Opinion Which Presidential Election loss was more consequential? Al Gore losing the 2000 Election or Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 Election?

[filthybliss]

This is entirely hypothetical and a there’s a lot of grey area for interpretation for what could or should happen if either of these elections flipped a switch.

I personally feel that Gore’s loss was more monumental because of Bush’s installment of the Iraq War. It probably supersedes any awful decision made by a president in the 21st Century across the board. The moral homage of putting down a rambunctious dog like Saddam Hussein (which the U.S propped up) was not worth the bloodshed imo.

FWIW, I still consider the Iraq War more morally sound than Putin’s annexation of Ukraine but that’s for a different post.

 

[Sinister]

The one that wasnt a loss was more consequential. We are currently seeing the results of the Supreme Court essentially being allowed to decide who our President is for us.

 

[filthybliss]

The one that wasnt a loss was more consequential. We are currently seeing the results of the Supreme Court essentially being allowed to decide who our President is for us.

Barrett, Gorusch, and Kavaugh wouldn't be appointed if Clinton won in 2016.

 

[Sinister]

Barrett, Gorusch, and Kavaugh wouldn't be appointed if Clinton won in 2016.

Their version of the SCOTUS is one of the worst, bit not the worst. Their behavior would be much more tolerable if we had an executive and legislative branch who properly checked them.

Bush v Gore set the precedent for the SCOTUS getting to make un-democratic decisions on who leads the Country and allowed a political dynasty to merely claim power. Gore went along with it because he was also an idealog

 

[chardog]

Hilary, algore had a hardon for the war, hilary would have got the justices.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Hilary, algore had a hardon for the war, hilary would have got the justices.

She would have faced the backlash of all backlashes unless they hide her from the public.

 

[Dalarna3]

Without Bush, the Iraq War wouldn't have happened, so Bush v. Gore is a much bigger change.

 

[Bob Gray]

3 court justices is a huge deal. I'm sure the middle east would have gone differently, but hard to predict just how much. But 3 justices is a tremendous impact.

If probably vote for that simply for the obvious and apparent consequences. I realize the middle east would go differently but so much conjecture about it. 9/11 still happens, but what does Gore do? Does he invade Afghanistan, but not Iraq? So Saddam stays in power?

So maybe Saddam sticks around for another 10, 15 years, then what? Kinda interesting to think about, but hard to really predict. So ultimately Gore probably has more consequences internationally, Hillary has more consequence domestically.

 

[Witchhunt]

Gore was able to do major damage anyhow..
Hillary would have a huge political debt owed to big hot sauce.. hard to say.

 

[Confucamus]

No question, Gore losing. 7,000 American lives have been lost in the War on Terror. This has more of an impact than people crying about Supreme Court Justices that make decisions they don't like.

No question though, Hillary losing was a massive bullet this country avoided. I can't imagine how bad things would be if she got in.

 

[Blayt7hh]

It’s a tough one. Bush gave us Iraq and Trump gave us a corrupt Supreme Court.

 

[jrams]

I think Gore, going off of three assumptions.

1. I know there are theories out there that Gore would have taken security threats more seriously and potentially prevented 9/11; but I don't really buy that. Gore seemed more hawkish than Clinton and disliked Saddam, but I think it is unlikely he has a cabinet full of war hawks that make up evidence to get us to invade Iraq.
   
   I believe he increases the military footprint in Yemen & Afghanistan even before 9/11; he would follow through on the USS Cole response plan. I also think he and Lieberman care less about the local Afghans so would have put a greater effort in Tora Bora and got Bin Laden sooner. Would that have ended the Afghanistan theater and prevented trying to over throw the Taliban? I think that still happens as part of the Al-Queda retribution.
   
   I don't think he'd be able to quell the anger and the general fear towards Saddam in the 2004 election. Likely someone like McCain paints him as weak and warhawk gets elected in 2004. From there who knows if we are blowing up Iraq or Iran.
2. I think he continues the Clinton economic policy of trying to keep a surplus. I think it changes the economic policies we see for the future presidents and we don't have rampant deficit spending for 20+ years.
3. I don't think he would have created the level of cronyism in the FDA and DHS that Bush did. A tangible result is I don't think there is an environment where a company like Blackwater survives.

 

[chardog]

"Weapons of mass destruction" the term, was created BEFORE BUSH took office, that war was drummed up before it happened, and AL gore was leading the pack



to think there would be no war is absolutely ignorant, it was already in motion, 911 was what tipped it over.

 

[filthybliss]

No question, Gore losing. 7,000 American lives have been lost in the War on Terror.

I agree with this

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Very tough to say. Bush Jr was kind of the "fail president" of our time IMO. Wasn't just the Middle East ventures and neo-con stuff, but also the global financial crisis meltdown.

But IMO it's very tough to know if Gore manages to avert those disasters; how much of it was simply the big machine being on railway tracks to disaster.

But I personally think the contrast between incompetent and low i.q. sounding stupid Bush and a successor of eloquent and high i.q. wunderkind Obama basically started the "party before country" modern political stance, and that likely wouldn't have happened with Gore instead of Bush. That turn basically gave us Trumpism too.

Maybe the salient point is the earlier event has had more time to create the butterfly effect, so will have to say Gore losing has had a bigger impact.

 

[PhitePhan]

Their version of the SCOTUS is one of the worst, bit not the worst. Their behavior would be much more tolerable if we had an executive and legislative branch who properly checked them.

Bush v Gore set the precedent for the SCOTUS getting to make un-democratic decisions on who leads the Country and allowed a political dynasty to merely claim power. Gore went along with it because he was also an idealog

Was it the SCOTUS who decided that DNC didn’t have to listen to their voters and could install whichever candidate they wanted?

 

[panamaican]

Definitely HRC. Gore lost to Bush but despite the criticisms of him, Bush understood the general gravity of his responsibilities. HRC lost to Trump, who in my opinion is the dumpster fire of dumpster fires as a world leader.

Tangentially, no matter what anyone thinks about him, DJT and his heirs will always be able to claim "Yeah but he was the President of the United States...what have you done with your life?" And there really isn't a rebuttal, lol.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Depends on if you think Al Gore would have pulled the same war mongering BS that Bush did. If the answer is yes , then the answer is him. If the answer is no, then its Hillary. It's hard to look at the divide that's come from her loss and say otherwise.

 

[White Whale]

People thinking the Iraq War wouldn't have happened if George Bush lost are being delusional. 9/11 would have still happened and they would have found a way to justify the Iraq War if Al Gore was president.

 

[filthybliss]

Was it the SCOTUS who decided that DNC didn’t have to listen to their voters and could install whichever candidate they wanted?

Nope, SCOTUS just sent back reproductive rights back 40 yrs.