• 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

Sometimes things that are expensive...are worse
Published by SLP
Location
Sandford, Gloucestershire
Pronouns
She/They
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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
 
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:
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.
Might Gore aim for a bunch of heavy targeted strikes at al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (including at OBL) without actually taking out the Taliban? I mean, the Clinton administration never actually exhibited any desire to help the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban even when they were displeased with the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda.

Agreed with the rest of your post here, though. Also, Gore's tax cuts are likely to be more reasonable than Bush's and he might try harder to push for both an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and a peace deal to end the Korean War. He might actually succeed at the latter--though probably not at the former.

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.
A UN resolution in favor of the Iraq War probably isn't going to happen. I mean, Obama failed to secure one for Syria and only barely managed to get one for Libya. So, yeah, I just don't see it happening.

As for dropping Lieberman in 2004, it's certainly possible, but it would then call into question Gore's decision to choose Lieberman in the first place.

As for McCain, might he be more tempted to run in 2004 as opposed to 2008 in this scenario? Or will he view 2008 as being greener pastures than 2004?

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.
Sure, Gore might try invading Iraq in the right circumstances. 2002-2003, however, were not the right circumstances. The US was still busy rebuilding Afghanistan and going after al-Qaeda and the situation in regards to Iraq hasn't actually reached a crisis point yet during this point in time. (I don't think that Gore would be willing to manipulate and/or selectively read intelligence anywhere to the same extent that Dubya was in real life.) Now, I could see a future US administration taking out Saddam Hussein if an Arab Spring-style rebellion will eventually occur in Iraq in this scenario--but even this isn't guaranteed since Saddam might be able to quickly crush such a rebellion--as in, before the US could actually intervene.

I do wonder if Gaddafi will still normalize his relations with the US in a scenario where Gore wins in 2000. I'd say probably since he was already looking for a way to do that even back in 1999--even if 9/11 and the Iraq War accelerated Gaddafi's desire to mend ties with the US. That, and the fact that Gaddafi in the early 2000s just didn't see much value in having things such as WMDs and nuclear weapons anymore. Indeed, he certainly couldn't foresee his own downfall and brutal murder less than a decade later back then.

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.
Out of curiosity--if the US is able to launch a military intervention against Iraq during an Arab Spring-style event in this scenario (probably after the end of Gore's Presidency, but this shouldn't matter too much here), do the US and NATO also decide to simultaneously launch a military intervention against Libya? Or do they decide that one military intervention (specifically against Iraq) is enough for them to handle at one point in time?
 
Not reviving threads that have been dormant for longer than a few months at most is pretty standard across all online forums. You're mass-reviving threads which have been dead for in some cases a year and a half.
OK; I'll use the six-month rule from now on. Does that sound fair?
 
OK; I'll use the six-month rule from now on. Does that sound fair?

I really, really don't make the rules around here but if the six month rule means you revive the majority of threads posted in the last six months then I'd rather you didn't.

If you've got a specific interest in a topic then I don't think people will have a problem with a revive but adding your voice to everything that's been said so far on here including stuff from years back is pretty strange.
 
I'm personally enjoying seeing the POD's forum active for once, tbh. Nice to see some enthusiasm.
 
I really, really don't make the rules around here but if the six month rule means you revive the majority of threads posted in the last six months then I'd rather you didn't.

If you've got a specific interest in a topic then I don't think people will have a problem with a revive but adding your voice to everything that's been said so far on here including stuff from years back is pretty strange.
So, should I simply create new threads here instead? Also, how many new threads should I limit myself per day? Three?

I'm personally enjoying seeing the POD's forum active for once, tbh. Nice to see some enthusiasm.
Well, I certainly try. :)
 
For what it's worth, I've already bumped most of the threads on this forum that I was interested in. So, even without you warning me, you were probably unlikely to see significant surprises in regards to this in the future. :)
 
Back
Top