Well, Gore was an environmentalist starting in his teen years, and it was his pet platform throughout his entire political career. He mentioned on some occassions that losing the 2000 election was a blessing in disguise that allowed him a better opportunity to work on his projects free of politics. The 2000 election was his second run for the White House, and even though he had criticized Bush during much of his first term, it doesn't seem that Gore would have been swayed any different by the events of 9/11.
You might have a valid point here; however, I would also like to point out that Gore (to his credit) heaped a lot of praise on George W. Bush in the first several months after 9/11, including agreeing with Bush's characterization of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil". Also, didn't Gore say in late 2002 that he chose not to run in 2004 (at least in large part) because he didn't want the 2004 campaign to be about the past (as opposed to the future)? If so, then Gore would not be able to use that as a rationale not to run in 2004 had 9/11 not occurred.
In our current timeline, had Gore announced a bid for the White House in 2004, he would have most likely been virtually unopposed in the same fashion that Hillary Clinton is running now. Democrats were drafting him and were prepared to give him the full backing of the Democratic Party.
Actually, I have previously read an article (I think from the New York Times) which was written a week or two before 9/11 which stated that while some Democrats wanted Gore to be their nominee in 2004, this feeling certainly wasn't universal. If you want, I can try finding this article for you and posting it here. :)
Had 9/11 not happened, Gore would have not only cruised into the 2004 primaries virtually unopposed, he would have most likely defeated George W. Bush as well.
I am not so sure about the primary cruising part, and as for Gore defeating Bush in 2004, I would personally think that his odds of doing this would be somewhere in the 40% to 60% range.
One of the major reasons Kerry lost was because he just wasn't a very popular candidate as Gore became.
Actually, based on what my parents told me based on their memories of the 2000 and 2004 elections, both Gore and Kerry were similar in the sense that both of them were boring and awkward.
In President Bush's first eight months in office, he developed his reputation that became parodied over his eight years.
Maybe ... maybe. However, Bush still had a lot of time to try improving his image at the start of September 2001.
But the 9/11 attacks helped unify the nation behind him, and he had a record high approval rating - around 90% at its highest peak - that slowly sank over two terms into record lows.
Yes; correct!
Without 9/11 to push his approval ratings so high, his approval ratings would have most likely started to decrease sooner rather than later.
Actually, I think that his approval ratings already began decreasing shortly after he became President in early 2001 due to the 2001 recession; however, if so, then this could allow Bush's approval ratings to begin increasing in 2003 once the unemployment rate will begin falling.
I don't think by 2004, he would have had the same approval ratings as he did in real life by 2008, but they would have probably been just below 50%.
Yes, I also suspect that Bush's would have been in the 50% range in November 2004 without 9/11; however, this might be enough for Bush to win reelection in 2004 even without 9/11.
In fact, the only significantly high approval ratings he ever received aside from 9/11 were the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2004 - two events that were the Bush administration's direct response to 9/11.
First of all, Saddam Hussein was captured in 2003, not in 2004; secondly, Muammar Gaddafi gave up Libya's WMDs and nuclear weapons program six days after Saddam Hussein was captured, which might have also helped Bush get a temporary surge in his approval ratings (and which might have also helped the West overthrow Gaddafi without the risk of blowback in 2011 ;)).
Remove them from the timeline, and I'm pretty sure Gore would have won.
Maybe ... maybe. Frankly, a good way to analyze this might be to look at Obama's approval ratings during his term in office and see when exactly his approval ratings began increasing in his first term. After all, without 9/11, Bush's Presidency would have been economy-centered, just like Obama's Presidency was in real life.
The biggest problem with Hillary Clinton running on her husband's record is that her entire campaign would have been dependent on another person.
But wasn't this largely true in 2008 as well?
Yes, it's true that Hillary was actually one of the most politically active First Ladies since Eleanor Roosevelt. Unfortunately, it drew a lot of criticism back then, because they felt she meddled in affairs that were not for her to determine. In 1994, she was laughed out of many states for a failed health care plan the media dubbed "HillaryCare" (Funny how life works out). Because of this, Hillary needed an image cleanse.
Yes, I agree with this; however, at the same time, this certainly didn't stop Hillary Clinton from running in 2008.
I think it was clear from even back then that she wanted to run for President, but she didn't get anything passed. She could only help others get things passed.
And this wasn't true in 2007-2008 as well?
And yeah, she could have attacked Gore, but Gore would have crushed her on two points: First, Gore has a more extensive political record than she does, thus making him the more experienced candidate.
Yes, that is correct.
Second, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the electoral vote.
To be fair, though, the election was about the electoral vote, rather than about the popular vote; this is a fact which both Gore and Bush knew very well long before the election. In fact, I think that I previously read an article from shortly before the 2000 election which quoted a Gore campaign official as saying that he or she would be totally cool with the event that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral vote. Thus, Hillary Clinton can exploit this information (if she could get access to it) and argue that Gore shouldn't complain about winning the popular vote while losing the electoral vote when he and/or his campaign team was okay with the opposite/inverse possibility occurring.
Although he would probably not want to focus on it in fear that the Republicans claim he has sour grapes about everything, the fact remains that Al Gore had more actual votes than George W. Bush.
Yes, but Hillary Clinton can rightfully claim that the election was about the electoral vote, rather than the popular vote, and that both Gore and Bush knew this well before the election. (In fact, I think that Obama supporters rightfully used a similar argument after the 2008 Democratic primaries by saying that Hillary Clinton knew that the primaries would depend on delegate totals (especially on pledged delegate totals) rather than on the popular vote.)
Now, Gore could argue that he might have won Florida and thus the election if a new statewide recount with loose counting standards would have been implemented; however, this might make Gore appear to be a sore loser to many swing voters, and thus, I am unsure that Gore would have wanted to do this even in the Democratic primaries.
Because of those undisputed facts, Hillary Clinton would have been easily defeated by the first primaries.
Frankly, I am unsure that all of the information which you posted here is undisputed.
Also, let's see how exactly this conversation will develop in the future. :)
Barack Obama is a curious case. He was just a State Senator in 2004, running for US Senate when he was chosen to deliver the Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention. Usually, whoever delivers these addresses typically go on to run for President, because they have a national platform. Barack Obama's speech has gone on to become one of the most famous American speeches delivered, which Obama is popular for. Had he not delivered that speech and become a rising star in the Democratic Party, Hillary would have been President in 2012, easily.
Don't you mean in 2008, rather than in 2012 (well, okay, both in 2008 and in 2012 ;) )?
And Yes, I fully agree with you in regards to this that Hillary Clinton would have been the U.S. President starting from 2009 if Obama didn't give that speech back in 2004. In this regard, I personally think that John Kerry deserves an enormous round of applause considering that he ensured that we would get an eight-year break from Bush-Clinton rule. :) Also, in regards to this, I am certainly extremely happy that Obama gave Kerry the Secretary of State job in 2013; after all, Kerry certainly deserves a reward for significantly helping Obama win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. :)
However, in regards to Hillary Clinton, I would like to point out that, as a former First Lady, she probably wouldn't need a massive popular exposure moment such as that speech which Obama gave in order to become a prominent contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2004.