Had Gore won in 2000, Gore/Lieberman ( unless Gore changed VPs - remember that there were many things that Gore and Lieberman agreed on in 2000. Events in 2000 and afterward moved Lieberman to the right (and neocon) and Gore to the left. ) Nothing would have happened in the same way. I don't think Gore would have ignored the Rudman/Hart terrorism report and might have tightened obvious security weaknesses. Airplanes having unsecured cockpit doors was something already corrected on El Al - it was a known risk, but it was thought that the cost was too high given the risk. Let's assume that this prevented 911. Ironically, Gore/Lieberman might then lose 2004, with a Republican, who ran on small government claiming all these environmental and safety regulations slowed business growth!
In fact, sitting in 2017, we might be speaking of how Gore/Lieberman made a serious effort on climate change, but their legacy also included a weakened economy at the end of their term. Their legacy might actually have been more positive, if they lost in 2004.
Many factors that caused 2008 were already in play before 2000 - I would hope that Gore/Lieberman would have responded better and faster to the mortgage crisis, but there would have been a big dip. Remember no one would have the actual 2008 to compare it to.
At any rate, the next time a Democrat ran - not primarying a Democratic President would be 2008 at the earliest. If Gore/Lieberman were ending their second term, you would have to consider that Lieberman might be seen as the establishment choice. Clinton would have been a 6 year Senator, who might be helped by the Clinton reputation on the economy .. or hurt by some blame for the bills that left derivatives unregulated and removed the wall between banks and investments. It is not a given she would have won the primary. With the economy a mess, it is possible that someone like Gephardt, who was pro-union and (I think) not for trade deals, could fit the times.
At that point, it is impossible to think what the votings issues would be, though it is pretty likely that a terrible economy could be the issue. It is not obvious that Gore/Lieberman would have picked Obama to give a keynote speech - Kerry met Obama after a Chicago finance person with a home in Nantucket suggested he look see him when he was in Chicago. So, he would have been a 2 year Senator, without that much name recognition. Not to mention, under the scenario that there have been 4 consecutive Democratic terms and the economy is bad, I assume the very young Obama would wait a better year. Edwards, with no scandal, would likely not be in the running because without 2004 he would have had to be campaigning in Iowa etc in 2007 as he learned his wife had stage 4 cancer. Dodd and Richardson got absolutely no traction in 2008 and there is no reason to think any would have been better. Then there are likely many others - that none of us would think of.
Edwards, with no scandal, would likely not be in the running because without 2004 he would have had to be campaigning in Iowa etc in 2007 as he learned his wife had stage 4 cancer. Dodd and Richardson got absolutely no traction in 2008 and there is no reason to think any would have been better. Then there are likely many others - that none of us would think of.
If the Republicans did win in 2004, that might make Lieberman less likely to be a serious contender, which opens up the race to many Senators to challenge Clinton. Again, it might have been someone seen as someone who wanted the banks held accountable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
