• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

What would a Gore presidency look like?

Bolt451

You've been.. THUNBERG STRUCK!
#1
I'm writing a low-key alternate history (ish) story at the moment and one of the characters is from a world which diverges with Florida going to Gore in 2000. I've vaguely outlined the world and how it influences the day to day life of the character (who was only 10 at the time of the PoD) and I've got vague ideas about how a Gore presidency might look

Looking at 2000-2004 (or potentially 2008) how do you all thing a Gore presidency would fare. Do you think we'd still go into Iraq? Would Gore go in with a UN resolution? (this is something I've written into the notes as it affects UK Politics quite directly) If so how would this affect his re-election chances. Could we get 16 years of democrats in the White House

As for domestic affairs I cant really comment.
 

Blackadder Mk2

Well-known member
#2
Elektronaut can answer this better than I could, but the big thing is going to be No Iraq. Gore, IIRC, was one of the few high-profile Democrats who opposed the war (as one of the few high-profile Democrats to back the Gulf War) which added to the myth of the Lost Presidency.

Gore's re-election chances might be dependent on 9/11. It's rare for two eight-year terms back to back but there's going to be a flag-rallying moment if the attack happens and Gore had a hawkish reputation. Some neo-cons may push going into Iraq in think-tanks while the rest of the country/party lines up behind him on going after the Taliban. If there is no 9/11 then unless the Republicans nominate someone awful, it's going to be tough for him.

His legislative programme would maybe have more of an environmental focus than Clinton and he would push for ratifying Kyoto. The dot-com bubble burst for the Man Who Invented The Internet might hurt his successes though.
 

Yokai Man

Well-known member
#3
The Iraq War doesn't happen or Gore goes in with a UN resolution,but the former is more likely,with the Americans just maintaing sanctions and maybe some air strikes.

The Democrats probably hold the House,though it is possible for the Republicans have some gains if they go aggressive on Gore and the Democrats.Lieberman is gonna be a problem in long run,probably being removed from the ticket in 2004.The right becomes even aggressive,with Fox News demonizing Gore.

Again,like Blackadder said,it depends on whether or not 9/11 still happens as OTL.If so,then Gore likely has two turns and the Republicans become more extreme as a response.

I could see McCain becoming President in 2008 but it's hard to say.
 

Youngmarshall

The cull cuckold in Sunderland toon
#4
Elektronaut can answer this better than I could, but the big thing is going to be No Iraq. Gore, IIRC, was one of the few high-profile Democrats who opposed the war (as one of the few high-profile Democrats to back the Gulf War) which added to the myth of the Lost Presidency.

Gore's re-election chances might be dependent on 9/11. It's rare for two eight-year terms back to back but there's going to be a flag-rallying moment if the attack happens and Gore had a hawkish reputation. Some neo-cons may push going into Iraq in think-tanks while the rest of the country/party lines up behind him on going after the Taliban. If there is no 9/11 then unless the Republicans nominate someone awful, it's going to be tough for him.

His legislative programme would maybe have more of an environmental focus than Clinton and he would push for ratifying Kyoto. The dot-com bubble burst for the Man Who Invented The Internet might hurt his successes though.
I simply don't buy that it'll automatically mean no Iraq. He was a man who was consistently hawkish about Iraq both in and out of government. In 1998, he said there was no doubt at all that Hussein's WMD were a grave threat and pushed for harsher reactions. In Feb 2002, he said that Iraq represented a virulent threat that could do the USA great harm and a final reckoning with them must be kept on the table. In September 2002, he said that the evidence about wmds were impossible to deny and it had to be assumed that the programme would continue as long as Hussein was in power.

He opposed the war in as much, as the beaten candidate he attacked Bush over it and made a big deal about the lack of UN resolution. But attacking the other side going in without a UN resolution is very different to never going in himself.
 

Roger II

Well-known member
#5
I'm curious what Gore's environmental policies will look like-CC issues were somewhat less polarized at this point(at least there was a consensus that some kind of carbon cuts were needed) and he was environmentally involved enough that we might see some interesting changes. I wonder if Gore's policies might change things in other ways-if he keeps a decent number of Clinton staffers on there might be less institutional churn.

(now the really interesting PoD for environmental law is before Gore and involves the Tellico Dam case going down differently-either it doesn't get to SCOTUS or the opinion is written such that it's made clear that the decision might have turned out differently if the Tellico Dam was actually useful and not a project kept afloat entirely by inertia and a dams uber alles mentality)
 

Burton K Wheeler

Itinerant Frontier Hobo
Location
garbage can
#7
Bush... to put it charitably... catastrophically mishandled Iraq. What would Gore do?
Not invade?

It's not completely off the table since people like Wolfowitz and Feith were originally Clinton appointees and the idea of invading Iraq had been worked on during the Clinton administration, but I doubt it would be as high a priority for the Gore Administration even given something like OTL's 9/11
 

Elektronaut

Fresh Prince of Benwell
#8
As I've said before, the fact that Gore ended up opposing Iraq says more about Iraq than about Gore. Gore and his NS team were undoubtedly hawkish, but you had a bunch of people who formed the core of the Republican national security team who believed that a major mistake had been made in not finishing the job under Bush senior and who were even more hawkish than the Gore beltway types.

You obviously wouldn't have those people in the Gore administration so the outcome would be different. Given Gore was still in contact with the people who would have formed his national security team in this period IOTL there's also not much reason to believe the outcome would have been different in office. In fact with more of the facts at their disposal and without the tendentious spiel of Blair and Bush it would probably make a different Gore conclusion less likely in office. People like Leon Fuerth were hawkish on Iraq, but they were also multilateralists and willing to wait until the argument for intervening became internationally inarguable. If an Arab Spring, or something similarly disruptive had happened they would have been shit hot over something like that, but that's not likely to happen during the term of Gore's period in office.
 
Last edited: