that the government owned TVA continued to use the most coal would have been visited by Homeland Security.)
He would not have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. But like Bush he would have come up with Homeland Security.
Al's DHS would have been far better with much more vigor and efficiency. Almost like a police state except we would never have that.
No Child Left Behind? Of course, but with much more federal power and a mere pretense of state and local authority.
He would have been re-elected in 2004 with Democrats controlling Congress. (The vote counting might have even been honest.)
There would be no Roberts or Alito on the Supreme Court. We would have a totally tamed and liberal court ready to bless any government expansion.
Al would have met the economic crisis by doing whatever Frank and Dodd suggested. Certainly with cram-downs for mortgages and more power for Fannie and Freddy.
And immediate nationalization of banks and failing financial firms.
(That would hardly have been worse than first giving them billions as Bush/Paulson did. And later still giving them billions more before embarking on defacto nationalisation as O is doing.)
There would be a intense search for scapegoats using the DOJ to chase fat cats - those of the evil GOP FatCat breed.
But the measures taken by DHS would have worked. 9/11 would not have been repeated.
With no Bush/Cheney there would have been no war crimes or torture, no mention of wiretaps, no NYT eagerly publishing secrets. No concerns about how the CIA asks questions.
Last year Hillary would have been elected. The defeated John McCain, whose slogan was "Like Al? Then vote for Me.", would blame his VP running mate, Jeb Bush.
This is all fun on a Sunday. And somewhat less accurate than the accounts of Flash Gordon's journey to Mongo.
K
By , at
Sun May 03, 06:08:00 PM:
The better question would be-----What if Pat Buchanan beat George W. Bush---For Pat Buchanan was a true blue American conservative while Jorge Busheron---well---he was an ignoramus.
Plato talked of the need for philosopher kings. Pat Buchanan was just that a philosopher. He knew America, its philosophy and he knew leftism.
George Bush was an idiot. He destroyed the Republican party and he was totally clueless on the metaphysics of the Reaganite party and ideas. There would be no Iraq war, there would be no depression, and no NAFTA with Pat Buchanan--but then the powers that be would have assassinated him within a year.
Pat Buchanan lost because of the Israeli lobby and the Jewish media in America. The Jewish power found a congenial puppet in Jorge Busheron.
If Pat Buchanan was president, the Republican party would be strong, and there would be no Obama.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun May 03, 07:04:00 PM:
the conservatives would have gone completely insane in terms of demanding that Gore accept responsibility for failing to stop the worst attack on the US mainlandIt was Clinton who was offered OBL on a platter three times by Sudan. AlGore was just a bagman at that point and had little to do with defense policy.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Sun May 03, 07:18:00 PM:
One of the many unsung benefits or removing Saddam Hussein was -- removing Saddam Hussein. Also, there was the consequence that Libya stopped developing nuclear weapons, came clean, and exposed the Pakistan Khan connection.
President Gore would never have had the courage to remove Saddam Hussein -- meaning that all the real-world benefits would never have happened.
Saddam would have wriggled free of the corrupt UN sanctions regime, re-invaded Kuwait, and carried on into eastern Saudi Arabia (the oil-producing bit). The resulting rise in oil prices would have crippled the world economy. President Gore would have gone to the UN to seek a very strongly worded condemnation of the invasions of Kuwait & Saudi -- and would have been laughed out of the General Assembly.
Some extremist group would have got hold of a nuke from Libya, Saddam, North Korea or whomever and exploded it in the US.
But their hubris would have led to a fatal mistake -- exploding the nuke in Washington DC, wiping out the US Congress, including a new Senator from Illinois with a mild taint of corruption about him.
With a completely new Congress, it would be morning in America all over again. By now, the world would be a better place.
By Cas, at
Sun May 03, 07:21:00 PM:
I think that Al Gore would have ended up being MUCH less than some have speculated here.
1.) He would have either over- or under-reacted to the attacks on Sep 11th. My coin-flip says, "under-reacted" in the same way that the Clintonistas treated any type of Islamic Terrorist attack as a "crime" to be solved and prosecuted, rather than the "Global War on Terror" to be fought.
2.) I agree that he would NOT have "unilaterally invaded" Iraq, but he most likely would have waited until the Iraqi Intelligence Service had managed to put together enough WMD to give to either Al-Qeada, or some other terrorist bunch (Hezbollah? too close to Iran) to use on the US. My guess is biological (Anthrax?) That, along with successful copy-cat attacks on either LA or SF would be enough to lose him Congress in 2002, and the Presidency is 2004.
Too many other factors would have come into play for me to continue my prognostication from there...
By , at
Sun May 03, 07:40:00 PM:
Gore would be $98 million poorer, world climate would be exactly the same but the world would be much, much poorer and with energy crisis and trillions spent on CO2 reduction and green energy.But no green energy on line. Famine, no food and absolute chaos. Iran and Iraq would be nuking each other and the USA, Israel would be long gone. Barry will get us there also.
By JPMcT, at
Sun May 03, 09:06:00 PM:
I think we narrowly dodged a bullet with the Florida recount. Gore does not take stress well, nor does his reality-testing pass mustard. He has already proven that he has issues with the truth.
The Gore presidency would have been "Weird Al" in the White House...and a Republican controlled Congress.
It would be a wonderful combination that would give rise to what every investor want's to hear - "CONGRESSIONAL GRIDLOCK".
Gridlock is good. It keeps the governmant out of our lives and it keeps this collection of 500 mediocre criminals from getting into our pockets and into our daily lives.
It would have been godd times for all of us.
As opposed to what we are seeing now:
A rabidly liberal, but not particularly intelligent doctrinaire as President.
A collection of men at the helm of Congress who probably cound not pas the SOL's...but who think that they are the gift of Yahweh to the common man.
A supreme court that is now in the gunsight of those who get what they want by the unconstitutional method of Judicial Activism.
Yeah...we'd be far better off with crazy AL than with THE BIG ZERO.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun May 03, 10:53:00 PM:
What if Pat Buchanan beat George W. BushThen the generic Dem wins in Nov. Buchanan, simply put, is/was/and always will be unelectable.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon May 04, 01:21:00 AM:
"If Pat Buchanan was president"
That's like asking if pigs could fly. How would the Jew-baiting douchebag get any of the 99.5% of Americans who laughed him out of politics in 2000 to ever vote for him?
One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemities are without exception nitwits, misfucks and born losers, like Buchanan, Wheezer and sissy Chrissy. I knew you were a moron from your first post here, Wheezer.
By John, at
Mon May 04, 02:16:00 AM:
Gary Rosen--I think it is unfair of you to insubstantially insult Pat Buchanan as someone 'laughed out of politics' when he is in fact sincere in his philosophy, just because someone like Wheeler up there is kind of stupid.
Also, saying that the US and its dominant media oughtn't have a hands-down pro-Israel policy above all the other foreign policy we might otherwise have, does not make one automatically anti-Semitic.
I know you've probably heard this argument before, but I know it has ground in some of the intellectual circles of JTS in NY at least, and likely elsewhere, that Israel ought not to have the disproportionate military/financial backing of the U.S.
Many Americans also feel that before supporting Israel handsdown and allowing AIPAC to have the pull it does, we should re-examine the other aspects of letting the Israeli government go unfettered in its course--the possible unfair treatment of Palestinian people, for starters.
By Whiskey, at
Mon May 04, 03:10:00 AM:
Yes yes John. We all know: Liberals, Blacks, and Peloes all say "it's the fault of the Jews! Let Iran nuke them off the face of the Earth."
If Gore had won, he's very likely to as others have noted, under-reacted to 9/11, and suggested as Obama did weeks after that the US "deserved it" and that "Chickens have come home to roost" or as Joe Biden called the bombing of Afghanistan a "War Crime" ... Gore would have done nothing. Except arrest a few anti-Jihadi protesters.
We would have been hit again and again, the Library Towers gone, another 10,000 dead easily. Various Beslan style killings, and a few Bombay-style mass killings. All while Gore and Dems mewled the US "provoked" Muslims.
Saddam, unconstrained, would have allied openly with Bin Laden, and re-invaded Kuwait and taken Saudi Arabia, having bin Laden ruling as his wary ally.
Oil prices at $300 a barrel bring on a world-wide Depression that lasts for decades.
The Taliban, unaffected by Gore's nonexistant response, takes over Pakistan sooner, and nukes NYC and DC.
Gore is either impeached or defeated massively, as are Dems, and we see a very angry Jacksonian response that basically wipes out the nations of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Just to make America's point.
That's basically where we will be, in broad outlines, with Obama.
In one sense, it does not matter who won, Bush or Gore, because the real issue is not AMERICAN politics but the reality of the situation.
Which is that unstable, polygamous and therefore inherently unstable, violent, and tribal nations, now have the nuclear bomb. They don't think like us, don't act like us, and are not driven by the same desires. Mohammed Atta, for example, never had sex with a woman without paying for it. That alone makes Muslims radically different than Westerners.
With nuclear weapons in the hands of Jihadis in Pakistan and Iran, US cities will die. It's that simple. Of course to the unalloyed joy of Liberals, Blacks (known for their anti-Semitism) and Paleocons, so too will Israeli cities and people. But American cities WILL die. To many Jihadis can become "Big Men" and construct harems of 22 wives (Osama's father Mohammed had that many) by killing millions of Americans.
There is no tribal, low level check to say "No, Hamid don't give that AQ man the nuke! The Americans will kill us ALL, down to the last person who speaks our language! ALL will perish."
Nuclear proliferation pushes down the power to kill American cities down to the tribal level. Where illiterate warlords who know only polygamy, fighting, and kill your enemy, make the call on American cities living or dying.
Bush somewhat knew this, though he did his best to pretend he didn't, and did the minimum to stop it.
Obama, like a hypothetical Gore, is in mental chains. Both actually think US power is overwhelming and unchallenged. Neither understands the ability of nukes to act as an "equalizer."
By PAULA, at
Mon May 04, 09:23:00 AM:
The mere thought of it is nauseating, but...
We'd have still been attacked on 9-11 and Gore would have under-reacted by going into Afghanistan with underwhelming force and we'd have seen more than our fallen's bodies dragged through the streets as in Somalia...public outrage is muted by the Drive-by's. We come home defeated and demoralized. Bin Laden quickly resurfaces on video, declares Victory over the Imperialists and wows to avenge the death of his driver.
Sadly, we'll be hearing from them again...
We do NOT go into Iraq and remove Saddam and the Sanctions are allowed to expire. Saddam dies of 'natural causes' and his Sons take control of the country. They announce a truce with Iran and beginning helping Iran with It's nuclear ambitions. You see, there were WMD's, including yellow cake uranium that Saddam purchased from Niger. Israel vows to never allow Iran or Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon.
Sadly, Iran is getting closer and closer to it's nuclear goal. We do nothing but 'talk' at them. Sadly, Israel is now left with no choice but to take out the facilities...
The stock market collapses after 9-11 and the Gov't takes over majority share holder status in each of our Domestic Airlines in an attempt to prevent the Industry from collapsing. Nearly 4 years later the market is still recovering and we now have only 2 Domestic carriers, the gov't owned National Air and SouthWest Airlines, the lone remaining independent carrier. Delays, Cancellations, and wait times have never been longer.
Just after the 9-11 attacks, President Gore called upon Americans for further sacrifice. He announces that he will be implementing The Patriot Tax. An additional tax of 9.11% on top of existing rates, in honor of those lost on 9-11. These dollars will go into a 'Lock Box' for future necessities.
President Gore also implements his Green Initiative. All households are monitored for their carbon footprint and taxed accordingly. Ed Begly Jr. joins the Administration as Green Cabinet Secretary.
The Auto Industry world wide begins to suffer. Car sales decline dramatically when Gasoline prices soar as Opec raises the price of a barrel of oil to $350. Americans at home start to chant 'drill here, drill now'. We're coming up on the 2004 election and President Gore promises to consider off-shore drilling and to reassess ANWAR. His opponent, Senator John McCain and his running mate Senator Lindsay Graham plead with the electorate not to be fooled by the Presidents rhetoric and empty promises, that President Gore has always been against drilling on or off our shores. Sadly, he wins re-election with the help of the complicit Main Stream Media.
Drilling is shelved to be trotted out another day.
And so on and so on...
The first 4 years are enough of contemplate,but 8!?
It'd have been UGLY!
By , at
Mon May 04, 10:55:00 AM:
I'm not buying numerous suggestion that Gore would "under-react" to anything.
This is the man who was famous for going overboard at the slightest provocation. Bill Clinton was making fun of him more than once, for example saying after one of Gore's sudden 'intense' tirades, "I don't know what Al had for breakfast this morning, but I'd sure like to have some of it".
Gore lost the 2000 election in part because he was too angry too often. Comparing to Gore W looked like a cool head. Gore was advised again and again to stay calm and stress the positive things about Clinton-Gore legacy, but he just kept saying the positive things in angry manner, projecting a confusing image, "Things are at their best, and I'm mad as hell about it!"
By PAULA, at
Mon May 04, 01:06:00 PM:
I have to disagree that Gore would NOT 'under react'. Being a hot head and shooting off his mouth..."He betrayed our Country! He played On Our Fears!"...among some of his more notable tirades, does not translate into actions taken.
I can only wish he would show our enemies the contempt he has shown our former Administration.
