Weird. I think it far more likely that a Republican Congress would balk at the idea of attacking Afghanistan if Gore were in power. They'd be too busy invesigating him and ginning up pseudo-scandals.

I don't think we'd have invaded Afghanistan short of an actual attack. Between natural partisan opposition and pre-9/11 reluctance to engage in massive, prolonged military adventures, I doubt that a GOP Congress would back a Gore administration's Afghanistan War over one foiled attack. Remember that Clinton was raked over the coals and accused of "wagging the dog" for blowing up a few suspected al Qaeda targets in the late 90s. A full-scale nation-building campaign in Afghanistan would never happen short of an actual, successful terrorist strike.

Clinton had cruise missile subs in the Indian Ocean
awaiting satellite and drone confirmation of Osama's location after the attack on the Cole. Then the election disaster happened and he postponed the decision for the new president. Now departing from real life say Gore wins uncontested and is declared the winner in early November 2000. I say Clinton levels every Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan the next day. Gore takes the Hart/Rudman Commission's suggestions seriously and starts shaking the trees at the FBI etc.. Atta and his pals are sitting in a federal lockup awaiting trial on 9/11 which turns out to be just another beautiful late summer day in New York City.

The notion of Nader getting 15 percent of the vote isn't "shocking", it's merely delusional. Anyway, that's not a "no 9-11" scenario, that's a "Gore won in 2000" scenario; Play fair, the divergences shouldn't be so enormous prior to 9-11. (Anyway, it's dubious that any ballot redesign in Palm Beach could have changed the outcome of that election.)

I'd say the first consequence of no 9-11 would be the Taliban still in power. Even if the 9-11 plot were uncovered and traced back to Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it's unlikely a foiled plot would have led to war... His prior bombing that merely failed to bring the towers down didn't, after all.

Saddam would still be in power, and most likely his program of bribing Security council members with food for oil money would have by now secured an end to the sanctions regime.

Without the war to rally support from disgruntled conservatives, Bush would probably have been compelled to run a more conservative administration in order to avert some sort of rebellion within the party; His base has let a lot of things they didn't like slide because of the perceived need to support a wartime President.

Consequently, he would have had an easier victory in his 2004 rematch against Gore. (No war means Democrats wouldn't have felt driven to run a war vet, and the "we was robbed!" sentiment would have gotten Gore another shot at it.)

It's from New York Mag. These are the kinds of things we New Yorkers talk about. Alternate 9/11 realities, latte -- skim or soy?, how much we hate religion, how bad NASCAR is...

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

You assume that the GOP would continue to hold Congress. But without the rallying force of the war, they would have faced an electorate in 2002 that was quite disenchanted with them. Especially if they had continued the politics of scandal-mongering, not learning their lesson from 1998, they would have lost at least one house, perhaps both.

I don't doubt that Gore lost some votes to poor ballot design. I just have my doubts about whether it was enough of them to have made the difference.

I mean, you're basicly assuming that people confused enough to punch holes for two candidates (Which is a blatent mistake regardless of ballot design.) wouldn't have screwed up some other format of ballot. Frankly, when you're bussing senile elders to the polls from nursing homes, you've got to expect some wastage no matter how the ballot is configured.

LOL...I like playing "what-if" games.  But I guess I am going to do it in the context of 9-11 occurring.  Which will probably end up getting me down rated...lol.

On Sept. 18, 2001 President Gore addresses the UN and a still shocked and sickened post 9-11 world. They agree to send a multi-national UN force led by the US into Afghanistan.  The force quickly disposes of the Taliban but OBL still escapes.  Saddam would still be in power in Iraq and under UN sanctions but 2,500+ US service personel and 30,000+ Iraqi civilians would still be alive.  Terrorism would still be a problem but progress would be made fighting it because of a unified global effort.  But President Gore receives the world's praise for brokering a peace deal for a 2 state Israel-Palestine solution, by capitalizing on Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and other occupied territories, which for now stabilizes the ME.  And then he begins his GWOCC...Global War on Climate Change...after his easy re-election for his second term.

I think it's true that Gore would have created a quagmire in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. I do NOT think that he could have engaged in a military commitment there in the absence of an actual attack. Matt is forgetting just how vicious the republicans were at that time. Any attempt at any kind of national security action involving combat would have led to screaming about wagging dogs.

It's a pity that the Cheney administration failed to follow through after the extraordinary success of the Afghan invasion. Gore would not have been as creative in his approach, imo. The consequences of that success turned out to be disastrous, though.

It is open to debate and interpretation who would have won had there been a full statewide recount of the ballots as cast.

It is pretty well documented that the Buchanan ballot fiasco cost Gore the State, I don't remmeber the numbers, but the pretty clearly voted for Buchanan but meant to vote Gore totals well exceeded the margin of Bush's win. It wasn't double votes, it was Buchanan's punch sort of lining up next to Gore's name. Even Buchanan conceded that there was no way he had far more support amongst senior citizens in Plam Beach than he did anywhere else in the country.

First, just to set the record straight, McVeigh was not a "militia nut". He was a militia nut wannabe, who tried to join a militia and got shown the door. He's often refered to as "linked" to the militia, but the "link" was a boot print on his behind.

McCain would not have been the nominee in 2004 in the event of Bush's defeat. First, his attempt to win the nomination in 2000 by means of crossover votes left him on the fecal rosters of too many Republican party activists.

Second, his crusade against freedom of political speech has made him public enemy #1 for every conservative interest group that ever wanted to mention an incumbant's name within two months of an election.

To be fair, I can see why Democrats like him, but to secure the Republican nomination, you have to appeal to Republicans.

The "McCain rejectionists" in the GOP are damned near the whole party, JPF; McCain got slaughtered in the 2000 primaries, once you set aside crossover votes. And that was before he made so many new enemies with his attacks on the 1st amendment.

And a skin of the teeth defeat of Bush by an incumbant VP would hardly be so earth shattering as to discredit Bush's supporters; Bush was the underdog in that race, after all. A dead heat would have been considered a respectable showing.

I'd say the way Bush has governed has done far more to discredit his supporters within the GOP than his defeat in 2000 could ever have managed. But McCain is too widely loathed within the party to profit from that development.

I suppose there's no point in arguing with a rock-ribbed McCain hater, but the guy was the main runner up in 2000, and he has ample support today even if you can't stand him. Polls on respectable GOP websites like RedState always put him in the top two or three for 2008. His haters of course froth at the the mouth, but they are in the minority, their strength exaggerated by the their volume not their numbers.

The '04 Dems nominated John Edwards, the fresh face who rose to the front of the pack when Kerry stalled (his war veteran status was less salient), and Gephardt and Dean went negative and took each other out in the Iowa caucuses.

Dean probably also fails to launch his internet juggernaut, as there was no anti-war vote, and anti-Bush sentiments weren't running quite as high. Maybe that means a slower take-off for the netroots and another easy road to the Dem nomination for Senate in CT for Joe Lieberman!

9/11 or not, Gore wasn't running in '04.

If Gore is elected in 2000, his administration would have listened to Richard Clarke and John O'Neill, they would have had principals meetings in summer 2001 to shake info out of the FBI and CIA, and some of the 9/11 plotters would have been arrested. They may have stopped the plot altogether (as the Clinton admin did with the Millenium plot) or a few might have escaped the noose and continued with the attacks anyway, possibly earlier, in in July or August.

Gore would not have slashed taxes to the extent that Bush did. Chances are taxes wouldn't have been cut at all, since the Republican congress wouldn't send him a tax cut bill he could swallow. Also, Gore would have handled the CA energy crisis much sooner. Our deficits would be much smaller, might even be surpluses still.

If 9/11-style attacks did occur, Gore would have done like any president and sent troops to get Bin Laden. Unlike Bush he would have sent enough troops to actually capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Gore is a hawk and would not have fucked around. Lieberman would have been pushing hard for more troops, and would have succeeded.

But Gore wouldn't have diverted resources to Iraq. He would have pushed a big program to make us energy-independent. Higher fuel efficiency, renewable energy, and maybe gas taxes if he could get them through the Republican congress (which I doubt). Right now we'd be building large solar fields in the southwest deserts to replace coal and oil as the main source of electricity. GM and Ford would not be losing market share to the extent they are, because they would have been forced to make their cars more efficient.

When I think about election 2000, I think of all the times in our history when Americans chose the right man at the right time, and thus saved the nation from ruin. Lincoln in 1860, Roosevelt in 1932, a few other examples. Bush winning in 2000 is an example of what happens when the wrong guy wins.