As long s we are considering 'what ifs' I have long contended that had Al Gore conceded in 2000 (as Nixon did in '60) then he would have been the Democrat nominee in '08.
Nixon was smart enough to know the damage to the country that a recount would have caused. Gore? Not so much.
Modern presidential politics is very harsh on the loser, it's typically a career ender especially for a democrat.
For years after 2000, Al Gore attempted to remind everyone that he won the popular vote. It didn't work.
Have you ever stopped to consider the why of that point? I think I can show you the why. Gore was totally undistinguished in his political career until he became Vice President and led the US delegation in the meetings that came up with the Kyoto Accords.
The US Senate, his old stomping grounds, refused to ratify them. He thought that if he were President, he could arm twist the Senate into ratifying, and thus validate the single, signal achievement of his otherwise nothingburger political career. THAT, in a nutshell, was the impetus for the entire sordid recount affair. He was trying to save his sorry 'legacy'. Having failed there, what did he do? He parlayed that into an immense fortune, but the failure still eats at him, and it shows...
the infowarrior