It's Election Day 2000...

[Kodos]

... and you know everything that you know today. How do you vote?

Edit: "George W. Bush (I did not vote for him in 2000)" should read "George W. Bush (I did not vote in 2000) "

[JonInMiddleGA]

Exactly the same.

[Ksyrup]

Probably Harry Browne.

[Pumpy Tudors]

My cousin Tanya

[larrymcg421]

Find the names of 538 dead people in Florida and vote in their place.

[cartman]

I didn't think American Idol started until 2002.

[Young Drachma]

Buchanan in 2000, Bednarik in 2004. Wouldn't have voted for the same candidate in 2000, but would've found some other fringe candidate to get behind that year. I liked my choice in 2004 a lot.

[Ksyrup]

Regardless of how it came out, I still would have wanted the Florida vote to be close. Living in Tallahassee during November and December that year was kinda fun.

[Cringer]

I voted Nader in 2000. If my views were exactly the same as they are now I would have gone for the Lib. candidate, as I went for Bednarik in 2004.

[Buccaneer]

That's a good poll but I still don't see my choice: Vote against Gore. I didn't vote for anyone and I do not recall how I voted in 2000 (probably none of the above).

[Big Fo]

Voted for Nader, wouldn't change since I wasn't really a big Gore fan plus living in South Carolina means my vote is meaningless thanks to the Electoral College.

[tarcone]

I voted for Bush. I think Bush was the man in 2001. The type of figurehead the USA needed. I dont think the other candidates would have produced as fierce of a stand as Bush did.
As for the other stuff. He has made mistakes. Every President does. And I am not any worse for the wear because of them.

[Vegas Vic]

I found it interesting that Fox News hack Dick Morris, who hates the Clintons, said he voted for Gore in 2000, and he still thinks that Gore would have been a good president.

[Schmidty]

To this day, i am ashamed that I voted for the illuminati in 2000. It makes me want to vomit.

[GrantDawg]

I voted Bush, but I definitely would have voted Gore now. I didn't make the same mistake in 2004.

[stevew]

How about this, I vote for Bush in 2000, but the Democrats don't run a douchebag in 2004 and I vote for that guy instead of not voting at all.

[Swaggs]

Earlier today, I was thinking about how different the legacy of Bill Clinton may have been had Gore won. Whether it would have been good or bad (depending on perceptions/leanings), it likely would have been 12-16 years of similar programs, so I imagine the Clinton legacy would have looked quite different and more impactful 100+ years from now.

[vtbub]

2000, for me, was quite possibly the worst choice of candidates this country has had in years. I had no idea that Bush would do what he did, yet Al Gore has done almost equal damage in continuing the nasty personal politics by successfully making global warming and the environment a devisive issue.

I didn't like him in 2000 and I like him much less now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by vtbub

2000, for me, was quite possibly the worst choice of candidates this country has had in years.

And just eight years later ...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And just eight years later ...

We have the Republican candidate that I wanted back in 2000.

I was torn in this poll, because I almost voted Gore back in 2k. I was sort of pulling for him, because I thought it would wake the Republican party up, and get them to nominate a real candidate. That and I really figured that no one elected in 2000 would be re-elected in 2004. Then again I couldn't have predicted that Joe Lieberman would become the only sensible senior Democrat in the ensuing years.

What does that say about me that my top two candidates for president, among those who have run in recent years, are Lieberman and McCain?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What does that say about me that my top two candidates for president, among those who have run in recent years, are Lieberman and McCain?

I'm going to treat that as a rhetorical question and opt not to answer.
It wouldn't be pretty

[Axxon]

I voted for Gore, still would have voted for Gore and would vote for him if he ran this year. It's really not about his politics but I like the guy. Go figure.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What does that say about me that my top two candidates for president, among those who have run in recent years, are Lieberman and McCain?

Ugh - I don't think you want to know...

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm going to treat that as a rhetorical question and opt not to answer.
It wouldn't be pretty

Wait...what?

[Izulde]

I voted for Nader in 2000, because I wanted him to do well enough to get the Green Party off the ground and into federal funding.

Had I to do it over again, I'd have gone Gore.

[Desnudo]

I voted against becoming France

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Earlier today, I was thinking about how different the legacy of Bill Clinton may have been had Gore won. Whether it would have been good or bad (depending on perceptions/leanings), it likely would have been 12-16 years of similar programs, so I imagine the Clinton legacy would have looked quite different and more impactful 100+ years from now.

Curious what people think his legacy actually is now.

[Abe Sargent]

I agree that Gore would not have handled 9/11 well at all, and Bush did. So, in hindsight, I'd have voted Bush in 2000. But the democrats Kerry was so bad in 2k4 that I couldn't vote for either.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I agree that Gore would not have handled 9/11 well at all, and Bush did.

Given the probability that:

1. Gore may have done something more than freeze while reading a children's book when told the news

and

2. Gore may have read the relevant NIE (and not been on vacation when said NIE was delivered, unlike More-vacation-than-any-president-in-history-Bush)

that is quite a statement.


What, exactly, did Bush do that makes you say he "handled 9/11 so well"? Allow Cheney to do everything?

Plus, it's been 7 years. Let's look at the scorecard:

• Bin Laden still not captured
• 9/11 organizers (those not killed) still not put on trial and convicted
• Al-Qaeda still active in Afghanistan
• Al-Qaeda now also active in Iraq
• Al-Qaeda the beneficiary of increased recruiting & fundraising
• 7/7, Madrid train bombings, Bali bombings, etc....
• NIE of 2006 states the U.S. now less safe than before 9/11
• Nuclear power & erstwhile ally Pakistan under siege from Al-Qaeda-supported extremist elements

Honestly, what did Al Gore do? Kill your dog?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given the probability that:

1. Gore may have done something more than freeze while reading a children's book when told the news

and

2. Gore may have read the relevant NIE (and not been on vacation when said NIE was delivered, unlike More-vacation-than-any-president-in-history-Bush)

IMO, there would have been much more pressure on Gore to be "more hawkish" than Bush ever got. He could have very well went way off the deep end to start with troop numbers, then realized the public wasn't behind it and pulled out. I seriously doubt we would have have the success from a military standpoint. That said, he may have had a better plan for post-war - or, he may have just pulled out when the sh*t hit the fan. Or, he could not have gone in at all and taken a TON of heat from both sides.

What, exactly, did Bush do that makes you say he "handled 9/11 so well"? Allow Cheney to do everything?

I would say his biggest asset was sticking to the goals from the start. You can argue that not going to Iraq was a better overall strategy than going into Iraq and removing Saddam. You may well be right by the time history judges this. Still, the worst action would have been going in hard, then pulling completely out. And, IMO, that's what Gore would have done. When the public was 70% for it, he would have gone in with guns a blazin'. But when 70% were against it, he would have pulled it out and that would probably have been disastrous.

• Bin Laden still not captured
• 9/11 organizers (those not killed) still not put on trial and convicted
• Al-Qaeda still active in Afghanistan
• Al-Qaeda now also active in Iraq
• Al-Qaeda the beneficiary of increased recruiting & fundraising
• 7/7, Madrid train bombings, Bali bombings, etc....
• NIE of 2006 states the U.S. now less safe than before 9/11
• Nuclear power & erstwhile ally Pakistan under siege from Al-Qaeda-supported extremist elements

Everything hasn't gone perfect. But, if you would have asked everyone in October of 2001, if you would take a future that had the following:
1. No attacks on the US for the next 2 presidential terms
2. Afghanistan has a new government with new leaders (no Taliban).
3. Saddam has been removed from power by the US with a 1.4% death rate and 14% casualty rate for US soldiers.
4. Iraq has a new government and held elections.
5. Al-Qaeda is no longer able to train or occupy in Iraq or Afghanistan - with much of their senior leadership during 9-11 captured or killed.

I think most people would have jumped at it - even without the capture of Bin Laden and the difficulties in the middle 2 years in Iraq. So, the question becomes would you be willing to risk that items 1-5 above don't occur for another chance at Bin Laden with Gore? I'm not sure trading off any of the above items for Bin Laden's head makes us any better off. And, you have the chance of getting no Bin Laden and missing some of the successes we've had.

So, while everyone can say how we may not be in Iraq and everything OK with Saddam, captured Bin Laden and no future terrorist attacks if Gore was elected. We could also be in a significantly worse position if he went halfway on Iraq, emboldened terrorists by pulling out and not handled many of the economic issues from 2001 to 2004 properly.

[cartman]

I think a lot of your points would be rendered moot, because I don't think there would have been much of a chance at all of a Gore administration going into Iraq. It would have been more of the containment that had been in place since the end of the Gulf War. I think if we wouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi military in the first official act as occupiers, we would have been able to remove our troops to a much lower level than they are at today.

Again, Al-Qaeda was not present in any appreciable way in Iraq when Saddam was in charge, and currently Al-Qaeda is starting to retrench in parts of Afghanistan, so issue #5 is not the current state of affairs.

And before stating people would 'jump at it', the price tag also has to be considered. If you told people it would cost upwards of $1 trillion dollars, I'm sure that the enthusiasm would wane a bit. Some say you can't put a price on freedom, but there is a cold hard cost affixed to it.

[SportsDino]

I think no one would jump at it... its not all that great for the US.

Assuming that Gore would have either not responded or responded extreme is pretty foolish. He would have got the same reports from the same sort of intelligence and military structure. Instead of choosing to make a big show and start a couple wars, maybe he would have put the big spend towards domestic security so we actually have some effective policies instead of the drek that has been shoveled up during the Bush administration. I'm sure 500 billion could have did a lot to bulk up security, and certainly would not have depleted our military which was probably the biggest disincentive from any real damaging attack being made upon us.

Most troops would probably be fine patrolling the US picking up extra shifts for domestic security, and running quick attacks on known terrorist targets rather than extended occupations in hostile territory.

Whether the government is any better in Iraq is still a big question. To some it still looks like it would collapse to petty warlords as soon as the US pulls out, the ones we are supporting are hardly all that innovative in terms of their leadership (they are pulling down their paycheck and little else, have had no great policies to improve their own security or economy, and their sole claim to fame is a lack of being overthrown so far).

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda is operating and getting on the job experience in Iraq. They might not have official camps with big signs saying 'Al-Qaeda Training Facility', but I'm sure they've got quite the shadow network built up that they are doing fine. Out of simple fatigue have the attacks started to wear down, more US troops shooting at them, lots of your buddies starting to die, and the only benefit is randomly killing people... its not the sort of thing to inspire people to be terrorists. Eventually their hatred of the US may not even be enough to overwhelm the pain and stupidity of joining with the terrorists... but I won't give Bush credit for the common sense of our enemies finally kicking in. Common sense we are apparently lacking (senseless killing in order to support something that has no value to us).

Nothing short of dogmatic ferver for the Republican Party can consider this a successful 8 years at any level. We are unhappier, poorer, angrier, unhealthier, and gosh darn it people just don't like us.

[st.cronin]

Clinton was actually MORE of a hawk than Bush, not sure what Gore would have been like, but my money would be on pretty much an identical foreign policy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Nothing short of dogmatic ferver for the Republican Party can consider this a successful 8 years at any level. We are unhappier, poorer, angrier, unhealthier, and gosh darn it people just don't like us.

Correct. Over the last 8 years this country has taken a step (or two or three) backwards in pretty much every way.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

2. Gore may have read the relevant NIE (and not been on vacation when said NIE was delivered, unlike More-vacation-than-any-president-in-history-Bush)

Was he on vacation then? I thought this was during his weeks-long 'thinking session' about stem cells.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, there would have been much more pressure on Gore to be "more hawkish" than Bush ever got. He could have very well went way off the deep end to start with troop numbers, then realized the public wasn't behind it and pulled out. I seriously doubt we would have have the success from a military standpoint.

Ironically, of course, this is exactly the plan that a) was championed by Colin Powell & General Shinseki and b) ended up being what "worked" for General Petraeus. I'm speaking of Iraq, of course, but the same holds true for Afghanistan.

A Gore Administration that goes in heavy into Afghanistan probably stabilizes the country even faster and captures even more Al-Qaeda leadership, possibly including Bin Laden. Remember, many commanders on the ground have said that they would have had a much better chance of getting Bin Laden, as they knew roughly where he was, with more resources. But those resources went to Iraq.

So you end up with Al-Qaeda even further debilitated, a stable and secular government in Afghanistan, and even more senior Al-Qaeda leadership on trial, possibly including Bin Laden himself. All for a heck of a lot less than $1 Trillion+.

I would say his biggest asset was sticking to the goals from the start.

But he didn't and he hasn't. Remember when Bush said Bin Laden was priority #1? Remember when victory in Iraq meant a western-style democracy there?

Still, the worst action would have been going in hard, then pulling completely out. And, IMO, that's what Gore would have done. When the public was 70% for it, he would have gone in with guns a blazin'. But when 70% were against it, he would have pulled it out and that would probably have been disastrous.

See my response above.

Everything hasn't gone perfect. But, if you would have asked everyone in October of 2001, if you would take a future that had the following:
1. No attacks on the US for the next 2 presidential terms

I know the average American doesn't care, but I don't think the attacks on Britain, Madrid, Indonesia (where westerners were targeted) and numerous smaller incidents is insignificant. If anything, it shows that Al-Qaeda still has the ability to conduct operations worldwide.

2. Afghanistan has a new government with new leaders (no Taliban).

Afghanistan's current government is pretty fragile, and the Taliban continue to make inroads in various parts of the country.

3. Saddam has been removed from power by the US with a 1.4% death rate and 14% casualty rate for US soldiers.

And $500 Billion, with an additional $8 billion to $12 billion a month. While the U.S. has crumbling infrastructure and is sinking into a recession. Don't forget this. Besides, Saddam could have more easily (and with less risk to American servicemen) been removed by a sniper team or precision-guided ordnance.

4. Iraq has a new government and held elections.

A new government held together only by implied threats from the U.S., with a President indebted to a radical Shia cleric (& Iran), and largely unrepresentative of the Sunni part of the population.

5. Al-Qaeda is no longer able to train or occupy in Iraq or Afghanistan

This is just false.

with much of their senior leadership during 9-11 captured or killed.

Al-Qaeda has distributed leadership around the world. Further, the "core" leadership (i.e. people who replaced those that were lost) can still operate from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border hinterlands. And that's not even considering what kind of support they have in sympathetic parts of Saudi Arabia.


And in all of that, Arles, you haven't even addressed my initial hypothetical, which is that Gore may even have averted 9/11 by paying more attention to that mid-2001 NIE. After all, I don't think he would have been kicking back on his ranch at the time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Was he on vacation then? I thought this was during his weeks-long 'thinking session' about stem cells.

I think the weeks-long 'thinking session' about stem cells was during Katrina. Oh, and sharing birthday cake with John McCain.