What if the Democrats took the House of Representatives in 2000?

[Ricardolindo]

The Democrats came pretty close to taking the House of Representatives in 2000. What if they did take it but George W. Bush still won the Presidency? What would their relationship with the White House look like? Would they have blocked the Bush tax cuts or, at least, modified them?

 

[CaliGuy]

Back then, there was still a sizable Blue Dog (conservative) Democratic caucus, I believe. So, Yes, I do think that Bush would have been able to get at least some of these Blue Dogs to defect and to support his tax cuts. Maybe they'd be able to secure some modifications for these tax cuts, but ultimately, I suspect that Bush is going to be able to get at least most of what he wants.

As for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, those two wars were bipartisan affairs due to the wave of both fear and hyper-patriotism that was induced by 9/11 and thus I still see both of these wars occurring in this scenario. Also, the Democrats likely lost the House in 2002 in this scenario due to GOP gerrymandering as well as due to the post-9/11 boost that the GOP is still likely to receive in this scenario.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Also, the Democrats likely lost the House in 2002 in this scenario due to GOP gerrymandering as well as due to the post-9/11 boost that the GOP is still likely to receive in this scenario.

That seems likely, followed by a view that the Democrats held him back a bit and then look what happened

 

[CaliGuy]

That seems likely, followed by a view that the Democrats held him back a bit and then look what happened

Frankly, blaming 9/11 on the Democrats in this scenario would be a real stretch. After all, what exactly would they have actually done to deserve such blame? It's not like they would have blocked funding for national security or something along those lines.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Frankly, blaming 9/11 on the Democrats in this scenario would be a real stretch. After all, what exactly would they have actually done to deserve such blame?

I meant in the sense that Democrats held him back from going The Full Bush, even if what was done wasn't too different to OTL.

 

[CaliGuy]

I meant in the sense that Democrats held him back from going The Full Bush, even if what was done wasn't too different to OTL.

What exactly would "going The Full Bush" entail?

 

[Charles EP M.]

Iraq, basically

 

[Elektronaut]

There was a partial bipartisan consensus on tax cuts in 2000, but Gore supported a much more modest cut than Bush, with no cuts for the wealthiest brackets, and more being held back to keep the surplus going and fund entitlements etc. So yes, there would almost certainly be a tax cut if the Democrats won the House, but it might be more sane than OTL. I guess it depends on the margins.

I'd have to think more on how Dick Gephardt becoming Speaker would impact the 2004 nomination.

 

[CaliGuy]

Iraq, basically

They won't be willing to prevent Iraq in this scenario, though; not after 9/11. What might very well prevent Iraq would be if Gore won in 2000 but what we're talking about here is having Bush still win in 2000 but have a Democratic House of Representatives.

 

[CaliGuy]

There was a partial bipartisan consensus on tax cuts in 2000, but Gore supported a much more modest cut than Bush, with no cuts for the wealthiest brackets, and more being held back to keep the surplus going and fund entitlements etc. So yes, there would almost certainly be a tax cut if the Democrats won the House, but it might be more sane than OTL. I guess it depends on the margins.

I'd have to think more on how Dick Gephardt becoming Speaker would impact the 2004 nomination.

Agreed about Gore and tax cuts. Honestly, I wonder why exactly anyone thought that Bush's tax cut was more sensible than Gore's. I mean, for goodness sake, isn't it better to spend some of the surplus money on entitlements (so that there would be less need to aggressively cut them in the future) as opposed to on tax cuts for the rich? It's similar to the current coronavirus pandemic--when Republicans might have been more interested in getting tax cuts for the rich as opposed to funding much more important things such as disease prevention efforts.

That said, though, the OP here says that Bush still wins in 2000 while the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. So, I was operating on that specific premise here.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Back then, there was still a sizable Blue Dog (conservative) Democratic caucus, I believe. So, Yes, I do think that Bush would have been able to get at least some of these Blue Dogs to defect and to support his tax cuts. Maybe they'd be able to secure some modifications for these tax cuts, but ultimately, I suspect that Bush is going to be able to get at least most of what he wants.

As for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, those two wars were bipartisan affairs due to the wave of both fear and hyper-patriotism that was induced by 9/11 and thus I still see both of these wars occurring in this scenario. Also, the Democrats likely lost the House in 2002 in this scenario due to GOP gerrymandering as well as due to the post-9/11 boost that the GOP is still likely to receive in this scenario.

There was a partial bipartisan consensus on tax cuts in 2000, but Gore supported a much more modest cut than Bush, with no cuts for the wealthiest brackets, and more being held back to keep the surplus going and fund entitlements etc. So yes, there would almost certainly be a tax cut if the Democrats won the House, but it might be more sane than OTL. I guess it depends on the margins.

I'd have to think more on how Dick Gephardt becoming Speaker would impact the 2004 nomination.

I suspect Gephardt would have blocked Bush's version of the tax cuts in committee and modified them. BTW, this raises a question: Would Ralph Hall have defected to the Republicans earlier? He was, by far, the most conservative Democratic Congressman. He was even more conservative than many Republican congressmen.

 

[CaliGuy]

I suspect Gephardt would have blocked Bush's version of the tax cuts in committee and modified them. BTW, this raises a question: Would Ralph Hall have defected to the Republicans earlier? He was, by far, the most conservative Democratic Congressman. He was even more conservative than many Republican congressmen.

Hall might not be so eager to defect as long as Democrats will remain in the majority in the House. After all, being in the majority has various privileges, no? Especially if one is a very senior member of the majority party.

Agreed about Gephardt blocking and then modifying Bush's tax cuts--probably in order to make them less slanted towards the rich and thus less of a threat to the US budget. Honestly, it amazes me when Republicans describe themselves as fiscal conservatives only to support creating extremely huge gaps in the US budget as a result of tax cuts for the rich!

 

[Ricardolindo]

Hall might not be so eager to defect as long as Democrats will remain in the majority in the House. After all, being in the majority has various privileges, no? Especially if one is a very senior member of the majority party.

Thing is, as noted in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...f-representatives-in-2000.295170/post-8315652, there could be pressure on him and other conservative Southern Democrats to defect so that the Republicans could retake the House.

 

[CaliGuy]

Thing is, as noted in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...f-representatives-in-2000.295170/post-8315652, there could be pressure on him and other conservative Southern Democrats to defect so that the Republicans could retake the House.

Unless his switch here is going to be decisive, though, it's probably not going to happen. You're going to need to get several Southern Democrats to switch at once so that they will know that it's a sure thing that they are going to defect to the new House majority.

 

[Elektronaut]

I suspect Gephardt would have blocked Bush's version of the tax cuts in committee and modified them. BTW, this raises a question: Would Ralph Hall have defected to the Republicans earlier? He was, by far, the most conservative Democratic Congressman. He was even more conservative than many Republican congressmen.

As noted by CaliGuy, no-one's going to switch parties while the Democrats are in the majority. People like Richard Shelby switched because the perks of being in the mainstream of opinion in the majority party was irresistible, not just for shits and giggles.

 

[CaliGuy]

As noted by CaliGuy, no-one's going to switch parties while the Democrats are in the majority. People like Richard Shelby switched because the perks of being in the mainstream of opinion in the majority party was irresistible, not just for shits and giggles.

The other reason to switch parties would be to secure reelection, but I get the impression that people such as Ralph Hall were already sufficiently secure in their seats in the early 2000s.