If Gore would have won 2000...

Here is something liberals like to complain about: The 2000 Presidential Election

So, what if Gore would have actually won? What would have become of him? How would the 2004 Presidential Election turn out?

I personally think that if Gore was elected in 2000, and 9/11 would have happened as it did, he would have lost in '04. Think about it, what if, in 2004, the republicans offered up a McCain/Bush or McCain/Rice ticket?

I think that it is safe to say that after 9/11 Gore wouldn't have taken as tough of a stance against terrorism, and the war in Iraq would of probably not happened, and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.

Would McCain be able to get a war-wanting public to elect him? Of course, he would have to keep the public feeling angry and war-hungry, could he do it? Could the Republicans do it?

And if he won in '04, what would have become of '08?

Thoughts?

If Gore had won, the current political situation would probably be completely different.

That said, why does it matter? He did not, so it is not useful to speculate about it.

First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

At 11/1/2009 6:38:04 PM, Republican95 wrote:
the war in Iraq would of probably not happened

Which is a bad thing because?

and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.

You're right. Had 9/11 happened anyway, Gore would have maintained focused and captured our enemies. So, again, why is this a bad thing?

I suspect that if Gore won the 2000 election, and 9/11 occurred under his watch, the invasion of Afghanistan would have still taken place, and almost everything that occurred up until the stirrings about going into Iraq would have been similar.

If Gore had won, I'm willing to bet that the US would have never gone into Iraq, and considering Iraq was a major part of Bush's presidency, things would have been very different on almost every front: foreign policy would have been better and easier handled, the deficit wouldn't have ballooned so catastrophically because of it, Afghanistan would have had the proper resources devoted to it that it should have, possibly negating the movement of the Taliban into Pakistan and more stabilty there, which would have translated to an earlier pullout, which means less domestic issues back home... I can go on.

Gore would be re-elected in 2004 because if McCain was the candidate, it would have been no match, especially if Gore proved himself competent with foreign and domestic issues, which I'm sure he would have unless there is some discrepancy we're missing. This means that there would have been four Democratic terms in a row, which would be amazing.

But, regardless of whether or not the Democrats were in, I think the economic collapse would have occurred regardless, and then the Dems would be in trouble, since incumbents bear the brunt of blame. Of course, it depends who the GOP would have had to run as well, as well as the Dems.

Overall, it probably would have been better if Gore won. Too bad we can't go back in time.

If Gore won in 2000, there'd be no 9/11, because all fossil-fuel-consuming, global-warming-contributing commercial vehichles would be outlawed.

At 11/1/2009 7:52:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
If Gore won in 2000, there'd be no 9/11, because all fossil-fuel-consuming, global-warming-contributing commercial vehichles would be outlawed.

That doesn't make any sense.

At 11/1/2009 6:56:02 PM, Volkov wrote:

Overall, it probably would have been better if Gore won. Too bad we can't go back in time.

Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart! Of course candidates are prepped hard core prior to the debates (even Sarah Palin held her own). However, Bush just didn't seem as generally DUMB not only with what he says but in his mannerisms and overall linguistics as well. I'd say look up the debate on YouTube, and I think it becomes quite obvious why Bush got elected in 2000 after Clinton. Also, keep in mind that Bush probably won because he was the social butterfly of the two; Gore was busy doing VP stuff and couldn't campaign enough. Regardless, Gore should have won. Actually, he DID win, technically :P

At 11/1/2009 8:17:12 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart!

I've never seen them, actually. Wasn't interested in politics back then. I should look them up.

I watched 2004 though, and Jesus, how did Bush win? :| Basking in the glory of what was then considered the successful Iraq War, I suppose, plus Kerry's sad candidacy.

I didn't watch it then either, but I actually checked it out online last week and was shocked.

Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart! Of course candidates are prepped hard core prior to the debates (even Sarah Palin held her own). However, Bush just didn't seem as generally DUMB not only with what he says but in his mannerisms and overall linguistics as well. I'd say look up the debate on YouTube, and I think it becomes quite obvious why Bush got elected in 2000 after Clinton. Also, keep in mind that Bush probably won because he was the social butterfly of the two; Gore was busy doing VP stuff and couldn't campaign enough. Regardless, Gore should have won. Actually, he DID win, technically :P

I guess we could contribute it all to the hard core prep time prior, as you mentioned. He probably got lots of hours of practice :P. But when he became President, and you're expected to make a speech constantly, his true nature *coughcough* was shown.