Gore becomes POTUS in 2000 Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT
Post by manchesterman on Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT
I watched this fascinating video last night which reminded me of events from 20 years ago which still reverberate through the world to this day.
So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?
Well firstly the recount would have continued , instead of being strangled at birth, and given that the official margin in votes was 537; but the disputed "hanging chad" votes were from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties (all solidly Democrat counties), it seems almost a certainty that Gore would have won Florida - had democracy been allowed to take its natural course - and thus become the 43rd POTUS.
I'm not going to focus on domestic policy as they werent a million miles apart and it dosent impact the rest of the world directly. Instead I want to focus on issues such as:
- Do the 9/11 terror attacks still happen a year later?
- If they do, how would a Gore administration react?
- Would the "war on terror" policy be enacted in such a forceful/direct way [targeting Al-Qaeda, OBL & regime change in Iraq and Libya?]
These issues may have had a massive impact on UK politics in the early 21st century. Without being drawn into the Iraq War (or there even not being an Iraq war under Gore), would the knock-on effect be that Blair wins in 2005 by a similar majority to those he enjoyed in 1997 & 2001? Given that the main criticism of the 3rd Blair government was support of Bush's Iraq war policy in combination with the "dodgy dossier" & Campbell behaving like Cummings mentor(!) I think it is highly possible.
Let's say Blair wins with a handsome majority in 2005 (down a couple of dozen or so from his 167 majority in 2001, as you would expect there to be some slippage after 2 victories, but still substantial) - so something like Lab 390, Con 190, LD 40
Then, as agreed, Blair hands over to Brown in 2007. Assuming the global crash still happens in 2008 - but also assuming all other things at the time to be equal - then you could project that Brown would suffer a similar drop in MP numbers and the Tories would increase in similar numbers too. This would leave us with a 2010 HoC looking something like: Lab 300, Con 280, LD 40. The key thing here is that the Con-Lib coalition that was born in the real world dosent happen. As Clegg's reason for supporting the Tories was always said to be "that the country needed a stable government due to the crash and the maths only worked with the Tories" he would presumably have had to apply the same logic in this scenario and we would have had a Lab-Lib coalition instead.
This would almost certainly result in:
A much shorter and shallower period of austerity, which would have assuaged some of the reasons cited for the brexit vote in 2016 [assuming it even still happened] "people seeing their standard of living eroded, no sign of hope on the horizon as austerity grinded on year after year, the feeling that this generation would be less well off than their parents generation" [which hadnt happened in decades, if ever] which was somehow spun to be the fault of the EU... i dont think there is much doubt out there that if austerity hadnt happened, then brexit wouldnt have happened (at least not in the short-to-medium term future)
Therefore brexit remains as aspiration for some but dosent happen
Talk of IndyRef 2 (assuming IndyRef 1 went ahead and had a similar outcome) is highly unlikely as brexit is the main leverage that SNP have for calling for a new IndyRef vote so soon after the 1st one.
I conclude that this would leave the UK a happier, more united nation at ease with itself, its constituent parts intact (for now) and its economic stability secured (for now). Trust the bloody yanks to find a way to ruin it!
That's my take on it at least. I'm sure many of you will have a very different take on how our future would pan out! But overall, what difference would a Gore win have made for USA and the world? Presumably Bush dosent stand in 2004 so who does? And considering 4 straight Democrat wins is unlikely in probability terms, who would be the likely POTUS in 2004 for the Republicans? And what does America do about it's bizarre voting system so we never have a "hanging chads" situation again? Maybe universal mail-in ballots is the answer after all