What if? Gore defeats Bush

DaveXA · 08-17-2012, 09:55 AM

I've never really thought about this before, and if it's been discussed here before, I missed it. What if the Supreme Court had ruled differently and allowed Gore to win the election? Would a Republican have won instead in 2004 for Gore's re-election campaign? Who would have opposed Gore then?

Would Obama have won in 2008 after 8 years of Gore? Would Hillary have been the pick instead? How would Gore have handled 9-11 and it's aftermath?

I think it would make for interesting discussion.

What say you?

Devildog · 08-17-2012, 10:17 AM

I don't know about policy. I imagine Gore would have pushed for more alternative energy production. As far as banking and financial matters, I don't think he would have done anything all that much different. The first 8 months probably would have looked similar to W's and I think the response to 9/11 would have been the same.

The difference I see is that we would have been more concentrated on Afghanistan and would have not gotten into a prolonged war with Iraq. We'd be further along with Afghanistan.

sinner mike · 08-17-2012, 10:29 AM

I think financially he would have followed the Clinton blueprint, and we would not have started the war in Iraq saving the country trillions of dollars. The Bush tax cuts never happen adding billions to the treasury, dependence on oil and coal would be reduced.

On the down side, I think Gore would be weak on foreign policy, and he is not a dynamic person i.e. hard to like. I'm not a fan of Gore but I think we would be in much better economic shape if he would have won. I don' think he fought hard enough to win. He was the VP in a successful presedincy but failed to use that inertia to secure the office. By successful, I mean that we had a budget surplus, employment was in good shape.

J-Donk · 08-17-2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devildog

I don't know about policy. I imagine Gore would have pushed for more alternative energy production. As far as banking and financial matters, I don't think he would have done anything all that much different. The first 8 months probably would have looked similar to W's and I think the response to 9/11 would have been the same.

The difference I see is that we would have been more concentrated on Afghanistan and would have not gotten into a prolonged war with Iraq. We'd be further along with Afghanistan.

Essentially, we could've kicked out a militant terrorist civilization. Then we get to play the good guy and build out roads, and irrigation. The people would've loved us(as they did early on), and the karma payback could've been contracts for the massive amount of mineral resources.

thegoldenapple · 08-17-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinner mike

He was the VP in a successful presedincy but failed to use that inertia to secure the office. By successful, I mean that we had a budget surplus, employment was in good shape.

It's hard to fight against a stacked SCOTUS. There was at least one justice who had stated that they wanted to retire under a Republican president that ruled on the case in favor of a Republican president.

The ruling itself even states that the case should be an exception and not used for precedent.

It was as stacked against Gore winning as possible.

Florida's election committee was run by a former associate of Bush. The governor was Bush. The SCOTUS was pro-Bush. The only people who weren't in favor of Bush were the actual voters and we see how much that matters.

Also, most likely Gore wouldn't have let the assault weapons ban expire.

RussTKD · 08-17-2012, 01:03 PM

Some political scientist figured out that if Gore would have spent one more day campaigning in Florida, he would have won the state, and therefore the election.

I blame him for this whole mess we're in.

DaveXA · 08-17-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussTKD

Some political scientist figured out that if Gore would have spent one more day campaigning in Florida, he would have won the state, and therefore the election.

I blame him for this whole mess we're in.

LOL, awesome. FWIW, Gore really deserves a good bit of blame for losing the election. He had a golden opportunity and made some pretty big mistakes in the last several weeks leading up to the election.

I never liked Gore much, (I actually liked Clinton as he governed a bit more from the center than I thought Gore would have) and thought he was a bad choice and had a ton of baggage when he was picked as the Democrat nominee.

I doubt Obama would have become President though. 16 years of Democratic presidents would likely have led to people wanting something different.

MGC · 08-17-2012, 05:22 PM

You can blame the dumb voters in Palm Beach County that could not operate the punch card ballot properly. What a circus that turned into....of course if Gore had won he would not be as wealthy as he is today.

wcklink · 08-20-2012, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussTKD

Some political scientist figured out that if Gore would have spent one more day campaigning in Florida, he would have won the state, and therefore the election.

I blame him for this whole mess we're in.

Well if he had managed to carry his home state he would have been president. I think every after the fact recounts have all shown Bush won the vote. And the panhandle, strongly military and republican had Florida called by the media before the polls closed. If you're standing in line or are headed to vote and the race is called, do you head on down and vote anyway. I would, but I'm guessing that calling the race while the polls were open would have an effect on the turnout.

From factcheck.org about the recounts:

The Associated Press reported the findings this way:

AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

The Palm Beach Post put it more dramatically:

Palm Beach Post: Al Gore was doomed.

He couldn’t have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out.

Similar Conclusions, Uncertain Results

An earlier study by a different media consortium reached similar conclusions. That study was conducted by a group that included the Miami Herald, USA Today and Knight Ridder newspapers. As USA Today said of the findings on May 11, 2001:

USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

DaveXA · 08-20-2012, 06:31 AM

I do think the media calling elections in each state prior to polls closing needs to be stopped. I think it has the potential of causing people to think their vote doesn't matter.

Regarding the Florida recounts, I really haven't seen certifiable evidence that the Supreme Court ruling for Gore would have led to his eventual election. IIRC, the ruling was whether or not to allow a full statewide recount, which would have been unprecedented. There were already controversial recounts in a couple of counties (IIRC Broward and a couple of others)with the infamous hanging and dimpled chads, butterfly ballots and the like.

From what I've seen, most statewide recount estimates had Bush winning Florida.

That said, I really didn't like the SCOTUS ruling. I'd rather Florida have gone through a full recount that what actually happened, even if it would have handed Gore the election. Even though most estimates still had Bush winning, it still would have been better to leave no doubt.

I will say also that doing a statewide recount would have been a freakshow worth watching, lol.

Edit: The SCOTUS question was whether to allow Gore's request to recount all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties, not the full statewide recount I incorrectly stated above. By Gore's own request, just recounting those wouldn't have changed the results. Some estimates have Gore winning in the event of a full statewide recount, but I'm not sure where those numbers come from.

2009ring · 08-20-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveXA

I do think the media calling elections in each state prior to polls closing needs to be stopped. I think it has the potential of causing people to think their vote doesn't matter.

Regarding the Florida recounts, I really haven't seen certifiable evidence that the Supreme Court ruling for Gore would have led to his eventual election. IIRC, the ruling was whether or not to allow a full statewide recount, which would have been unprecedented. There were already controversial recounts in a couple of counties (IIRC Broward and a couple of others)with the infamous hanging and dimpled chads, butterfly ballots and the like.

From what I've seen, most statewide recount estimates had Bush winning Florida.

That said, I really didn't like the SCOTUS ruling. I'd rather Florida have gone through a full recount that what actually happened, even if it would have handed Gore the election. Even though most estimates still had Bush winning, it still would have been better to leave no doubt.

I will say also that doing a statewide recount would have been a freakshow worth watching, lol.

Edit: The SCOTUS question was whether to allow Gore's request to recount all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties, not the full statewide recount I incorrectly stated above. By Gore's own request, just recounting those wouldn't have changed the results. Some estimates have Gore winning in the event of a full statewide recount, but I'm not sure where those numbers come from.

Good points. Frankly, I would like to see any states race prevented from being "called' until all the polls have closed in the country. Think about it. You're in California. You plan on voting for Candidate 1. Prior to heading out to the polls, you see Candidate 2 has already won New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Floria. You still gonna go vote?

RussTKD · 08-20-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wcklink

Well if he had managed to carry his home state he would have been president. I think every after the fact recounts have all shown Bush won the vote. And the panhandle, strongly military and republican had Florida called by the media before the polls closed. If you're standing in line or are headed to vote and the race is called, do you head on down and vote anyway. I would, but I'm guessing that calling the race while the polls were open would have an effect on the turnout.

Wasn't he the first candidate in forever to not carry his home state?

V Chip · 08-20-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveXA

I do think the media calling elections in each state prior to polls closing needs to be stopped. I think it has the potential of causing people to think their vote doesn't matter.

It's gonna be useless though... I can already call more than half the states right now and I don't even have access to polling data at the moment. Louisiana is going Romney. Massachusetts is going Obama. There's at least 25 states you can do that for right now.

DaveXA · 08-20-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussTKD

Wasn't he the first candidate in forever to not carry his home state?

Yep, I was pretty shocked he didn't win Tenn. He pretty much blew it. One of the few who ever lost with a plurality of votes nationwide.

DaveXA · 08-20-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V Chip

It's gonna be useless though... I can already call more than half the states right now and I don't even have access to polling data at the moment. Louisiana is going Romney. Massachusetts is going Obama. There's at least 25 states you can do that for right now.

Oh, no doubt, but I'd still rather the media wait anyway. I don't mind them posting percentages and even exit polling, but to actually call a particular state should wait until after polls close. But that's me.