Arlen Specter can read a map, an electoral map particularly. His switch to the Democratic party today is the continuing culmination of dual regional political realignments that have been going on over the last several decades. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won election to the Presidency by winning every southern state, a spine of states running up the Appalachians to New York, several Midwestern industrial states, and only one state west of the Mississippi (Texas). This was the last gasp of the old Democratic coalition, built on the “Solid South” and the Rust Belt.
|
1976 |
That coalition was decisively fractured by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Republican exploitation of disaffected white southerners. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” effectively made the Solid South solid for Republicans, not Democrats. Slowly, over the next several decades, the southern realignment meant the disappearance of southern Democrats at all levels. Southern Democratic Senators and Representatives lost elections, left for the GOP, or retired. By the late 1980s, the south was consistently voting Republican at a national level (with several exceptions). Pushed out of their traditional base, the Democratic Party faced an enormous challenge to establish a new base from which to fight elections. Without such a base, the Democrats would go into each Presidential cycle at a built-in deficit to the Republicans, as both Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis discovered.
|
1992 |
The Democrats did have one advantage. The two bookend states of the electoral college, California and New York, were trending Democratic, and they brought with them nearly 100 electoral votes. Add to that midwestern states like Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the Democrats had the start of a new coalition, one centered in the northeast, the middle west, and the west coast. But it took time to build it, and the GOP had a headstart with the South. In a preview of this new coalition, a Democratic candidate like Bill Clinton in 1992 could manage to win by taking the northeast, the midwest, and the far west, while still pulling a few southern states into the blue side (Georgia and Kentucky, for example). But eight years later, Al Gore could not even win his home state of Tennessee and the entire south went for George Bush (albeit Florida with some shadiness). The south was essentially redder than red at this point. The northeast, west, and midwest were trending Democratic but there were still states that waffled. Thus New Hampshire in 2000 went for Bush. Thus Iowa in 2004 went for Bush. The Democrats had the bones of a coalition in place, but the body remained to be filled out.
|
2004 |
The election of 2004 confirmed the delicate balance. George W. Bush won by holding the states of the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West, and defeating John Kerry in Ohio, Florida, and Iowa. He won no states on the west coast. He won no states in the Northeast. Most ominously, he lost Pennsylvania, which suggested that the Democratic coalition was beginning to expand ever so slightly southward. In addition, the races in several mountain west states, like New Mexico, were close enough to suggest Republican vulnerability. The realignment continued in 2006, albeit at the Congressional level. Republicans in Northeastern states at both the House and Senate were clobbered. The northeastern states were becoming bluer than blue. Most critically and surprisingly, the Democrats managed a strong showing in some border states of the Old Confederacy, most notably Virginia, where Jim Webb eked out a Senatorial victory. Combine that with Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, which pushed the Democratic Party to compete in all the states of the union, 2006 presaged a Presidential election in which, for the first time in a generation, the Democrats would have an advantage.
|
2008 |
And 2008 confirmed that. Barack Obama carried the northeast easily, and won both Pennsylvania and Ohio by surprisingly large margins. The basic Democratic regions: northeast, industrial midwest, and west coast gave him 291 electoral votes, more than sufficient for victory. But Obama also previewed the expansion of that regional stronghold, by winning Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Nevada. On a Congressional level, the reallocation accelerated. Republicans have only 3 Representatives out of 29 from New York State. Northeastern Republican Senators have become a rare if moderate breed, equally as likely to be labeled
“RINOs” as they are to vote for a piece of Democratic legislature. Often, that is.
Arlen Specter seems to have realized–more quickly than Rick Santorum–that he was doomed as a Republican in Pennsylvania. He was moderate enough to have a fair shot in the general election, but the rump of the GOP left in the Keystone State was deeply conservative, both socially and fiscally. Polling was making it clear that he was not going to beat out Pat Toomey in the primary. On the Democratic side, Specter has a better chance. He has likely negotiated an agreement with the Democrats that no major league Democrats will take him on in the primary (read: Ed Rendell) and his conservatism plays well with a Pennsylvania Democratic population that remains quite moderate by national standards. This was Hillary Clinton’s state in the Democratic Presidential primaries, and Specter has to be counting on the same thing in 2010.
50 comments
April 28, 2009 at 11:14 am
AWC
Despite all these trends, this is an absolutely shocking development to me.
I speak from intimate knowledge. In 1966, My father ran for Congress as a Republican, and lost. On the same ticket, Arlen ran for district attorney and won. His college mate, the late Edward R. Becker, ran unsuccessfully for State Legislature; he later became a much beloved Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals. All three were Jews representing an upwardly mobile constituency concentrated in Frankfurt and Northeast Philadelphia, where I was raised.
I have long since rejected my father’s politics, so I’m excited to see the Dems break the filibuster. But I’m saddened about the extinction of the liberal Republicans of Pennsylvania. They weren’t all bad.
April 28, 2009 at 11:36 am
bitchphd
Given the southern strategy and the shift, I find myself wondering if the weirdly shocking embrace of deliberate ignorance by Republicans (I mean, really: rejecting stimulus money? Proposing *lowering* spending during a major downturn? Not to mention the whole anti-science weirdness) is really just a pathetic floundering attempt to cover up the racist underpinnings?
April 28, 2009 at 11:48 am
ekogan
He has likely negotiated an agreement with the Democrats that no major league Democrats will take him on in the primary (read: Ed Rendell)
How would that agreement be enforced? Suppose that your supposition is true and Rendell decides to go against the wishes of the party central committees. What could the national Democratic party do to stop him? Not give him money from the centrally controlled funds? But the candidate is free to raise his own contributions, and, AFAIK, most candidates get most of their money from their own fundraising.
April 28, 2009 at 11:53 am
AWC
>How would that agreement be enforced?
Simple: deny Rendell’s friends federal patronage.
But I admit Rendell is one of the few Dems strong enough to buck the national party.
April 28, 2009 at 11:59 am
silbey
But I’m saddened about the extinction of the liberal Republicans of Pennsylvania. They weren’t all bad.
They’re not dead; they’re just all Democrats now. Joe Sestak, my Congressman, for example, would have been a Republican two decades ago. Now? Moderate Democrat in the Philly suburbs.
How would that agreement be enforced? Suppose that your supposition is true and Rendell decides to go against the wishes of the party central committees. What could the national Democratic party do to stop him?
Not give him money from the central coffers; not mobilize the party machinery in PA for get out the vote efforts (or mobilize them for Specter); prominent Democratic donors wouldn’t return his calls; PACs wouldn’t help (or would help Specter), etc. Rendell *has* done this before (Bob Casey was the anointed Democrat in the 2002 gubernatorial primary)
None of these would necessarily be enough to stop Rendell if he was absolutely determined, or necessarily make him lose to Specter in the primary (cf Lamont, Ned), but they’re probably enough to make him think long and hard. And my suspicion is that Rendell was brought into the discussion. Harry Reid said that this had been brewing for awhile, so there was plenty of time to have a range of conversations.
(As a wild-ass guess, anybody want to think about Supreme Court Justice Ed Rendell?)
April 28, 2009 at 12:11 pm
eric
Specter appears to have announced Rendell will be raising money for him. So probably not a challenger.
April 28, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Colin
So da fix is in. I’m wondering more what Specter agreed to do. It sounds like the white house is lining up votes for a health package.
April 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm
kevin
Rendell and Specter are good friends. Not only will Rendell not challenge Specter, he’ll squash anyone who tries.
April 28, 2009 at 1:03 pm
AWC
>They’re not dead; they’re just all Democrats now.
Well, most of them died before they had to bail. Usually, it’s the children of suburban Northeast Republicans who are Dems.
April 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm
David Carlton
“This was the last gasp of the old Democratic coalition, built on the “Solid South” and the Rust Belt.
“That coalition was decisively fractured by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Republican exploitation of disaffected white southerners. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” effectively made the Solid South solid for Republicans, not Democrats.”
Er, and this explains Jimmy Carter’s win in 1976? Look, I know this conventional-wisdom view of the modern history of southern politics is personally congenial to this site, and deeply embedded in the left blogosphere, but it just doesn’t work all that well. In fact, Nixon’s “southern strategy” was a flop at the time. The transformation of the South into a Republican stronghold not only took a long time [it really only began to gain ground in the 1980s and 1990s], but is hardly complete even now. A majority of southern congressional representatives, after all, were Democrats into the 1990s, and quite a few southern states have flipped on the state level only very recently [and others are going the opposite direction]. Of course race has a lot to do with the (relative) Republicanization of the South [just look at the color of southern Republicans], but this explanation misses a lot–particularly the ethnocultural dimensions of the shift [It also ignores the color of southern Democrats; in the long run, I’d bet on the multiracial party over the lily-white one]. There are openings for Democrats in the South, as we see in places like Virginia and North Carolina [and, no, it’s not just nonsoutherners moving in; it was mainly nonsoutherners moving in that created the modern southern Republican Party, after all]. Southern Republicanism coalesced around a constellation of issues that arose in the 1970s and early 1980s [racial, but also nonracial–that’s why 1964 flubs as a break point], and those issues are starting to get replaced by new ones, in which Democrats have opportunities. There’s an expanding literature on this–Joseph Crespino, Matthew Lassiter, etc.; it needs to be paid more attention.
April 28, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Malaclypse
It also went the other way – Frank Rizzo was a Democrat when I was growing up.
April 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm
silbey
The transformation of the South into a Republican stronghold not only took a long time [it really only began to gain ground in the 1980s and 1990s], but is hardly complete even now. A majority of southern congressional representatives, after all, were Democrats into the 1990s,
Thus the part of the post which read:
“the continuing culmination of dual regional political realignments that have been going on over the last several decades. ”
and
“Slowly, over the next several decades, the southern realignment meant the disappearance of southern Democrats at all levels. Southern Democratic Senators and Representatives lost elections, left for the GOP, or retired. By the late 1980s, the south was consistently voting Republican at a national level (with several exceptions).”
To dismiss 1964 & Nixon as the start of this process requires that you think that such a turnover would occur immediately, as opposed to the more normal tectonic political shifts that occur in this world of powerful incumbents and voting inertia.
April 28, 2009 at 2:56 pm
BP in MN
and only one state west of the Mississippi (Texas).
What’s generally considered the proper usage of the term “state west of the Mississippi?” Are states that border the Mississippi but are wholly west of it included, in which case the statement above is false? Do states whose area and/or population are mostly west of the Mississippi count (i.e., Louisiana and Minnesota as well)? Or is it only states from which the Mississippi can’t be seen that count?
April 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm
bitchphd
Minnesota has nothing to do with the Mississippi. It’s in the category “states way the fuck up north and too damn cold,” aka “great lakes states.”
April 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm
teofilo
Minnesota has nothing to do with the Mississippi.
Eh?
April 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm
jen
given that the Mississippi actually starts in, um, Minnesota, that’s a bit harsh. for “west of the Mississippi,” how about “western, kind of, except Texas is different, somehow.”
April 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm
bitchphd
Don’t get all pissy about your “facts” and “maps” and other nonsense. If the damn water freezes, it’s not a river any more. So there.
April 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
silbey
What’s generally considered the proper usage of the term “state west of the Mississippi?
I was reaching for something non-Mississippi connected, but it doesn’t read right, does it? How about “no states further west than Texas”?
April 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm
teofilo
The hundredth meridian is a much better dividing line (both physically and culturally) than the Mississippi.
April 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm
teofilo
If the damn water freezes, it’s not a river any more.
So judgmental. Next you’ll be claiming that a river needs to have water in it all the time.
April 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Vance
Like B, I still find it strongly counterintuitive that a river called “Mississippi” can pass through “northern” states. And like David Carlton, I find it counterintuitive that a coalition could breathe its “last gasp” twelve long years after being “decisively fractured”. These intuitions have, I think, about equal value.
April 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Tyler Blalock
One thing I find interesting is that many in the Republican party seem to genuinely believe that the party supports and has supported tax cuts, social program cuts, and federalism on the basis of a pure conservative ideology rather than race-baiting.
It seems as though when the southern strategy was being formulated, someone forgot to let the non-southern Republican faithful in on the secret.
Now it seems that the policies which characterized the southern strategy are genuinely viewed as core conservative principles which have nothing to do with race.
Obviously there are some people who know what is up, but most of the Republicans I have met who are in my age group seem to be quite naive about the origin and intent of such policies.
April 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Vance
(Huh, and googling those last phrases, we find earlier versions of the paragraphs in question. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
April 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm
silbey
like David Carlton, I find it counterintuitive that a coalition could breathe its “last gasp” twelve long years after being “decisively fractured”
How do you feel about New College, Oxford, founded 1379? (Yes, that was a crack about America not really having a history, only current events).
(And unlike David Carlton you post more than once per thread…)
April 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Vance
Well, my point was that my feelings don’t count for much here. But for what it’s worth, I find it easier to think, “Well, it was new once” (as for the Pont-Neuf) than to envision a political breakup that lasted longer than United We Stand America.
UPDATED TO ADD: if Silbey can edit his comments long after posting them, then so will I.
April 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm
silbey
than to envision a political breakup that lasted longer than United We Stand America.
French Revolution? Scientific Revolution? Fall of the Roman Empire? Twelve years is nothing for last gasps and decisive fractures.
April 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm
kid bitzer
i hear the grateful dead are touring again, too.
April 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Bloix
Clinton won five Southern states in ’92 and five Southern states in ’96. Beginning in 1964 the Democratic rule was, nominate a Southerner and win, nominate a Northerner and lose. Gore is the only Democratic nominee from the former Confederacy to lose since the Civil War (and he didn’t lose). And Obama is the first non-Southern Democrat to win since John F. Kennedy.
April 28, 2009 at 7:40 pm
andrew
As late as 1938, FDR’s southern strategy had failed to increase the majority in favor of his policies.
April 28, 2009 at 8:08 pm
jazzbumpa
I look at the 2008 map and see that blue states are the ones with people in them – at least more people than deer or bison. Is it wrong to imagine that level of education and intellectual sophistication also play a part?
Interesting how Ohio reflects the nation in miniature.
April 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Michael Turner
Twelve years is nothing for last gasps and decisive fractures.
Good point. I find I’m no longer balking at your seemingly oxymoronic “continuing culmination”.
The bad news: I guess last week’s clean bill of health from my doctor was really just his gentle way of saying I only have about 25 more years left to live, 30 at the outside.
April 28, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Ben Alpers
I haven’t had a chance to ask my sister-in-law what she thinks of today’s events. She does political work for the SEIU in Pennsylvania. They appear to have gone from having two pro-union candidates in the general election when Specter last ran in 2004 to having, in likelihood, no pro-union candidates in next year’s general election, what with Specter having flip-flopped on EFCA.
After last year’s elections, my sense is that SEIU expected Specter to vote with the Democrats on EFCA but to stay in the GOP. In the past, union support for Specter would have made a difference in both the general election and the Republican primary. SEIU would have been happy to work hard for his renomination and reelection, provided he did the right thing on EFCA and healthcare.
Clearly Specter decided that such union support wouldn’t do enough in the Republican primary to beat back the challenge from the right. So he tacked rightward a few weeks ago and came out against cloture on EFCA, which he had actually supported in the past. Sometime more recently he must have realized that he will never convince what’s left of the Pennsylvania GOP to support him even having tossed his former union backers under the bus.
One key factor in all of this was last year’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary, which appears to have led a lot of erstwhile moderate Republicans to re-register as Democrats in order to vote for Hillary Clinton. Having crossed the aisle, there’s little reason for these voters to return to the GOP. The landscape of Pennsylvania politics has really shifted.
April 28, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Galvinji
They’re not dead; they’re just all Democrats now. Joe Sestak, my Congressman, for example, would have been a Republican two decades ago. Now? Moderate Democrat in the Philly suburbs.
My congressman, Jim Gerlach, is what passes for a moderate Republican these days, simply because he’s a garden variety conservative who has somehow managed to win several narrow elections in a ridiculous gerrymandered district that stretches from the Philadelphia city line to Reading and that voted for Obama in 2008.
The political transformation of the formerly liberal Republican Philadelphia suburbs has been remarkable. The township I live in was, until relatively recently, solidly Republican. We have partisan elections for the township board and I think the Democrats gained a narrow majority a couple of years ago for the first time ever. The township went 70-30 for Obama in 2008.
Sometime more recently he must have realized that he will never convince what’s left of the Pennsylvania GOP to support him even having tossed his former union backers under the bus.
He was down by more than 20 points to Toomey (a college contemporary of yours, Ben) in the polls. The funny thing is that the Pennsylvania GOP seems to have forgotten that the last three statewide elections were landslides (Rendell +20, Casey +19 vs. an incumbent, Obama +10) and want to nominate someone who couldn’t possibly win statewide election unless the Democrats nominated Vince Fumo or somebody.
April 28, 2009 at 11:23 pm
dmerkow
The Ohio GOP of Robert A. Taft was certainly conservative and had been for a century, but there was a cultural shift in the state party in the 90s as the Southernized ideology of the GOP moved back north. Ohio’s Second District is as a good a place to look as any. Jean Schmidt versus Rob Portman versus Willis Gradison.
April 29, 2009 at 2:31 am
ajay
How do you feel about New College, Oxford, founded 1379? (Yes, that was a crack about America not really having a history, only current events).
New College? A mere child in comparison to some.
April 29, 2009 at 2:39 am
AWC
The transformation has actually been going on for a while. Indeed, it’s the context for David Brooks’ _Bobos in Paradise_. Brooks was raised in Wayne, PA.
It’s the party affiliation that’s changing more than the politics. PA suburban Republicans have long been more liberal on culture-war issues than PA rural and white working-class Democrats. It’s not just a stereotype. Bob Casey senior defeated Bill Scranton in 1987 by portraying him as a pot-smoking hippie. And I don’t need to tell you about Casey’s views on abortion.
Now, I suspect PA suburbanites have moved leftward on economic issues, but mostly, I think the GOP lurched rightward. Specter is a jerk, an egomaniac, and an opportunist, but he isn’t insane, or an ideologue, or an imbecile. Thus, he has no place in the modern GOP.
April 29, 2009 at 4:22 am
kevin
Specter is a jerk, an egomaniac, and an opportunist, but he isn’t insane, or an ideologue, or an imbecile. Thus, he has no place in the modern GOP.
Unlike Santorum, who was a triple threat there.
April 29, 2009 at 4:44 am
Ben Alpers
Toomey (a college contemporary of yours, Ben)
I don’t think so, Galvinji. Toomey is about four years older than me.
I did go to college with that other
distinguishedHarvardianman-of-the-people Glen Meakem, sometime entrepreneur and rightwing talk-show host, who was William Scranton, III’s campaign chairman during the latter’s 2006 Gubernatorial campaign. Glen was a classmate and House-mate of mine…he was even briefly in my concentration, Social Studies (“like Government, but left wing” as the kids used to say before our time). He was also Freshman and Sophomore roommates with a number of people who became my Junior and Senior roommates. He was also making noises about challenging Specter this time ’round before Toomey threw his hat in the ring again. Small world.Favorite college-age Glen Meakem quote (showing true self understanding): “If I’d been born in the Soviet Union, I’d have been a really loyal Communist.”
April 29, 2009 at 5:50 am
AWC
Wow! Ben Alpers, Glen Meachem, and Tony Guccione in the same class.
April 29, 2009 at 5:51 am
AWC
Oops. I meant to write “Meakem.”
April 29, 2009 at 6:48 am
Martin Wisse
This potted history ignores the election fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 without which Al Gore or John Kerry would’ve been president instead of Bush. These are not trivial things to ignore and you cannot understand modern American electorial history without them; had these elections been honest, would we be talking about the Solid Republican South?
April 29, 2009 at 7:12 am
silbey
It’s the party affiliation that’s changing more than the politics
Yeah, as the GOP marginalizes itself in the south and become ever more conservative, a lot of formerly moderate Republicans end up in the Democratic Party.
This potted history ignores the election fraud in Florida in 2000
I did mention the “shadiness” in Florida.
would we be talking about the Solid Republican South?
Uh, yes?
That the election of 1876 was stolen from Samuel Tilden doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a solid Democratic South developing at that time. Same for now.
April 29, 2009 at 7:17 am
Galvinji
It’s the party affiliation that’s changing more than the politics. PA suburban Republicans have long been more liberal on culture-war issues than PA rural and white working-class Democrats.
And still may be. One of the reasons Bob Casey, Jr. was encouraged to run for the Senate are his positions on abortion and gun control. What makes him a Democrat is that he is essentially a New Dealer otherwise.
Despite this, I suspect it’s more the emphasis on cultural politics than economics that has led to the party shift — that, and the changing demographics of the Philly suburbs.
April 29, 2009 at 7:27 am
Barry
andrew
“As late as 1938, FDR’s southern strategy had failed to increase the majority in favor of his policies.”
Stop with the Schlaesism. Compare FDR’s vote share in 1932 and 1936, and you’ll see one of the largest gains ever in US presidential election history.
April 29, 2009 at 7:35 am
AWC
I do think economics still matters. If Casey began advocating the reinstatement of 1950s federal income tax rates, he couldn’t win Philadelphia County, much less Montgomery and Delaware Counties.
In other words, suburbanites are drawn to the Dems in the absence of any push for New Deal levels of taxation.
April 29, 2009 at 8:05 am
andrew
Stop with the Schlaesism. Compare FDR’s vote share in 1932 and 1936, and you’ll see one of the largest gains ever in US presidential election history.
Aside from the joking phrasing, I was referring to FDR’s campaigning in the south in 1938 against Democrats who opposed parts (or more) of the New Deal.
April 29, 2009 at 10:25 am
apostropher
had these elections been honest, would we be talking about the Solid Republican South?
Well, yes. If Ohio gets awarded to Kerry, every single southern state still goes to Bush. If Florida gets awarded to Gore, every single southern state still goes to Bush, except for the one with the highest rate of retirees from the rest of the country which was nonetheless essentially a tie. That’s 0-25-1 across two elections. Pretty solid, all in all.
April 30, 2009 at 6:18 am
Chris
If Gore took office in 2001, Bush wouldn’t have been running in 2004 against a French windsurfer with an extensively slandered military service record. As a proven loser he probably wouldn’t have been running at all, but even if he were, it’d be against an incumbent rather than as one (and if 9/11 had happened regardless of Gore’s probably paying more attention to counterterrorism, Gore would have gotten the rally-round-the-flag effect from the mushy middle).
That makes it possible that the Republican South would have cracked then, rather than in 2008.
(We would all have had to put up with Lieberman as veep, though – I wonder what he would have been like without Bush banging the drum for an irrelevant war and radical expansion of executive power? Probably less evil than the veep we did have in the same period, at least.)
May 1, 2009 at 5:26 am
apostropher
This is all completely unprovable, of course, but my suspicion is that if Gore had won in 2000, the GOP candidate would have won in 2004. As you note, though, 9/11 is a big wild card (and the theme of the Republican campaign would almost certainly have been that the Democrats allowed the worst attack on American soil and couldn’t protect the country).
May 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm
r€nato
really, apostropher? How do you figure that? I’d love to know.
I don’t know how anybody can predict the result of the 2004 election if you presume SCOTUS minds its own fucking business and a statewide recount gives Gore the presidency. Hell, I can tell you how the GOP would have acted, it would have fought like hell instead of bowing out graciously like Gore did. I think you have the very real possibility of the GOP deciding to gridlock everything to the maximum extent possible in Congress and denouncing Gore daily as an illegitimate president, egged on by folks like Newt and the Bush Crime Family and the right wing noise machine.
Then you have to consider what happens if 9/11 is somehow prevented, which is certainly conceivable since it’s a fact that the outgoing Clinton administration paid a lot more attention to terrorism than the incoming Bush regime ever did until the moment those planes hit the WTC.
Or what happens if 9/11 happens anyway? Surely Gore goes into Afghanistan; does he get mau-mau’d into doing Iraq as well? I’m not so convinced that a DLC Democrat like Gore could have resisted the inevitable baiting by the neo-conservatives to prove he’s not a soft, wimpy dove in the face of terrorism.
Does the GOP win in 2004 without the ability to manipulate terrorism fears with the apparatus of government? Whom do they run? Probably not Bush. In modern political life you don’t get a 2nd shot at the presidency once you lose.
Do we get Barack Obama in 2008 even if Gore gets two terms? As much as I like to think of Obama as the antithesis of Bush in so many ways, it’s quite possible Obama wins 2008 anyway even without the miserable record of Bush/GOP failure and incompetence to run against. Or, does the nation tire of 16 years of Democratic dominance of the White House and vote GOP for ‘change they can believe in’?
I enjoy reading alternate histories but christ, trying to figure out what happens if Gore is sworn in on 1/20/01 (as he should have been) instead of Bush is truly a ‘who the fuck knows’ moment.