Who would challenge Gore in 2004?

I'm making a scenario in Campaigns Forever.

Let's say Gore wins in 2000, 9/11 and Afghanistan still happens, and there is a lot tension with Iraq but no war at the time of the election.

Who would run?

I already have:
John McCain
George Pataki
Olympia Snowe
Gary Johnson

Not so sure on Snowe, but the others seem more likely. I could use a midwestener who loves 'murica and an uptight southerner, as well as some minor also-rans and such.

Any idea for potential Veeps as well?
 
Lincoln Chafee was planning on challenging Bush in the primaries on an anti-Iraq War platform, but decided against it after Saddam was captured.

McCain would probably win. He was, after all, next-in-line, but I'd probably pull for Gary Johnson (if he does jump in, he could raise his profile enough to run for President in the future, or maybe a Senate seat back in New Mexico).
 
Bill Frist & George Allen. Both planned to run in 2008 before… running into problems. Mayor of America might run as well (if alt 9/11 happened), although that'll probably work out as well as it did IOTL. Huckabee could certainly give it a go as well.

Partaki is pro-choice and boring and has terrible approval ratings, he's DOA.
 
Someone who could run to try to bridge the gap between neocons, libertarians, and what remains of the Rockefeller Republicans (ie Chafee, Jeffords, Snowe) would be former Massachusetts Governor William Weld.

...

Speaking of Massachusetts Governors, I could see Romney giving it a go.
 

Zioneer

Banned
I could see Snowe becoming a VP choice with a more traditionally conservative presidential candidate.

As for the actual contenders... Terry Branstad might work for a Midwestern contender. No idea for the Southern choice though.
 
He's still well loved in New York, although that may be more Spitzer's doing than his.

Can Pataki Fail Upwards?

In fact, according to the most recent Marist poll, his approval rating is a desultory 30 percent—the lowest level recorded by a New York governor in the 23 years since Marist began asking the question.

Sure this was 2006 but it's not like he had a very good run in his last term.

Also there's another problem:

The first can be expressed in two words: Rudolph Giuliani—who already owns the real estate that Pataki is attempting to occupy, and who, of course, has presidential ambitions of his own. (If they both wind up running, it will be like watching a pair of rabid wolverines skirmishing in a sack.)
 
Already have such a scenario partially done but never got to releasing it. Definitely can't now though since I know of no good sites that are any longer reputable, and my main hub of MegaUpload is gone.
 
Can Pataki Fail Upwards?



Sure this was 2006 but it's not like he had a very good run in his last term.

Also there's another problem:

I don't think Giuliani would run in 2004 (too soon for him to run as "The 9/11 Guy" without come across as a complete opportunist), and he went into his third term fairly well, he started losing support when the rest of the Republican Party did, leading into 2006.
 
I don't think so. His brother just lost four years ago, and that will probably be explained as "Bush fatigue" by the media. 2008 would be his time.

No one claimed Bush fatigue in OTL 2000. Jeb Bush would have two years to campaign, with the political resources of the Bush family, and would be the highly rated governor of an important swing state. I say he runs.
 
Rudi Guilani hands down, likely with a solid social conservative for his VP, like George Allen.

Maybe Colin Powell seeing as it would be for a war time Presidency.
 
I think Rick Santorum, under the circumstances provided, might give it a go. He had a couple of terms in the House and would have been 2/3 of the way through his second Senate term by then. Given the names mentioned so far, he'd have a good shot at the social conservative vote.
 
If the US still goes to war maybe Ron Paul runs? Does Gore get primaried by another Democrat?
 

Thande

Donor
If 9/11 and so forth still happens, McCain seems the likely nominee for the same reason Kerry was for the Democrats in OTL, going for the carefully balanced "We support the troops, but someone with actual military experience is better suited to be Commander-in-Chief in time of war [sic]." There's also the point, as Vultan mentions, that the Republicans have a tendency to nominate whoever came second in the primaries last time around, at least so long as they're an establishment figure.
 
Top