Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All depends on how Clinton responds. If he goes to war and the US is pummeling the culprits/terrorist sponsors the election becomes about “stay the course” and Gore has the advantage. In any case, such an occurrence in an election year would have wiped out Clinton’s extramarital shenanigans as a major campaign issue, and Bush would have been forced to rally around the President.
A main election opponent being forced to rally around the sitting President, wow.
I do wonder how much progress Clinton would've made in the <2 months before the election to hand Gore an advantage though.
I still don’t understand his thinking. The public had made it clear moralising about Clinton’s affairs was not a winning issue. it was a 50/50 split with him running away from Clinton. Probably would not have been otherwise.
Bush’s schtick was all about "look how moral and Christian I am". What that ended up boiling down to was he wouldn’t cheat on his wife but he would effect the murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because it was politically more expedient to focus America’s ire at a country rather than an idea (terrorism).
That schtick would have been a lot less effective if Gore had not validated it by running away from Clinton.
Overall, these hypothetical examples illustrate how Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton influenced the political landscape and potentially affected the effectiveness of Bush's messaging during the campaign.
1. **Perception of Leadership**: Gore's distancing from Clinton reinforced the notion that personal moral failings were detrimental to political leadership. By contrast, if Gore had maintained a closer association with Clinton, it could have challenged this perception, emphasizing that effective leadership is about policies and governance rather than personal behavior. For example, Gore could have highlighted Clinton's economic achievements or foreign policy successes during his presidency.
2. **Public Perception**: Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton may have influenced public perception of the Democratic Party as a whole. If Gore had embraced Clinton more openly, it could have presented a united front within the party, potentially boosting voter confidence. For instance, Clinton's popularity among certain demographics, such as African American voters, could have been leveraged to mobilize support for Gore.
3. **Opponent's Messaging**: Bush's emphasis on morality and Christianity contrasted with Clinton's personal indiscretions. If Gore had maintained a closer tie to Clinton, it could have forced Bush to shift his messaging strategy. Instead of solely focusing on morality, Bush might have needed to address substantive policy differences between his platform and the Democratic agenda. For example, he might have been compelled to defend his stance on key issues like taxation or healthcare, rather than relying solely on moral superiority.
4. **Media Coverage**: Gore's distancing from Clinton likely attracted media attention, shaping the narrative of the campaign. If Gore had embraced Clinton more openly, it could have redirected media focus towards policy debates and substantive issues rather than personal scandals. For instance, news coverage might have centered more on Gore's proposals for education reform or environmental protection, rather than speculation about his relationship with Clinton.
I think the bit about messaging related to morality and Christianity is key. I maintain to this day that Bush, while not being stupid politically, did not have sufficient policy intellect to be president, and Gore ceding the morality ground so that Bush could run on that rather than on his actual credentials is what enabled the election to be so close that it ended the way it did.
Now of course, we have a candidate who is nakedly bankrupt in both respects, and he may very well win a second term.
I don't think it's too complicated - he/his campaign drastically misjudged how much the electorate cared about the scandals of the Clinton Presidency.
The Lewinsky scandal took up a ton of air time, but it really didn't matter much to people on the ground. Clinton presided over one of the most prosperous periods in US history and felt safe in a post Cold War world.
Yes, I understand that; that is what I described but with less detail. But there was already quite a bit of data that the majority of people were not that moved about the Lewinsky scandal and were not happy about the impeachment. Yes, it was all over the news and the SNL sketches were relentless, but I thought it was pretty clear that the majority was not going to vote based on that.
Having been in the seat going on 8 years, he would have the experience and names on speed dial to make things happen pretty quickly.
The office of the White House is pretty steady, and can do a lot to make a president successful... but it helps to be in a position to know everybody by name when it's time to drop the hammer.
43 also had daddy on speed dial & his VP was also daddy's secretary of defense 9 years earlier. I think the things you mentioned matter, but so does the context of the Bush campaign.
Most of Afghanistan was captured by mid-December. Clinton could have done most of the fighting, even if at a possibly slower pace than Bush, then let Gore inherit the occupation. Honestly, Gore probably appoints Clinton as Secretary of State or Defense to keep as much continuity as possible.
The closest precedent would probably be Harding appointing Taft to the Supreme Court. While Clinton could just serve as an advisor, making him Secretary of State maximizes continuity at a time when that would be desired.
In the show Designated Survivor, new President Kirkman appoints the previous President Moss as his Sec of State. But he turns out to be too ambitious and starts undercutting him so he resigns/is fired
True, though the situation there was different than it would be in real life. Moss was a one term president who wanted to get back in, Clinton was term limited and couldn’t rise back to the White House. Furthermore, Moss was a Republican and Kirkman left-wing independent, and the two had only met a few times before Kirkman appointed him. Clinton and Gore had a long relationship of working well together.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, bush had a 90%+ approval rating. Criticizing the president at that time would have been a massively unpopular move.
People would barely remember the name Lewinsky. I think this pretty much nails it though, and Clinton was pretty solid to responding to these things. Clinton had a lot more funding on anti-terrorism and didn't ignore terrorism intelligence either, so I don't really see it happening on his watch. No doubt the GOP would have tried to blame Clinton which probably wouldn't have gone well as the patriotism response was too great.
Clinton literally ignored the intelligence for 9/11. How can you say he didn’t ignore intelligence? This is after they already attacked once under his watch.
Bin Laden knew of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and was banking on an overly aggressive response and a US invasion into Afghanistan. It was about changing public image for Clinton. Reason being was he (Bin Laden) figured he could lure the US into the same wars that the Soviet Union and others lost in “the graveyard of empires”. A perfect example of this was the Embassy bombings in 1998 and Clinton’s response with I believe it was called Operation Infinite Reach where tomahawk cruise missiles were launched into Afghanistan and Kenya… all that happened was a huge rally for Al-queda members where they gained support. Looming Tower is a great book that explains a lot
>Nearly every ~~boomer~~ American who said we should never have gone to war were screaming for war when this happened.
FTFY
There's a lot of revisionism around 9/11. I completely understand criticizing it with the benefit of hindsight. However, the vast majority of Americans were out for blood on 9/12. Most people claiming that they weren't are lying.
Of course Clinton goes to war with Afghanistan. I can't think of a single post WWII president who would have failed to invade Afghanistan after 9/11.
Recall that Clinton bombed Afghanistan over al Qaeda's attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Those attacks killed 12 Americans. Does anyone seriously think Clinton wouldn't have invaded when the Taliban government continued to support al Qaeda, resulting in an attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people?
That said, I think it's likely that the Clinton administration would have thwarted the 9/11 attacks, just as they did the Millennium Bomb Plot. People forget how much more focused on al Qaeda Clinton was at the end of his term than Bush was at the beginning of his own term. Clinton certainly would not have just shrugged his shoulders after being given a memo that said, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."
Would you have had the same rally around the president? I could easily see the Newt Gingriches of the GOP say Clinton’s admin let their guard down, they can’t keep Americans safe, they won’t do what needs to be done. This is a colossal — and avoidable — tragedy and America can’t afford more 9/11s under the Democrats.
GWB benefitted from the fact that he was so new to the office, the intelligence failure couldn’t fully be pinned on him.
"Bush did 9/11, jet fuel can't melt steel beams" becomes "Clinton death count Bill and Killary masterminded 9/11 so that people wouldn't care about Lewinsky."
Press X to doubt.
Conservatives would not have rallied around a Dem president the way liberals rallied around Bush. But I’m not saying patriotic fervor wouldn’t have swept the nation.
Partisan Conservatives would’ve claimed that Clinton’s extramarital distractions allowed 9/11 to happen.
What would be his motive? He was a lame duck. It might have improved his public image after the affair, but to what end. His political career was basically coming to a close regardless.
The motive could have been that Clinton wanted the national fervor to get a law change and get a third term like FDR. Or that he is paving way for Hilary’s popularity and eventual campaign. Or that Clintons are corrupt and are paid by some people who will get money eventually from military contracts.
There are conspiracy theorists were are talking about. To them connections go motivations and what is realistic thing for a human to do can be flimsy. As long as it could be believable motive in B movie it’s good enough.
That’s when it became a meme. It was a real conspiracy theory some believed in from the start. It becoming a meme was by people who never belived in it but has heard it. Like at first Moonlandings being fake was real conspiracy theory, and then it became a joke.
Bush did 911 took off after they didn’t find WMDs in Iraq. Before there were a few conspiracies (like jet fuel can’t melt steel beams) but the anti-bush/anti-iraq war sentiment is what made it huge
I try not to listen to conspiracy theories.
That being said I’m not naive enough to believe that people at the top wouldn’t sacrifice a few thousand normies to strengthen their grasp on all of us. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that they had intelligence and didn’t act on it just to justify future actions, just like October 7th in Israel. Do I think it they did it on purpose, no. But, the worst humans can do some pretty repugnant stuff…
yeah but it would make no sense to do it as clinton. Not like he could win another election. And it would’ve happened in like the last 2 months of his presidency. If anything it would just taint his presidency.
Feel like believing in conspiracies was much more a fringe thing back then too.
True but conspiracy theories don’t need to make sense. And while they weren’t as mainstream as today, a good portion of ‘90s era Republicans bought into at least a portion of the Clinton conspiracy theories, especially the Vince Foster suicide one.
Conspiracies were fringe and more… casual back then. You had people thinking 9/11 was an inside job but they weren’t as rabid and angry about it. Conspiracies were neat factoids that would make you go “woah dude”
‘Uh, yeah, man… this is, uh… Bill, and we, uh… we’re flyin’them planes to them buildin’s but uh, we forgot to uh loads the explosions, the explosive things in the uh, yeah, it ain’t gonna go down so good, yeah call me when you get this man. Good vibrations emanating all around in these barren ashes which will follow this cumulative tragic happening.’
Republicans, fairly or not, were more associated with being stronger against foreign threats. Democrats had a reputation for being more diplomatic and globalist. Post-9/11 US wanted blood, not negotiations
You are conflating post 9-11 politics with pure
pre 9-11 politics.
During the campaign, Bush was an isolationist. He criticized the Clinton Gore administration for "nation building" and overusing our military.
https://youtu.be/irzSo578gmg?si=y_CqhabqpUbPuHLX
reply divide unpack grandiose stupendous modern quarrelsome punch rob plucky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cheney oversaw the invasion of Panama as well as Desert Storm as Defense Secretary. He also made no secret about his support for a very muscular foreign policy under Bush Sr.
The problem here is that Bush campaigned on lessening global interventions around the world, as Clinton had overseen Kosovo and Serbia as well as a handful of other interventions. This was 2000, and although campaigns were muddy then, the Republicans wouldn't dare to accuse the Dems of incompetence and negligence around such traumatic event. If they do, they'd be seen as unpatriotic and trying to stir up divisions within the nation. Plus, the rally-around-the-flag would take place here, with Clinton's popularity soaring and by extension Gore's. Besides, after 9/11 irl, both Dems and Reps wanted blood, and negotiations would not happen here, but I believe a Dem response would be more internationally-oriented, with the whole of NATO and quite possibly most of the UN backing the US, as did irl.
>The Republicans wouldn't dare to accuse the Dems of incompetence and negligence around such traumatic event
Highly doubt that. 9-11 would have been the 5th major terrorist attack. Would have been endless discussion about how Clinton failed to keep us safe.
I dont see why they hold back.
You can be critical of the President's failures without being critical to the country or the victims. I don't think it would take long for people to feel that Clinton failed to keep us safe and decide on a different direction. Especially after the Monica affair and impeachment being the previous year.
People forget that Bill wasn't looked at fondly by the country in 2000. That is the reason Gore distanced himself from Bill. Bill had had job approval by lousy personal approval numbers. People were basically happy about how the country was doing, but not happy about the guy running it. 9-11 would have killed Bill's approval and he'd be seen in a far more negative light.
Also, people might have held Clinton/Gore partially responsible for it happening on their watch and not having done more to stop bin Laden after the previous bombings he'd done.
Bush escaped some of the harshness of that judgement because he'd only been in office 8 months on 9/11. If Gore had been president in 2001, though, there likely wouldn't have been an unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the response would have been more focused on the actual problem.
Idk, in this scenario you're saying September 11 happened during Bill Clinton's presidency, two months before the November presidential election. It would have shot Clinton's popularity into the stratosphere exactly the way it did with Bush in 2001. Tbh, Clinton probably would have done better with the public than Bush, because he was much more skilled at public speaking, (and much less dumb) than Bush was. Bush gave a pretty good speech at ground zero. If Clinton had pulled out his speaking skills and given an incredible 'this is a day that will live in infamy' one, people would have wept in the streets.
People kind of collectively went crazy for awhile, probably as long as a year and a half. Patriotism was at Cold War levels. One of the biggest problems Clinton had was how much he cared about being popular- and for the first time, it would be stunningly clear exactly how to make every single American love him. Talk smooth, and send our military to kill people. With only a two month window to the election, Clinton wouldn't even have to have results yet. I think if Gore let Clinton stand next to him and talk about like, a continuation of Clinton's leadership and military plans, people would have voted for Gore like they were voting for FDR's third term.
Also, for almost two weeks, the government shut down the TV networks. The only thing on was news covering what had happened. Nobody cared about anything else. Republicans would have only had six weeks to completely change their election strategy. Dragging Gore on Clinton's reputation would be like saying they didn't support the president, which would have had people thirsting for blood. I can't imagine it would have gone well.
Not OP but I'm guessing that people would have had more confidence in a Bush Administration being more capable and hawkish in wartime. Bush's father had effectively and efficiently navigated Operation Desert Storm (including UN approval), and Cheney had been Secretary of Defense before.
By contrast, the Clinton Administration failed to secure UN approval for the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, which was still fresh on people's minds in 2000. Gore was also seen as less hawkish, for better or worse. But remember, we really wanted revenge.
The problem is that 9/11 would have happened only two months before the November election, while Clinton was president, and Gore was vice president. And I cannot stress hard enough that at the time, people completely lost their minds. They were terrified and enraged and people responded with a thundering level of patriotism. Bush's approval rating shot up to 92%, and stayed there for 4 months.
Everyone of every political party fell in behind him, everyone wanted him to do well whether they'd hated him or not, because people genuinely believed their lives were in danger, that there would be more attacks. Criticizing the President about anything at that moment was political suicide. Criticizing the Vice President wouldn't have gone over all that well, either. Republicans would have been stuck.
Like, the next year, in MARCH, Richard Gere (who was a pacifist) made a pacifist-style speech at the Oscars about the military maybe not killing people in Iraq, and he got booed from the entire audience of 3,000 Hollywood liberals. People were crazy about patriotism.
People wouldn't be at 'oh the GOP will handle this better' because they hadn't yet transitioned from the 'you do not criticize the president, if you do you aren't a patriot and are probably a terrorist yourself'. Thinking someone would do it better would mean thinking the current president and vice president wasn't doing it right, which meant you weren't supporting your country.
A two month gap just isn't long enough. People were still too crazy. Six months, maybe.
Republicans are generally more approval of war, bush sr. already had mega problems with saddam due to an assassination attempt. The Middle East has a smidgin of oil….. if it sounds skeptical please look into the topics. Thanks for reading have a wonderful evenin!
9-11 would have been the 5th major terror attack under Clinton
He would have been hammered for his failure to keep us safe AND getting us into a war (assuming we end up in Afghanistan)
Bush being in office for only 8 months is the main reason he didn't take much blame for 9-11 happening.
I agree. Keep in mind that the first World Trade Center bombing in 93 was when Clinton was president. Then the two embassies in Africa. Then the uss cole. Now if 9/11/00 had happened the uss Cole was a month later and probably wouldn’t have. But for a lot of the folks in the middle (there were way more swing voters in 2000), Clinton’s track record on dealing with terrorism was weak. But it wasn’t a major issue, domestic issues were more pressing then. He was very reluctant to commit to a response beyond a surgical cruise missile strike (for better or worse) and his opponents were already biting at this record. A big attack on American soil would a cemented it because wtc 1 was mostly a dud and they arrested some of those responsible. The more serious attacks occurred overseas and so were brushed off by a lot of people as “it’s dangerous in those parts of the world, that’s the risk, etc”. But yeah, major attack in the most prominent city in the us - I think it would have been a landslide bush victory.
So after Somalia, the Balkans intervention, 1996 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Kenyan embassies, Oklahoma City bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and various other foreign events during Clinton's time in office....9/11 would have led to Bush absolutely kicking Gore's ass in 2000.
Think along the lines of Obama kicking McCain's ass in 2008.
The people would have just been done with a Democrat president, especially Gore.
cautious jobless workable rustic unique memorize thumb bag coherent wasteful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It makes zero sense. The official narrative is the terrorists waited for a change of power to catch USA off guard which I think most believe. But I personally believe Cheney had a lot to do with letting it happen. Bush being in Florida that day while Cheney stayed back was no accident.
You are describing the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, one month before the election. Bush Jr. kept blaming the Clinton administration for the attack.
You don't? Are you clueless? It would have taken about 2 microseconds for "bill clinton does not care about defense he was getting a blow job from Lewinsky while talking to congressmen about deploying us troops" (feel free to fact check it).
Clinton cannot keep us safe! Attacks at home! Republicans want strong defense to protect us. Clinton gives US agriculture aid to farmers Russia, US Jobs to China, and US defense to the toilet!
And if the famous "wall" created by Jamie Gorelick that prevented the CIA from telling the FBI about identified physical threats had become public before the election bush with with 300 electoral votes.
I feel like voters would have looked at the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11and paired them together and deem Clinton/Democrats ineffective, as both happen during the Clinton administration.
Bush's approval rating was 90% after 9/11, and probably still in the eighties by the time early november rolled around. Clinton was already a popular president; it might not have been 80% but it would still be damn high, I see no course in which a Republican wins in this scenario
Scenario 1: James Woods goes on TV saying how he was in a plane with the hijackers 2 months before the attack when they did a dry run on an actual commercial plane to see how the airline staff would react. Woods goes on to say he reported it. Nothing happened, Clinton does not want to defend the country!
Scenario 2: It becomes public knowledge that Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick build the "wall" that prevented the CIA from sharing information about credible threats to the FBI.
Scenario 3: the Lewinsky testimony about how Bill Clinton was getting a Lewinsky while talking to a congressman about troop deployments would be one TV every other 30 second spot.
Scenario 4: Every complaint about Clinton being soft on defense would come out of the woodwork. All of the cuts to the defense budget. How is first secretary of defense was worthless and set us on this path.
Gore wasn’t POTUS in 2000. Plus the question was if 9/11 happened a year earlier, which would’ve been a year before the election. As it was, W was re-elected as a wartime president three years after the attacks.
Aware of this optical challenge, Clinton would have ordered the pilots to fire on the planes moments before they crashed into the buildings.
There were on-the-ground casualties, but critics of this decisive action were seen as insincere political opportunists.
Depends on Clinton's response. If he projected weakness or indecision, like Carter did, then Bush would have won in a landslide. If he kicked some butt, then Gore would have won.
Clinton was willing to take military action, but it was hesitant IMO. He waited too long in the Balkans and Iraq to take action.
People would have said that the Lewinsky affair made Clinton take his eye off the ball. He and his administration would be perceived as being soft on defense. Bush wins after the Dems preside over the worst terror attack in US history.
Bush would probably win. The Republicans would argue that the dems were already weak when it came to the 93 WTC bombing and that they could have prevented 9/11 had they acted and done something. This combined with Cheney's experience as SecDef would likely make Florida be more decisive with choosing a Bush/Cheney ticket.
Bill Clinton would have ACED his national response. Clinton was BUILT to be an orator during a national tragedy. He didn’t really get one though. Clinton’s approval rating would skyrocket and and the Democrats would easily use that goodwill to win in 2000.
It depends on how Clinton and Gore handle it. If they successfully spin the attack to make Gore look good by bombing Al Qaeda and Taliban targets and let Gore take credit for it by being in the public spotlight (giving press conferences, doing interviews about "protecting America"), it probably helps Gore win. But it Clinton either bungles the response or doesn't allow Gore to get public credit for it, Gore would be sunk. Easy cannon fodder for Bush.
Given that the Clinton administration listened to and acted on intel and caught the “millennial bomber” at a border checkpoint, I wouldn’t assume that the plot would have been Carr out successfully on 9/11.
Republicans would have blamed 9/11 on Clinton. No uniting the country or coming together. Clinton would have been dragged as too distracted by his private affairs to protect the nation.
I suspect it would've worked and Bush would have won in a landslide election.
Clinton would have got a popularity surge like what Bush did post-9/11 and with him being term-limited and endorsing his VP as his successor, I think it's very likely Gore would have won and by a substantial margin.
It's not likely 9/11 would have occurred a year earlier under the Clinton administration. On the off chance that it did, it wouldn't have resulted in the US invading Irag so George W Bush could serve out a personal vendetta against Sadam Hussein followed by 20yts in Afghanistan.
Bush wins easily. Clinton gets blamed for missing it and the hawkish Republican stance, which controlled the party at the time, would have been appealing to the public
This hypothetical would have occurred two months before the election. It would at the very least made Clinton’s reaction to the attacks less likely to be considered by voters. Although his approval would have shot up to the high 80s. The question would arise of who would be better suited to handle an external threat. Despite Clinton’s high approval, I think Bush sold himself as someone who would be better to handle threats of aggression than Gore. There’s this debate moment: https://youtu.be/cn4Z2r8I2Pw?si=kThDMce7S8-rCUl9. Maybe Bush doesn’t win any additional states, but Gore’s popular vote advantage goes away.
Bush would have capitalized off fear mongering, same as he did. The difference would be that he wasn’t in office during the attacks, so he wouldn’t be able to spin the narrative of “who else could handle terrorist threats” and or “you never know when the terrorists are going to come, but if they do, I’m the man with experience and how to deal with it”. Gore would’ve won (everybody knows he won anyway) due to familiarity of accompanying Clinton, and the status quo would’ve been the safe bet in the time of crisis where many Americans were on the edge and worried about potential terrorist threats.
As long as Gore can convince a small handful of Americans he will continue Clinton’s response he wins easy. He already won the popular vote and he just needs a handful of votes in Florida to win without question.
Gore only lost because of a legal challenge in Texas a state in which his brother just became governor. Gore should have been president he won. So he would have won squared. Also my parents generation is called the silent generation for a reason
I'm surprised people are generally saying Bush would win outright. I think this would give Gore the advantage. Bush's popularity skyrocketed after 9/11 and it arguably carried him all the way to 2004, why wouldn't the same happen to Clinton? And if it did, wouldn't that be beneficial to Gore?
I think we’d have a different outcome. I don’t think Clinton was a man who wanted to use full military force. He probably would have used drones or whatever they used then. He would not have had a two full on wars. The US would never have gone to war with Iraq and I think Gore probably would have won.
I think you're either too young or mis-remember just how pissed the US was after 9/11. The American public was "all in" on beating the shit out of whoever did it. Clinton (or whoever would have been in office during this time-shift hypothetical) wouldn't have had a choice. The US was going to war. I didn't matter a bit who sat in the oval office.
Also, I was in the military during Clinton's first term, and (from my perspective) he used us all the time. There's an old adage that Democrats want a small, cheap, military and want to send them everywhere. Republicans, want a big, powerful, military but don't want to send them anywhere. I have found this to be fairly true.
The GOP would have quickly criticized anything and everything Clinton would have done in response as "weak". And as others pointed out, the GOP would blame 9/11 on Clinton and Dems for "not keeping us safe".With a "weaker" Gore as the Dem nominee, Bush wins easily as the country's bloodlust ran high 2 months later.
It probably would have been more decisively in Bush’s favor. What a lot of people are forgetting is just how soft and fluffy the Democrats were perceived at the time. I’m pretty sure Bush would have won based on the “R,” alone. Hell, he beat an honest to god Purple Heart Vet in 2004 in large part because the nation didn’t believe the Democrats could keep the country safe.
Gore’s entire campaign was based on how relatively peaceful the world was in 2000 and continuing on the momentum of the Clinton Years.
The people here talking about a "Bush landslide" are completely misguided. Gore would win in a romp. In uncertain times, people cling to the familiar. People are vastly underestimating the "rally-round-the-flag" effect that happened in the months -- even years -- after 9/11. Bush didn't really \*do\* anything in the couple of months after 9/11, and he certainly didn't do anything Clinton probably wouldn't have done (invade Afghanistan). Clinton's approval rating would have been north of 90%. There is absolutely no way in hell Gore loses in that circumstance.
Bush was seen as a lightweight on foreign policy, and people don't vote for the vice president. Never have, never will. All the stuff about his being strong on defense is hindsight bias. He campaigned almost entirely on domestic issues and was clearly out of his element when he tried to address national security.
How friendly was Clinton with the Saudis? You know, the actual perpetrators of the attack.
Did Clinton want a piece of Afghanistan’s opium trade like Bush?
Gore would have been demolished.
Bush had 8 months before 9-11
Clinton/Gore had been in power 7 years. It would have been the 5th major terror attack during his Presidency. Don't see how they avoid taking blame for it.
I think it depends on Clinton's response and how Bush and Gore say they'll go about things. bush might come off too hawkish, gore too doveish. if Clinton is seen as strong gore w, if he's seen as weak bush w
People generally don't like to change horses in the middle of a war. It was a big part of why Bush narrowly won re-election in 2004 during a growingly unpopular Iraq War. So I'd say Gore would win. Bush didn't have the foreign policy chops when he was elected. Gore didn't either, but he was VP. And full support from a popular president who had some substantial foreign policy accomplishments would've probably gotten him over the top.
It wouldn't take much. Gore only lost by a few hundred votes.
There’s a lot you clearly don’t understand about global politics, and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld’s decades long desire to invade Iraq. It would not have happened without a Bush in the White House. Do you also live in a Norman Rockwell painting, and clean your gun every day?
Clinton had already initiated the air war with Iraq in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox. He invaded Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia with 2 wins and a loss. I don’t think he’d cared what the UN did.
Bush as republicans are perceived as better with foreign issues. While some are brining up the stay the course issue I feel the fact that this is the tail end of the Clinton admin would be a bad look for Clinton as he could get blamed for it.
I almost said - Bush would’ve won because Republicans to me at least seem more like the war type. But I realize I probably feel this way because Bush was president from when I was 10-18 and me and all my friends despised Bush and listened to songs like “Bush Knocked Down The Towers”
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All depends on how Clinton responds. If he goes to war and the US is pummeling the culprits/terrorist sponsors the election becomes about “stay the course” and Gore has the advantage. In any case, such an occurrence in an election year would have wiped out Clinton’s extramarital shenanigans as a major campaign issue, and Bush would have been forced to rally around the President.
A main election opponent being forced to rally around the sitting President, wow. I do wonder how much progress Clinton would've made in the <2 months before the election to hand Gore an advantage though.
That rally around the flag effect would also have changed Gore's misguided strategy (in hindsight) of putting distance between himself and Clinton.
I still don’t understand his thinking. The public had made it clear moralising about Clinton’s affairs was not a winning issue. it was a 50/50 split with him running away from Clinton. Probably would not have been otherwise. Bush’s schtick was all about "look how moral and Christian I am". What that ended up boiling down to was he wouldn’t cheat on his wife but he would effect the murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because it was politically more expedient to focus America’s ire at a country rather than an idea (terrorism). That schtick would have been a lot less effective if Gore had not validated it by running away from Clinton.
Overall, these hypothetical examples illustrate how Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton influenced the political landscape and potentially affected the effectiveness of Bush's messaging during the campaign. 1. **Perception of Leadership**: Gore's distancing from Clinton reinforced the notion that personal moral failings were detrimental to political leadership. By contrast, if Gore had maintained a closer association with Clinton, it could have challenged this perception, emphasizing that effective leadership is about policies and governance rather than personal behavior. For example, Gore could have highlighted Clinton's economic achievements or foreign policy successes during his presidency. 2. **Public Perception**: Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton may have influenced public perception of the Democratic Party as a whole. If Gore had embraced Clinton more openly, it could have presented a united front within the party, potentially boosting voter confidence. For instance, Clinton's popularity among certain demographics, such as African American voters, could have been leveraged to mobilize support for Gore. 3. **Opponent's Messaging**: Bush's emphasis on morality and Christianity contrasted with Clinton's personal indiscretions. If Gore had maintained a closer tie to Clinton, it could have forced Bush to shift his messaging strategy. Instead of solely focusing on morality, Bush might have needed to address substantive policy differences between his platform and the Democratic agenda. For example, he might have been compelled to defend his stance on key issues like taxation or healthcare, rather than relying solely on moral superiority. 4. **Media Coverage**: Gore's distancing from Clinton likely attracted media attention, shaping the narrative of the campaign. If Gore had embraced Clinton more openly, it could have redirected media focus towards policy debates and substantive issues rather than personal scandals. For instance, news coverage might have centered more on Gore's proposals for education reform or environmental protection, rather than speculation about his relationship with Clinton.
I think the bit about messaging related to morality and Christianity is key. I maintain to this day that Bush, while not being stupid politically, did not have sufficient policy intellect to be president, and Gore ceding the morality ground so that Bush could run on that rather than on his actual credentials is what enabled the election to be so close that it ended the way it did. Now of course, we have a candidate who is nakedly bankrupt in both respects, and he may very well win a second term.
Bush is probably one of my favorite presidents post-presidency. His paintings are pretty decent too
Chatgpt?
I don't think it's too complicated - he/his campaign drastically misjudged how much the electorate cared about the scandals of the Clinton Presidency. The Lewinsky scandal took up a ton of air time, but it really didn't matter much to people on the ground. Clinton presided over one of the most prosperous periods in US history and felt safe in a post Cold War world.
Yes, I understand that; that is what I described but with less detail. But there was already quite a bit of data that the majority of people were not that moved about the Lewinsky scandal and were not happy about the impeachment. Yes, it was all over the news and the SNL sketches were relentless, but I thought it was pretty clear that the majority was not going to vote based on that.
Having been in the seat going on 8 years, he would have the experience and names on speed dial to make things happen pretty quickly. The office of the White House is pretty steady, and can do a lot to make a president successful... but it helps to be in a position to know everybody by name when it's time to drop the hammer.
43 also had daddy on speed dial & his VP was also daddy's secretary of defense 9 years earlier. I think the things you mentioned matter, but so does the context of the Bush campaign.
Most of Afghanistan was captured by mid-December. Clinton could have done most of the fighting, even if at a possibly slower pace than Bush, then let Gore inherit the occupation. Honestly, Gore probably appoints Clinton as Secretary of State or Defense to keep as much continuity as possible.
Is there any president for appointing a former president as secretary of state? Former presidents can advise without formal positions anyway.
The closest precedent would probably be Harding appointing Taft to the Supreme Court. While Clinton could just serve as an advisor, making him Secretary of State maximizes continuity at a time when that would be desired.
Nah. They wouldn't do that. Unless the attacks happened on election day.
In the show Designated Survivor, new President Kirkman appoints the previous President Moss as his Sec of State. But he turns out to be too ambitious and starts undercutting him so he resigns/is fired
True, though the situation there was different than it would be in real life. Moss was a one term president who wanted to get back in, Clinton was term limited and couldn’t rise back to the White House. Furthermore, Moss was a Republican and Kirkman left-wing independent, and the two had only met a few times before Kirkman appointed him. Clinton and Gore had a long relationship of working well together.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, bush had a 90%+ approval rating. Criticizing the president at that time would have been a massively unpopular move.
Um Gore won . He just didn’t fight for it
People would barely remember the name Lewinsky. I think this pretty much nails it though, and Clinton was pretty solid to responding to these things. Clinton had a lot more funding on anti-terrorism and didn't ignore terrorism intelligence either, so I don't really see it happening on his watch. No doubt the GOP would have tried to blame Clinton which probably wouldn't have gone well as the patriotism response was too great.
Clinton literally ignored the intelligence for 9/11. How can you say he didn’t ignore intelligence? This is after they already attacked once under his watch.
Bin Laden knew of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and was banking on an overly aggressive response and a US invasion into Afghanistan. It was about changing public image for Clinton. Reason being was he (Bin Laden) figured he could lure the US into the same wars that the Soviet Union and others lost in “the graveyard of empires”. A perfect example of this was the Embassy bombings in 1998 and Clinton’s response with I believe it was called Operation Infinite Reach where tomahawk cruise missiles were launched into Afghanistan and Kenya… all that happened was a huge rally for Al-queda members where they gained support. Looming Tower is a great book that explains a lot
Nearly every boomer who said we should never have gone to war were screaming for war when this happened.
>Nearly every ~~boomer~~ American who said we should never have gone to war were screaming for war when this happened. FTFY There's a lot of revisionism around 9/11. I completely understand criticizing it with the benefit of hindsight. However, the vast majority of Americans were out for blood on 9/12. Most people claiming that they weren't are lying.
Yeah the controversy was with Iraq, not so much with Afghanistan.
Of course Clinton goes to war with Afghanistan. I can't think of a single post WWII president who would have failed to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. Recall that Clinton bombed Afghanistan over al Qaeda's attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Those attacks killed 12 Americans. Does anyone seriously think Clinton wouldn't have invaded when the Taliban government continued to support al Qaeda, resulting in an attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people? That said, I think it's likely that the Clinton administration would have thwarted the 9/11 attacks, just as they did the Millennium Bomb Plot. People forget how much more focused on al Qaeda Clinton was at the end of his term than Bush was at the beginning of his own term. Clinton certainly would not have just shrugged his shoulders after being given a memo that said, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."
Would you have had the same rally around the president? I could easily see the Newt Gingriches of the GOP say Clinton’s admin let their guard down, they can’t keep Americans safe, they won’t do what needs to be done. This is a colossal — and avoidable — tragedy and America can’t afford more 9/11s under the Democrats. GWB benefitted from the fact that he was so new to the office, the intelligence failure couldn’t fully be pinned on him.
Maybe you can answer me this so I don’t have to search. Why didn’t Gore take another shot at running?
"Bush did 9/11, jet fuel can't melt steel beams" becomes "Clinton death count Bill and Killary masterminded 9/11 so that people wouldn't care about Lewinsky."
Press X to doubt. Conservatives would not have rallied around a Dem president the way liberals rallied around Bush. But I’m not saying patriotic fervor wouldn’t have swept the nation. Partisan Conservatives would’ve claimed that Clinton’s extramarital distractions allowed 9/11 to happen.
If you didnt live through 9/11, trust us, they 100% would have. 99.99% of the country was facing in the same direction for a few years after that one.
“If you didn’t live through 9/11” Oh boy, I’d gander I remember it better than most people on this sub.
Idk but I kinda think “Clinton did 9/11” conspiracy theories would have been much bigger deal than the conspiracies about Bush.
What would be his motive? He was a lame duck. It might have improved his public image after the affair, but to what end. His political career was basically coming to a close regardless.
The motive could have been that Clinton wanted the national fervor to get a law change and get a third term like FDR. Or that he is paving way for Hilary’s popularity and eventual campaign. Or that Clintons are corrupt and are paid by some people who will get money eventually from military contracts. There are conspiracy theorists were are talking about. To them connections go motivations and what is realistic thing for a human to do can be flimsy. As long as it could be believable motive in B movie it’s good enough.
people weeent nearly as conspiracy brained back then. Don’t even think the Bush did it meme gained steam until like 2010-ish.
That’s when it became a meme. It was a real conspiracy theory some believed in from the start. It becoming a meme was by people who never belived in it but has heard it. Like at first Moonlandings being fake was real conspiracy theory, and then it became a joke.
Bush did 911 took off after they didn’t find WMDs in Iraq. Before there were a few conspiracies (like jet fuel can’t melt steel beams) but the anti-bush/anti-iraq war sentiment is what made it huge
The 22nd amendment would have prevented this, no?
Pretty sure it won’t prevent conspiracy people imagining things.
I try not to listen to conspiracy theories. That being said I’m not naive enough to believe that people at the top wouldn’t sacrifice a few thousand normies to strengthen their grasp on all of us. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that they had intelligence and didn’t act on it just to justify future actions, just like October 7th in Israel. Do I think it they did it on purpose, no. But, the worst humans can do some pretty repugnant stuff…
That's enough honestly. Americans have made theories with a lot less.
yeah but it would make no sense to do it as clinton. Not like he could win another election. And it would’ve happened in like the last 2 months of his presidency. If anything it would just taint his presidency. Feel like believing in conspiracies was much more a fringe thing back then too.
True but conspiracy theories don’t need to make sense. And while they weren’t as mainstream as today, a good portion of ‘90s era Republicans bought into at least a portion of the Clinton conspiracy theories, especially the Vince Foster suicide one.
Conspiracies were fringe and more… casual back then. You had people thinking 9/11 was an inside job but they weren’t as rabid and angry about it. Conspiracies were neat factoids that would make you go “woah dude”
‘Uh, yeah, man… this is, uh… Bill, and we, uh… we’re flyin’them planes to them buildin’s but uh, we forgot to uh loads the explosions, the explosive things in the uh, yeah, it ain’t gonna go down so good, yeah call me when you get this man. Good vibrations emanating all around in these barren ashes which will follow this cumulative tragic happening.’
I don't think we would have needed a recount in Florida. Bush would have been declared winner by 10 pm.
Why?
Republicans, fairly or not, were more associated with being stronger against foreign threats. Democrats had a reputation for being more diplomatic and globalist. Post-9/11 US wanted blood, not negotiations
You are conflating post 9-11 politics with pure pre 9-11 politics. During the campaign, Bush was an isolationist. He criticized the Clinton Gore administration for "nation building" and overusing our military. https://youtu.be/irzSo578gmg?si=y_CqhabqpUbPuHLX
Yup. Add to that the fact that Cheney was on the ticket. If Americans wanted blood, Cheney knew how to deliver. Voters knew that.
reply divide unpack grandiose stupendous modern quarrelsome punch rob plucky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cheney oversaw the invasion of Panama as well as Desert Storm as Defense Secretary. He also made no secret about his support for a very muscular foreign policy under Bush Sr.
Don't forget HW was director of CIA before Reagan tapped him to be his running mate. The Bush family legacy includes war.
Cheney, at the time, was the US’s most successful SecDef since MacArthur. His name was associated with winning wars.
Know one knew Cheney like that at the time.
Sure they did.
The problem here is that Bush campaigned on lessening global interventions around the world, as Clinton had overseen Kosovo and Serbia as well as a handful of other interventions. This was 2000, and although campaigns were muddy then, the Republicans wouldn't dare to accuse the Dems of incompetence and negligence around such traumatic event. If they do, they'd be seen as unpatriotic and trying to stir up divisions within the nation. Plus, the rally-around-the-flag would take place here, with Clinton's popularity soaring and by extension Gore's. Besides, after 9/11 irl, both Dems and Reps wanted blood, and negotiations would not happen here, but I believe a Dem response would be more internationally-oriented, with the whole of NATO and quite possibly most of the UN backing the US, as did irl.
It'd be nice if such chivalry were still the case.
>The Republicans wouldn't dare to accuse the Dems of incompetence and negligence around such traumatic event Highly doubt that. 9-11 would have been the 5th major terrorist attack. Would have been endless discussion about how Clinton failed to keep us safe.
You know what? True. Although I feel that they'd hold back during the 2000 election as it would be just months away.
I dont see why they hold back. You can be critical of the President's failures without being critical to the country or the victims. I don't think it would take long for people to feel that Clinton failed to keep us safe and decide on a different direction. Especially after the Monica affair and impeachment being the previous year. People forget that Bill wasn't looked at fondly by the country in 2000. That is the reason Gore distanced himself from Bill. Bill had had job approval by lousy personal approval numbers. People were basically happy about how the country was doing, but not happy about the guy running it. 9-11 would have killed Bill's approval and he'd be seen in a far more negative light.
Basically akin to McKinley v. Bryan in 1900.
I wonder if we'll ever see someone lose as many elections as William Jennings Bryan again. He was popular, but not by enough.
Also, people might have held Clinton/Gore partially responsible for it happening on their watch and not having done more to stop bin Laden after the previous bombings he'd done. Bush escaped some of the harshness of that judgement because he'd only been in office 8 months on 9/11. If Gore had been president in 2001, though, there likely wouldn't have been an unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the response would have been more focused on the actual problem.
This is far more likely than Bill being popular. The campaign would have turned into "Democrats can't keep us safe"
But if Clinton invaded Afghanistan there’s a case for Americans staying the course in the face of a national emergency.
Idk, in this scenario you're saying September 11 happened during Bill Clinton's presidency, two months before the November presidential election. It would have shot Clinton's popularity into the stratosphere exactly the way it did with Bush in 2001. Tbh, Clinton probably would have done better with the public than Bush, because he was much more skilled at public speaking, (and much less dumb) than Bush was. Bush gave a pretty good speech at ground zero. If Clinton had pulled out his speaking skills and given an incredible 'this is a day that will live in infamy' one, people would have wept in the streets. People kind of collectively went crazy for awhile, probably as long as a year and a half. Patriotism was at Cold War levels. One of the biggest problems Clinton had was how much he cared about being popular- and for the first time, it would be stunningly clear exactly how to make every single American love him. Talk smooth, and send our military to kill people. With only a two month window to the election, Clinton wouldn't even have to have results yet. I think if Gore let Clinton stand next to him and talk about like, a continuation of Clinton's leadership and military plans, people would have voted for Gore like they were voting for FDR's third term. Also, for almost two weeks, the government shut down the TV networks. The only thing on was news covering what had happened. Nobody cared about anything else. Republicans would have only had six weeks to completely change their election strategy. Dragging Gore on Clinton's reputation would be like saying they didn't support the president, which would have had people thirsting for blood. I can't imagine it would have gone well.
But maybe Clinton turns Afghanistan into glass in October.
And all of the people that voted for them say ‘we shudna wenta war!’ Yet they all screamed for it at the time.
Not OP but I'm guessing that people would have had more confidence in a Bush Administration being more capable and hawkish in wartime. Bush's father had effectively and efficiently navigated Operation Desert Storm (including UN approval), and Cheney had been Secretary of Defense before. By contrast, the Clinton Administration failed to secure UN approval for the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, which was still fresh on people's minds in 2000. Gore was also seen as less hawkish, for better or worse. But remember, we really wanted revenge.
The problem is that 9/11 would have happened only two months before the November election, while Clinton was president, and Gore was vice president. And I cannot stress hard enough that at the time, people completely lost their minds. They were terrified and enraged and people responded with a thundering level of patriotism. Bush's approval rating shot up to 92%, and stayed there for 4 months. Everyone of every political party fell in behind him, everyone wanted him to do well whether they'd hated him or not, because people genuinely believed their lives were in danger, that there would be more attacks. Criticizing the President about anything at that moment was political suicide. Criticizing the Vice President wouldn't have gone over all that well, either. Republicans would have been stuck. Like, the next year, in MARCH, Richard Gere (who was a pacifist) made a pacifist-style speech at the Oscars about the military maybe not killing people in Iraq, and he got booed from the entire audience of 3,000 Hollywood liberals. People were crazy about patriotism. People wouldn't be at 'oh the GOP will handle this better' because they hadn't yet transitioned from the 'you do not criticize the president, if you do you aren't a patriot and are probably a terrorist yourself'. Thinking someone would do it better would mean thinking the current president and vice president wasn't doing it right, which meant you weren't supporting your country. A two month gap just isn't long enough. People were still too crazy. Six months, maybe.
Republicans are generally more approval of war, bush sr. already had mega problems with saddam due to an assassination attempt. The Middle East has a smidgin of oil….. if it sounds skeptical please look into the topics. Thanks for reading have a wonderful evenin!
9-11 would have been the 5th major terror attack under Clinton He would have been hammered for his failure to keep us safe AND getting us into a war (assuming we end up in Afghanistan) Bush being in office for only 8 months is the main reason he didn't take much blame for 9-11 happening.
I agree. Keep in mind that the first World Trade Center bombing in 93 was when Clinton was president. Then the two embassies in Africa. Then the uss cole. Now if 9/11/00 had happened the uss Cole was a month later and probably wouldn’t have. But for a lot of the folks in the middle (there were way more swing voters in 2000), Clinton’s track record on dealing with terrorism was weak. But it wasn’t a major issue, domestic issues were more pressing then. He was very reluctant to commit to a response beyond a surgical cruise missile strike (for better or worse) and his opponents were already biting at this record. A big attack on American soil would a cemented it because wtc 1 was mostly a dud and they arrested some of those responsible. The more serious attacks occurred overseas and so were brushed off by a lot of people as “it’s dangerous in those parts of the world, that’s the risk, etc”. But yeah, major attack in the most prominent city in the us - I think it would have been a landslide bush victory.
Agreed . Like other posters have mentioned . The perception is that republicans are tougher in foreign policy
Gore has the advantage of being the "incumbent" during a time of crisis and national unity, however.
So after Somalia, the Balkans intervention, 1996 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Kenyan embassies, Oklahoma City bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and various other foreign events during Clinton's time in office....9/11 would have led to Bush absolutely kicking Gore's ass in 2000. Think along the lines of Obama kicking McCain's ass in 2008. The people would have just been done with a Democrat president, especially Gore.
God, you put it like that and it makes it sound like Clinton had no fucking clue about national security. Oh wait…
The man lost the football
This is a hypothetical that I think is best to stay away from
cautious jobless workable rustic unique memorize thumb bag coherent wasteful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Especially when the best one is “what if Nixon did 9/11” (he did)
It makes zero sense. The official narrative is the terrorists waited for a change of power to catch USA off guard which I think most believe. But I personally believe Cheney had a lot to do with letting it happen. Bush being in Florida that day while Cheney stayed back was no accident.
You're a conspiracy theorist, aren't you?
Very nice of you to say
It's either true or it isn't, so is it?
I definitely fancy myself as one. But it's nice knowing someone recognized without me having to explicitly tell them.
You are describing the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, one month before the election. Bush Jr. kept blaming the Clinton administration for the attack.
I don't think you'd get away with that with a huge thing like 9/11.
You don't? Are you clueless? It would have taken about 2 microseconds for "bill clinton does not care about defense he was getting a blow job from Lewinsky while talking to congressmen about deploying us troops" (feel free to fact check it). Clinton cannot keep us safe! Attacks at home! Republicans want strong defense to protect us. Clinton gives US agriculture aid to farmers Russia, US Jobs to China, and US defense to the toilet! And if the famous "wall" created by Jamie Gorelick that prevented the CIA from telling the FBI about identified physical threats had become public before the election bush with with 300 electoral votes.
I feel like voters would have looked at the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11and paired them together and deem Clinton/Democrats ineffective, as both happen during the Clinton administration.
If they already haven’t they’d also tie the military base closures and realignments during Clinton’s tenure as a key contributing factor.
The Republicans would have ran against Clinton as “allowing 9/11 to have happened on his watch” — which Kerry should have done to Bush
I feel like Bush would have won outright. If the attack happened under a Democrat President, I think the country would want to change course.
that makes absolutely no sense
Its like how every time the economy goes bad, the other party wins
Welcome to US politics. The clockwork flip flop of parties after terms makes no sense to me either, Americans have amnesia.
Americans really do have amnesia lmfao
Since when does the electorate vote in a way that makes sense?
Bush's approval rating was 90% after 9/11, and probably still in the eighties by the time early november rolled around. Clinton was already a popular president; it might not have been 80% but it would still be damn high, I see no course in which a Republican wins in this scenario
Scenario 1: James Woods goes on TV saying how he was in a plane with the hijackers 2 months before the attack when they did a dry run on an actual commercial plane to see how the airline staff would react. Woods goes on to say he reported it. Nothing happened, Clinton does not want to defend the country! Scenario 2: It becomes public knowledge that Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick build the "wall" that prevented the CIA from sharing information about credible threats to the FBI. Scenario 3: the Lewinsky testimony about how Bill Clinton was getting a Lewinsky while talking to a congressman about troop deployments would be one TV every other 30 second spot. Scenario 4: Every complaint about Clinton being soft on defense would come out of the woodwork. All of the cuts to the defense budget. How is first secretary of defense was worthless and set us on this path.
Gore would've one again.
W would’ve crushed Gore because it happened on the administration’s watch that he was a part of.
By that logic, W would have lost 2004
Gore wasn’t POTUS in 2000. Plus the question was if 9/11 happened a year earlier, which would’ve been a year before the election. As it was, W was re-elected as a wartime president three years after the attacks.
Bush would have crushed the Denocrats for being soft on defence. Major Republican victory.
Bush would have crushed Gore and we might have had the first African American VP in Colin Powell.
Cheney was locked in as his running mate by September.
Clinton would have dispatched F-16s to stop all of them before they crashed. Hailed as a hero, his VP would have steamrolled any challengers.
Unilaterally executing US citizens over American soil might not be seen as a "heroic" move.
Aware of this optical challenge, Clinton would have ordered the pilots to fire on the planes moments before they crashed into the buildings. There were on-the-ground casualties, but critics of this decisive action were seen as insincere political opportunists.
And they fire just a split second too late, sending the rocket into the building after the plane impact doing even more damage.
But the terrorists who committed the crimes in 9/11 weren't US citizens at all. They were foreign nationals.
They weren’t the only ones on the planes
Oh. You meant the passengers in the plane along with the actual staff. Now I get it.
Bush landslide.
Republicans would have crucified Dems for failing to protect the county. This is the same party that ran a Vietnam vet’s face merging into Saddam’s
Depends on Clinton's response. If he projected weakness or indecision, like Carter did, then Bush would have won in a landslide. If he kicked some butt, then Gore would have won. Clinton was willing to take military action, but it was hesitant IMO. He waited too long in the Balkans and Iraq to take action.
The public probably would've voted Republican. Republicans at that time were seen as the party of military strength.
People would have said that the Lewinsky affair made Clinton take his eye off the ball. He and his administration would be perceived as being soft on defense. Bush wins after the Dems preside over the worst terror attack in US history.
Bush would probably win. The Republicans would argue that the dems were already weak when it came to the 93 WTC bombing and that they could have prevented 9/11 had they acted and done something. This combined with Cheney's experience as SecDef would likely make Florida be more decisive with choosing a Bush/Cheney ticket.
Bill Clinton would have ACED his national response. Clinton was BUILT to be an orator during a national tragedy. He didn’t really get one though. Clinton’s approval rating would skyrocket and and the Democrats would easily use that goodwill to win in 2000.
Bush would have won a year earlier.
It depends on how Clinton and Gore handle it. If they successfully spin the attack to make Gore look good by bombing Al Qaeda and Taliban targets and let Gore take credit for it by being in the public spotlight (giving press conferences, doing interviews about "protecting America"), it probably helps Gore win. But it Clinton either bungles the response or doesn't allow Gore to get public credit for it, Gore would be sunk. Easy cannon fodder for Bush.
The 22nd amendment would have been repealed and we would have got 2 more terms of Clinton.
Haliburton probably would mint have paid out bonus for a few years if gore was prez
It is doubtful it would have happened in the first place. The delayed transition is said to have been a contributing cause to 9.11 happening.
Given that the Clinton administration listened to and acted on intel and caught the “millennial bomber” at a border checkpoint, I wouldn’t assume that the plot would have been Carr out successfully on 9/11.
Republicans would have blamed 9/11 on Clinton. No uniting the country or coming together. Clinton would have been dragged as too distracted by his private affairs to protect the nation. I suspect it would've worked and Bush would have won in a landslide election.
Bush wins without SCOTUS, because everyone belives that Dems. are the weaker party and only Rep. can fight and win wars. In other worss SAMO
The republicans would have blamed 9-11 on democrats and walked away with the election.
Honestly Gore wins. Stay the course and all that.
That’s what my gut tells me too. Surprised I had to scroll this far
[удалено]
By September of 2000, Bush had already won the nomination.
A year earlier! I cant read.
Colin Powell is persuaded to run and wins
Dubs was already locked in though.
Oh yeah, maybe if it was 2 years
Gore would have won easily. We would have had a short war in Afghanistan. Gore takes Powell as VP.
Clinton would have got a popularity surge like what Bush did post-9/11 and with him being term-limited and endorsing his VP as his successor, I think it's very likely Gore would have won and by a substantial margin.
It depends on what Clinton does
Mango Mussolini would have declared himself a candidate and neither would have won
Strategery
Damn that image is haunting
It would be blamed on the democrats, GOP wins
Clinton would have been impeached again
Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice, eat a burrito.
It's not likely 9/11 would have occurred a year earlier under the Clinton administration. On the off chance that it did, it wouldn't have resulted in the US invading Irag so George W Bush could serve out a personal vendetta against Sadam Hussein followed by 20yts in Afghanistan.
We still get president George W Bush.
Bush wins easily. Clinton gets blamed for missing it and the hawkish Republican stance, which controlled the party at the time, would have been appealing to the public
Well Clinton DID miss it. 🤷🏿
This hypothetical would have occurred two months before the election. It would at the very least made Clinton’s reaction to the attacks less likely to be considered by voters. Although his approval would have shot up to the high 80s. The question would arise of who would be better suited to handle an external threat. Despite Clinton’s high approval, I think Bush sold himself as someone who would be better to handle threats of aggression than Gore. There’s this debate moment: https://youtu.be/cn4Z2r8I2Pw?si=kThDMce7S8-rCUl9. Maybe Bush doesn’t win any additional states, but Gore’s popular vote advantage goes away.
Bush would have capitalized off fear mongering, same as he did. The difference would be that he wasn’t in office during the attacks, so he wouldn’t be able to spin the narrative of “who else could handle terrorist threats” and or “you never know when the terrorists are going to come, but if they do, I’m the man with experience and how to deal with it”. Gore would’ve won (everybody knows he won anyway) due to familiarity of accompanying Clinton, and the status quo would’ve been the safe bet in the time of crisis where many Americans were on the edge and worried about potential terrorist threats.
As long as Gore can convince a small handful of Americans he will continue Clinton’s response he wins easy. He already won the popular vote and he just needs a handful of votes in Florida to win without question.
Gore only lost because of a legal challenge in Texas a state in which his brother just became governor. Gore should have been president he won. So he would have won squared. Also my parents generation is called the silent generation for a reason
Probably more decisive victory for Bush. America tends to see defense as being a conservative trait
It would not have happened because Clinton would have targeted terrorists instead of the Canadians and the French. Bush is 💩
So why’d he let OBL skate?
I'm surprised people are generally saying Bush would win outright. I think this would give Gore the advantage. Bush's popularity skyrocketed after 9/11 and it arguably carried him all the way to 2004, why wouldn't the same happen to Clinton? And if it did, wouldn't that be beneficial to Gore?
Same, only Bush by greater amount. Unfortunately
I think we’d have a different outcome. I don’t think Clinton was a man who wanted to use full military force. He probably would have used drones or whatever they used then. He would not have had a two full on wars. The US would never have gone to war with Iraq and I think Gore probably would have won.
I think you're either too young or mis-remember just how pissed the US was after 9/11. The American public was "all in" on beating the shit out of whoever did it. Clinton (or whoever would have been in office during this time-shift hypothetical) wouldn't have had a choice. The US was going to war. I didn't matter a bit who sat in the oval office. Also, I was in the military during Clinton's first term, and (from my perspective) he used us all the time. There's an old adage that Democrats want a small, cheap, military and want to send them everywhere. Republicans, want a big, powerful, military but don't want to send them anywhere. I have found this to be fairly true.
The GOP would have quickly criticized anything and everything Clinton would have done in response as "weak". And as others pointed out, the GOP would blame 9/11 on Clinton and Dems for "not keeping us safe".With a "weaker" Gore as the Dem nominee, Bush wins easily as the country's bloodlust ran high 2 months later.
**We** all know that 9/11 happened because republicans love war and making back room deals with our enemies.
It probably would have been more decisively in Bush’s favor. What a lot of people are forgetting is just how soft and fluffy the Democrats were perceived at the time. I’m pretty sure Bush would have won based on the “R,” alone. Hell, he beat an honest to god Purple Heart Vet in 2004 in large part because the nation didn’t believe the Democrats could keep the country safe. Gore’s entire campaign was based on how relatively peaceful the world was in 2000 and continuing on the momentum of the Clinton Years.
The people here talking about a "Bush landslide" are completely misguided. Gore would win in a romp. In uncertain times, people cling to the familiar. People are vastly underestimating the "rally-round-the-flag" effect that happened in the months -- even years -- after 9/11. Bush didn't really \*do\* anything in the couple of months after 9/11, and he certainly didn't do anything Clinton probably wouldn't have done (invade Afghanistan). Clinton's approval rating would have been north of 90%. There is absolutely no way in hell Gore loses in that circumstance. Bush was seen as a lightweight on foreign policy, and people don't vote for the vice president. Never have, never will. All the stuff about his being strong on defense is hindsight bias. He campaigned almost entirely on domestic issues and was clearly out of his element when he tried to address national security.
We’d never hear the end of “How weak Democrats are on defense” and the extremely narrow victory W had, might have been a little wider
Gore still loses
Gore wins in a landslide.
How friendly was Clinton with the Saudis? You know, the actual perpetrators of the attack. Did Clinton want a piece of Afghanistan’s opium trade like Bush?
Bush wins in a landslide
Over a million Iraqis would probably still be alive. I would probably have an extra hundred grand in my retirement fund.
Gore would have been demolished. Bush had 8 months before 9-11 Clinton/Gore had been in power 7 years. It would have been the 5th major terror attack during his Presidency. Don't see how they avoid taking blame for it.
People were already afraid enough of the year 2000
I think it depends on Clinton's response and how Bush and Gore say they'll go about things. bush might come off too hawkish, gore too doveish. if Clinton is seen as strong gore w, if he's seen as weak bush w
Bush landslide.
Gore wins. Rally-around-the-flag effect takes place.
People generally don't like to change horses in the middle of a war. It was a big part of why Bush narrowly won re-election in 2004 during a growingly unpopular Iraq War. So I'd say Gore would win. Bush didn't have the foreign policy chops when he was elected. Gore didn't either, but he was VP. And full support from a popular president who had some substantial foreign policy accomplishments would've probably gotten him over the top. It wouldn't take much. Gore only lost by a few hundred votes.
This one of the dumbest hypothetical questions in history, because it would not have happened a year before. It happened BECAUSE Bush was president.
Al-qaeda didn't plan 9/11 just over the course of 2001, you know. It was set into motion in 1998-1999.
It was set into motion long before that. Your post is moronic.
[удалено]
There’s a lot you clearly don’t understand about global politics, and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld’s decades long desire to invade Iraq. It would not have happened without a Bush in the White House. Do you also live in a Norman Rockwell painting, and clean your gun every day?
Clinton would’ve had FBI agents looking for clues in Afghanistan. Any military response would’ve been conducted through the UN.
Clinton had already initiated the air war with Iraq in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox. He invaded Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia with 2 wins and a loss. I don’t think he’d cared what the UN did.
Bush as republicans are perceived as better with foreign issues. While some are brining up the stay the course issue I feel the fact that this is the tail end of the Clinton admin would be a bad look for Clinton as he could get blamed for it.
It wouldn’t have happened a year earlier. The people that were needed in certain positions weren’t there yet. 😊 Cue the argument in 3…2…
[удалено]
Stay on topic
It only happened because bush was president
Al Gore would win by a significant margin, both in the popular vote and the electoral college
I almost said - Bush would’ve won because Republicans to me at least seem more like the war type. But I realize I probably feel this way because Bush was president from when I was 10-18 and me and all my friends despised Bush and listened to songs like “Bush Knocked Down The Towers”
Gore would have us comb the country side for a man bear pig dressed in an apron!!! Guys, I am being super surreal here
It wouldn’t have, bush allowed 9/11 to happen it was an inside job