No DUI October Surprise; George W Bush wins by a clear margin and has coattails

[Jackson Lennock]

What if the DUI hadn't come out just before the 2000 Election and Bush wins by a clear margin - thus avoiding the drawn out Florida fight and Bush v. Gore?

New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon were all under 1% for Gore, and Florida would clearly be in the Republican column here. Minnesota (2.4%) and Maine's Second District (1.87%) could also go for Bush if just 1.25% of voters go the other way here.

Instead of a 50-50 Senate, there'd be at least a 51-49 Senate. Slade Gorton (R) lost to Maria Cantwell (D) by 0.09%. Even if you think coattails don't make much of a difference, that's a narrow enough margin that I think there would be some benefit to Gorton. Other close races OTL were Michigan (1.6%), Missouri (2.1%), Nebraska (2.3%), and New Jersey (3.0%).


A few immediate thoughts...

1. Without the election being drawn out, the Bush transition might go more smoothly. They might prevent 9/11 if they aren't as distracted and rushed in setting up the administration.
2. Less liberal ire directed at the Supreme Court
3. More blame would be put on Gore for losing, rather than Ralph Nader or the Supreme Court. Nader might still get flack depending on what the margin is. The brief surge in interest in third parties (Perot-Perot-Nader) might not fade without Nader being seen as a spoiler; and progressives might argue harder that if Gore had been more progressive, he'd have gotten more votes and won.
4. Many democrats will still say Bush wasn't the moral winner if the DUI comes out after Bush wins; they'll argue that Bush would have lost if people had known
5. Bush probably wins the popular vote, which helps a bit with legitimacy
6. Rehnquist and O'Connor probably retire in W's first first term without Bush v. Gore.

 

[Ricardolindo]

What if the DUI hadn't come out just before the 2000 Election and Bush wins by a clear margin - thus avoiding the drawn out Florida fight and Bush v. Gore?

New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon were all under 1% for Gore, and Florida would clearly be in the Republican column here. Minnesota (2.4%) and Maine's Second District (1.87%) could also go for Bush if just 1.25% of voters go the other way here.

Instead of a 50-50 Senate, there'd be at least a 51-49 Senate. Slade Gorton (R) lost to Maria Cantwell (D) by 0.09%. Even if you think coattails don't make much of a difference, that's a narrow enough margin that I think there would be some benefit to Gorton. Other close races OTL were Michigan (1.6%), Missouri (2.1%), Nebraska (2.3%), and New Jersey (3.0%).


A few immediate thoughts...

1. Without the election being drawn out, the Bush transition might go more smoothly. They might prevent 9/11 if they aren't as distracted and rushed in setting up the administration.
2. Less liberal ire directed at the Supreme Court
3. More blame would be put on Gore for losing, rather than Ralph Nader or the Supreme Court. Nader might still get flack depending on what the margin is. The brief surge in interest in third parties (Perot-Perot-Nader) might not fade without Nader being seen as a spoiler; and progressives might argue harder that if Gore had been more progressive, he'd have gotten more votes and won.
4. Many democrats will still say Bush wasn't the moral winner if the DUI comes out after Bush wins; they'll argue that Bush would have lost if people had known
5. Bush probably wins the popular vote, which helps a bit with legitimacy
6. Rehnquist and O'Connor probably retire in W's first first term without Bush v. Gore.

I don't think Rehnquist would retire. He wanted to die on the Court and he resented Bush for firing his daughter.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

I don't think Rehnquist would retire. He wanted to die on the Court and he resented Bush for firing his daughter.

Rehnquist's daughter resigned in 2003 OTL, and going off OTL precedent (Brennan and Marshall, Blackmun and White, Souter and Stevens, O'Connor) he'd likely retire before the midterms. The reason he didn't retire before O'Connor OTL was because he wanted to give her another year to spend with her ailing husband.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Rehnquist's daughter resigned in 2003 OTL, and going off OTL precedent (Brennan and Marshall, Blackmun and White, Souter and Stevens, O'Connor) he'd likely retire before the midterms. The reason he didn't retire before O'Connor OTL was because he wanted to give her another year to spend with her ailing husband.

Rehnquist really loved the Court, though, and many believe he wanted to die on the Court.
Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991, after the
1990 midterms.

 

[Ricardolindo]

It's worth noting that Rehnquist's wife died in 1991. With his life centered on the Court, there are good reasons for him not wanting to retire. The same thing may have happened with Ginsburg. Her husband's death may have made her more reluctant to retire.

 

[Thande]

One possible consequence is that the 2002 redistricting is more Republican-friendly; in OTL a lot of states (e.g. Texas) didn't get a Republican majority in their legislatures until the 9/11 rally-around-the-flag effect lent the Republicans strength to get over the mark in 2002. Of course, some of them (e.g. Texas again) then did a controversial mid-decade redistricting to switch from Democratic to Republican gerrymanders anyway, but this would probably be more widespread if the switchover happened in 2000 rather than 2002.

(Extracted from my general map series, state legislature control after 2000 and 2002; the darkness of the shade indicates the size of the numerical majority).

 

[Elektronaut]

Rehnquist in OTL was extremely determined to stay on the court, up to the point of irritating the Bush White House by not immediately retiring after his cancer diagnosis. O'Connor also wanted to keep on going and it was only the issue of her husband's health that really forced her hand.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Rehnquist in OTL was extremely determined to stay on the court, up to the point of irritating the Bush White House by not immediately retiring after his cancer diagnosis. O'Connor also wanted to keep on going and it was only the issue of her husband's health that really forced her hand.

Agreed on Rehnquist.
O'Connor, however, remarked when it was reported that Gore had won Florida that she was upset for having to delay retirement.

 

[Elektronaut]

Agreed on Rehnquist.
O'Connor, however, remarked when it was reported that Gore had won Florida, though, that she was upset for having to delay retirement.

John O'Connor said she was upset for that reason, yeah. But his health was already starting to fail by that point and I think retirement was more in his mind than hers. More pointedly, Bush did win IOTL, and she didn't retire until John's health was completely starting to go in the second term.

According to Tobin, she was an extremely enthusiastic backer of Bush, and her reaction on election night probably reflected the mood of a disappointed partisan as much as it did any anticipation of retirement.

I think if John had died in say 2004 or early 2005, she would probably have stayed on long-term.

 

[Ricardolindo]

John O'Connor said she was upset for that reason, yeah. But his health was already starting to fail by that point and I think retirement was more in his mind than hers. More pointedly, Bush did win IOTL, and she didn't retire until John's health was completely starting to go in the second term.

According to Tobin, she was an extremely enthusiastic backer of Bush, and her reaction on election night probably reflected the mood of a disappointed partisan as much as it did any anticipation of retirement.

I think if John had died in say 2004 or early 2005, she would probably have stayed on long-term.

You made a good argument, but part of @Jackson Lennock's premise is that she didn't retire during Bush's first term as she was afraid it would look too political following Bush v. Gore.

 

[Elektronaut]

You made a good argument, but part of @Jackson Lennock's premise is that she didn't retire during Bush's first term as she was afraid it would look too political following Bush v. Gore.

I mean it's a premise I thought was obvious I was disagreeing with. O'Connor loved her job, loved the power of being at the centre of the court, and the only reason she retired IOTL was because ensuring a spouse with alzheimers is cared for and safe is a full-time job. She was not, inherently, in any rush to retire at all.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I mean it's a premise I thought was obvious I was disagreeing with. O'Connor loved her job, loved the power of being at the centre of the court, and the only reason she retired IOTL was because ensuring a spouse with alzheimers is cared for and safe is a full-time job. She was not, inherently, in any rush to retire at all.

I understood you were disagreeing with it.
Regardless, why do you think O'Connor would have been willing to risk a Democratic President nominating her successor? Also, if John O'Connor had died in 2004 or early 2005 and she remained on the Court, when do you think her own Alzheimer's would have forced her to retire?

 

[Elektronaut]

Regardless, why do you think O'Connor would have been willing to risk a Democratic President nominating her successor?

Well, why do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, IOTL, willing to risk a Republican nominating her successor by not retiring under Obama?

Because human beings in the real world don't conform to the dictates of timeline demands. They make funny, selfish, non-politically rational decisions.

In the year or so after Bush was re-elected, btw, there was a significant mood amongst the punditocracy that Democrats would struggle to win an election again and that Bush had created a natural Republican majority. That was dead by the time of the mid-terms but nobody had a crystal ball on the 2008 election, still less anything beyond that. 2008 itself was seen to be moderately competitive even within its own year, right up to the subprime crisis coming to a clear head in September.

 

[Catalunya]

In the year or so after Bush was re-elected, btw, there was a significant mood amongst the punditocracy that Democrats would struggle to win an election again and that Bush had created a natural Republican majority.

This is so apparent when you analyze popular (and especially internet) culture of the early noughties.

 

[History Learner]

Well, why do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, IOTL, willing to risk a Republican nominating her successor by not retiring under Obama?

Because human beings in the real world don't conform to the dictates of timeline demands. They make funny, selfish, non-politically rational decisions.

In the year or so after Bush was re-elected, btw, there was a significant mood amongst the punditocracy that Democrats would struggle to win an election again and that Bush had created a natural Republican majority. That was dead by the time of the mid-terms but nobody had a crystal ball on the 2008 election, still less anything beyond that. 2008 itself was seen to be moderately competitive even within its own year, right up to the subprime crisis coming to a clear head in September.

One that really stands out to me is George Allen in the early to mid 2000s saying the GOP had created a long term majority in Virginia, especially with the gerrymander they had instituted after the 2000 Census. It's almost poetic then, given his statements, that the GOP has lost every Presidential and Senate race since that time in Virginia, and the Democrats control the majority of the Congressional delegation. Tempting fate and all of that, indeed, but to an extent they were onto to something generally speaking.

In both 2000 and 2004, Bush lost Wisconsin by less than 1%; a shift of about 2.6% to Bush in either election would've resulted in him doing what Trump later did in the rest of the Midwest, but including Minnesota. This was because Blue Collar White voters were already starting to shift Republican, best exemplified by the fact that even in 2008, 40% of them voted for McCain. One irony I noted recently is that White Millennials who were 18-29 in 2008 now vote as Republican as their Boomer parents do, while Gen X became devoutly Republican. Basically, what happened in 2016 for Trump was the culmination of a process that had started about 15 years earlier, it's just Bush bungled things so bad in his second term this was obscured by the resulting Obama years.

Outside of Working class Whites, you also saw a lot of the shifts we're now seeing with minority voters also start under Bush. Famously, roughly 40% of the Hispanic vote was won by Bush in 2004, but then lost under McCain and Romney in the Obama years, reaching a low of 28% in 2012. By 2016, however, it started to climb back up and by 2020 the Republicans had registered very large gains with Hispanic voters across the country. Texas was a good example of this, as gains among Hispanics, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, largely offset losses among White suburban voters. Elsewhere, particularly in places like Miami-Dade County, firewalls built upon Hispanic voters eroded spectacularly and such has continued there to the point Republicans won it by double digits this year. Outside of the Hispanic vote, you also saw serious shifts among Black voters, which played a key role (in addition to shifts among Hispanics) in how Nevada has become so competitive in recent cycles. Once again, this was getting noticed first in the 2000s, with a ~50% gain IIRC in Black voters from 2000 to 2004 by the GOP.

Basically, a lot of the trends that Trump got credit for in 2016 really did start in the Bush years, it just took time to culminate with how badly the latter screwed up with Iraq and the GFC in his second term. A better Bush Presidency could see 2000 viewed as the realignment election, as opposed to 2008 or 2016 as some view it now.

This is so apparent when you analyze popular (and especially internet) culture of the early noughties.

When I first started reading the works of @ChrisNuttall about a decade ago, this was one thing that I noticed in his mid-late 2000s writing. Nothing wrong with that either, Chris, as they now function as a time capsule for that era in terms of thought.

 

[Jukato]

One that really stands out to me is George Allen in the early to mid 2000s saying the GOP had created a long term majority in Virginia, especially with the gerrymander they had instituted after the 2000 Census. It's almost poetic then, given his statements, that the GOP has lost every Presidential and Senate race since that time in Virginia, and the Democrats control the majority of the Congressional delegation. Tempting fate and all of that, indeed, but to an extent they were onto to something generally speaking.

In both 2000 and 2004, Bush lost Wisconsin by less than 1%; a shift of about 2.6% to Bush in either election would've resulted in him doing what Trump later did in the rest of the Midwest, but including Minnesota. This was because Blue Collar White voters were already starting to shift Republican, best exemplified by the fact that even in 2008, 40% of them voted for McCain. One irony I noted recently is that White Millennials who were 18-29 in 2008 now vote as Republican as their Boomer parents do, while Gen X became devoutly Republican. Basically, what happened in 2016 for Trump was the culmination of a process that had started about 15 years earlier, it's just Bush bungled things so bad in his second term this was obscured by the resulting Obama years.

Outside of Working class Whites, you also saw a lot of the shifts we're now seeing with minority voters also start under Bush. Famously, roughly 40% of the Hispanic vote was won by Bush in 2004, but then lost under McCain and Romney in the Obama years, reaching a low of 28% in 2012. By 2016, however, it started to climb back up and by 2020 the Republicans had registered very large gains with Hispanic voters across the country. Texas was a good example of this, as gains among Hispanics, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, largely offset losses among White suburban voters. Elsewhere, particularly in places like Miami-Dade County, firewalls built upon Hispanic voters eroded spectacularly and such has continued there to the point Republicans won it by double digits this year. Outside of the Hispanic vote, you also saw serious shifts among Black voters, which played a key role (in addition to shifts among Hispanics) in how Nevada has become so competitive in recent cycles. Once again, this was getting noticed first in the 2000s, with a ~50% gain IIRC in Black voters from 2000 to 2004 by the GOP.

Basically, a lot of the trends that Trump got credit for in 2016 really did start in the Bush years, it just took time to culminate with how badly the latter screwed up with Iraq and the GFC in his second term. A better Bush Presidency could see 2000 viewed as the realignment election, as opposed to 2008 or 2016 as some view it now.

Worth noting that one major difference between Bush and Trump is that the former was much more pro-immigration than the latter was, no?

 

[frittering]

Worth noting that one major difference between Bush and Trump is that the former was much more pro-immigration than the latter was, no?

Yes (if you take "pro-immigration" to mean "not insanely paranoid about immigration"), but the key difference was more that immigration wasn't such a major issue as it became under Obama, first with the "deporter-in-chief" criticism from the left and then GOP capitalization on Muh Illegals ramping up steadily throughout the 2010s. Radical Islamic Terror™ was of course the national security cause célèbre of the time.

Dubya was also very popular with Hispanics as governor, largely due to his fostering ~bipartisan~ governance with conservative Democrats; note that he won El Paso County, as well as Cameron (Brownsville) and Hidalgo (McAllen) Counties in the lower Rio Grande Valley, in his 1998 re-election.

 

[Jukato]

Yes (if you take "pro-immigration" to mean "not insanely paranoid about immigration"), but the key difference was more that immigration wasn't such a major issue as it became under Obama, first with the "deporter-in-chief" criticism from the left and then GOP capitalization on Muh Illegals ramping up steadily throughout the 2010s. Radical Islamic Terror™ was of course the national security cause célèbre of the time.

Dubya was also very popular with Hispanics as governor, largely due to his fostering ~bipartisan~ governance with conservative Democrats; note that he won El Paso County, as well as Cameron (Brownsville) and Hidalgo (McAllen) Counties in the lower Rio Grande Valley, in his 1998 re-election.

Immigration was sufficiently important for Republicans to block Bush's 2006-2007 amnesty drive in real life.

And good point about Bush's partisanship. Trump, of course, wasn't anywhere near as bipartisan.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Worth noting that one major difference between Bush and Trump is that the former was much more pro-immigration than the latter was, no?

Both Trump and Dubya played up cultural populism, albeit in different ways. By contrast, Romney and McCain didn't.

I suspect that a reason Dubya could get away with being pro-immigration in 2000 is because the voters that he brought into the party weren't influencing GOP policy on immigration yet. They joined the GOP for one set of cultural reasons, but once in the tent they influenced immigration policy.