AET: 2004 w/o 9/11

[John Fredrick Parker]

How would the election of 2004 play out if 9/11 had been averted? First off, who would the Democrats have nominated? Then, given this challenger, would Bush win a second term, and by how much?

[wtw]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

How would the election of 2004 play out if 9/11 had been averted? First off, who would the Democrats have nominated? Then, given this challenger, would Bush win a second term, and by how much?

The question is averted how, and when?

[Paul V McNutt]

Bush does not have the terrorism issue ( a positive for him) but he also does not have the Iraq issues ( a negative for him). I see no reason why there would be any Democrats candidates who didn't run OTL. Kerry would have somewhat less of an appeal but is still a strong candidate.

[The Red]

The controversy of the 2000 election is much more likely to hang over his presidency, perhaps Gore runs again?

[Alexpira]

IMHO Bush was destined to be a one term President since the 2000 electoral chaos....before 9/11 his administration was controversial and considered as confuse...without the 9/11 rally point, my guess is that Bush would still be a controvesial and not so popular President until 2004.

[King Nazar]

Maybe the Dems pick Edwards as their candidate.

[SirAshfordFanrico]

Hard to really tell how things would've gone, 9/11 happened REALLY early in Bush's first term that it came to define it. Hard to really tell what would've happened in his first term without it.

I seriously doubt the 2000 election would play a huge role in things. By the time it was over most people were glad it was done. To keep it playing out more and more would probably reveal WAY too much of the political election practices of BOTH parties.

No 9/11 also means no Iraq situation, thus people really don't get as politicized as they did, and alot of the 90's mentality of "if it's not happening over here, or truely serious, we don't give a shit" is still in place.

I doubt Gore would run again, I kept getting the feeling that whole ordeal left a bad taste in his mouth. By the time 2004 came around, he'd probably already be busy with his other endeavors.

No Iraq War also makes it hard to really decide who would run against Bush as it seemed to play a huge role in who decided to run.

[Plumber]

The Democrats win control of Congress in 2002. Bush's approval rate continues to decline. Gore runs again and wins.

[Alexpira]

Originally Posted by SirAshfordFanrico

Hard to really tell how things would've gone, 9/11 happened REALLY early in Bush's first term that it came to define it. Hard to really tell what would've happened in his first term without it.

I seriously doubt the 2000 election would play a huge role in things. By the time it was over most people were glad it was done. To keep it playing out more and more would probably reveal WAY too much of the political election practices of BOTH parties.

No 9/11 also means no Iraq situation, thus people really don't get as politicized as they did, and alot of the 90's mentality of "if it's not happening over here, or truely serious, we don't give a shit" is still in place.

I doubt Gore would run again, I kept getting the feeling that whole ordeal left a bad taste in his mouth. By the time 2004 came around, he'd probably already be busy with his other endeavors.

No Iraq War also makes it hard to really decide who would run against Bush as it seemed to play a huge role in who decided to run.

Don't know if it would be too hard to imagine a world without 9/11....other OTL events that would still happen even without 9/11 and that would shape the Bush Administration:

Dot.com recession
Economic recovery based in subprime loans
US Dollar losing purchasing power versus Euro and other currencies
Rising of China, India
U.S Isolationism (Bush was much more focused in internal issues even before 9/11)
Increasign polarization of U.S politics

All those elements could create a basis to a TL of a Bush Administration without 9/11

[Reggie Bartlett]

Well, it really depends on how 9/11 was prevented, was this a "caught at the last minute" prevention during Bush's administration or "Osama Bin Laden killed in cruise missile attack in 1998/99" prevention?

Either way, Bush's first term is bound to be pretty uneventful.

The early 00's will pretty much stay how it was like 2000-2001 Pre-9/11 in OTL. The culture is pretty much the Late-90s part 2 with reality TV setting in. No Child Left Behind is still passed, but I think the '04 election will have a low voter turnout, Bush wins by a small margin against maybe John Edwards. Saddam Hussein is still in power (save for a secret assassination or two commited by the Bush administration in the Middle East), and China is slowly becoming the new "Big Bad" within American culture. Other than that, at best something resembling Katrina happens, and the economic implosion still occurs at the end of his presidency, albeit a bit more mild compared to OTL.

Think of him as the not-as-fun, dull as plywood Republican version of Bill Clinton with an only slightly more tumultuous world.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by wtw

The question is averted how, and when?

Let's say it's fairly last minute, and due to the rote passing of information w/in the bureaucracies -- enough to break up the relevant cells, but certainly no change in administration policy...

Originally Posted by Reggie Bartlett

Well, it really depends on how 9/11 was prevented, was this a "caught at the last minute" prevention during Bush's administration or "Osama Bin Laden killed in cruise missile attack in 1998/99" prevention?

The former.

[Reggie Bartlett]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

Let's say it's fairly last minute, and due to the rote passing of information w/in the bureaucracies -- enough to break up the relevant cells, but certainly no change in administration policy...



The former.

If that is the case then American society realizes how close they came to a near miss.

Airport security may be ramped up some, but Americans within a couple years will be saying "Osama Binwho?".

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Plumber

The Democrats win control of Congress in 2002. Bush's approval rate continues to decline. Gore runs again and wins.

Why?

The economy was booming... unemployment was low, the tax cuts were popular and the stock market was growing at a fairly good clip... NCLB and medicare drugs hadn't proven themselves to be big problems yet

If anything, with the terrorism/war issue of the table Bush gets to coast along in a sweet economic trough in the first term and probably cruises to an easy reelection victory 54-46

[Peelitebkearns]

I agree-it really depends how the remain 3 years of Bush's administration plays out.

My guess is that lower voter turn-out leads to a narrow Bush victory, though that could go either way.

One thing that hasn't been touched on in this thread so far is the Emron issue-no doubt it'd receive more coverage from 2001 onwards absent 9/11, though whether it's enough to tip the election the dems way is anyone's guess.

The fact that the scandle broke 3 years before the election probably helps, but the trials are coming up in the next year.

[stalkere]

Iraq invasion does not happen anyway?

Wow - you guys have more faith than me. with all the pre-positioning of stuff and chest thumping going on...I am totally convinced that the Invasion of Iraq was scheduled for late 2002. 9/11 delayed it for about six months, but it would have happened either way.

and it did not matter who won the election. That decision was most assuredly NOT made by the President, and the Senior Military Folks were none too happy with the idea.

Of course, what do I know? I was merely an Air Staff officer, working up at the Headquarters Level, and reading the classified message traffic every day, back in those days...and drawing my own conclusions from what I was reading.

But - whacking OBL in 99, no Cole attack, no 9/11 - I don't think that gets us to a continuation of the Containment/Sanction Policy for another four years.

That would, in my opinion, have been the SMART Option...but neither of the candidates seemed to be in favor of it, seemed to me.

[Paul V McNutt]

Bush could have never won public support for the invasion of Iraq. Without 9/11.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Originally Posted by stalkere

Iraq invasion does not happen anyway?

Wow - you guys have more faith than me. with all the pre-positioning of stuff and chest thumping going on...I am totally convinced that the Invasion of Iraq was scheduled for late 2002. 9/11 delayed it for about six months, but it would have happened either way.

I think the Bush administration was looking to do something with Iraq from the get go, but without 9/11 it would be extremely difficult to get the country and Congress behind it. Now I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory about 9/11, just that their were a lot of neocons in the administration that really wanted to invade Iraq, and 9/11 put them in a position where they could make that invasion happen.

So take out 9/11. Then there isn't as much pressure to authorize the use of force in Congress, so several of the spineless Democrats in the Senate can stand against it and not be afraid of being seen as "soft on terrorism" as in the OTL. Since they controlled the Senate 51-49, the vote is much harder to pull off. And how does the administration sell the war? Is it the threat of WMD's? Does that really play with the public without 9/11?

If the vote isn't done before 2003, then it gets even harder as the Democrats would win seats in Congress in 2002. Minus 9/11, my estimates put the Democrats between 220-235 seats in the House, and between 53-56 seats in the Senate after that election, depending on how energized they still are from feeling the 2000 election was "stolen" from them.

Let's say Bush does get authorization before the mid-terms, and they play the WMD card. Now when they find nothing they can't pivot the cause for war and say "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." There is no terror threat, so that phrase has no meaning. In that case Bush loses the 2004 election in a landslide because he would be seen as a liar, and not as someone defending us from terrorists.

I just don't see how you can go to war in Iraq without 9/11, and not lose the support of more than two-thirds of the country when it turns into a quagmire. At least by combining it with the greater War on Terror, you could get support from a large portion of the country who think it was important in fighting terrorism, but without that what rationale is there to support it when things start going bad?

Anyways, I'd say no Iraq War, Democrats win back the House and more seats in the Senate in 2002, so no tax cuts in 2003. Does Medicare part D still happen in that case? Perhaps, but the Democrats would try to put in the ability for the government to negotiate lower prices (probably not likely with the amount of lobbying against it and still needing 60 votes in the Senate to pass), and they'd stick to PAYGO rules which would be reinstated, and include a tax increase or offsetting cuts somewhere else to pay for it. With government split between the parties I just don't see a hugely unfunded program being forced through. With Democrats in charge of Congress, and Bush working with them on Domestic policy, and no unpopular war going on, the electorate isn't as polarized in 2004. I can see another low voter turnout election if the Democrats nominate someone unexciting as their candidate. Lower turnout helps Bush win, but it would still be close.

[stalkere]

Neocons that wanted an Iraq war?

Look up how many TONS of bombs we dropped there during the Clinton years. Sorry, but I was an AF staff officer at the time - mobilizing troops movements, preparing bases, moving supplies was part of my job.

I can think of at least four times where we moved hundreds of TONS of stuff forward to the Gulf region - and the rumor came down - "Oh, hell, I think this one is IT." - I mean, a latrine rumor is a latrine rumor, but when the guy telling you the latrine rumor is a BG or Lt Gen, it's got a little more - I dunno - plausibility? - you know what I mean? - and then, we were told to back down and go home. Each time we went, we brought less back then we took out.

I actually thought that, when Bush came in, we'd BACK OFF from the Clinton stance on Iraq.....and right up until mid-2002, it looked like we had. With Clinton, it was a lot of rhetoric - plus air raids. With Bush, less rhetoric - and just about no air raids. You might make a case that we were busy in Afghanistan - but the Afghanistan stuff was separate from Iraq. Nothing moved from the Gulf to the OEF Area - it was all brought in from the outside.

You have to dig - it's NOT classified info, but not very well covered in the Mainstream media...but we had MUCH less bombing missions in Irag from Jan 2001-Aug 2002, than we had in the six months prior - about half the rate at which we had in the Clinton years...and then Aug 2002, something changed at a level WAY above my paygrade. Suddenly, a lot more airstrikes - back up to the Clinton years again, and then past them, and into a war footing...

[Paul V McNutt]

The Neocons could not have gotten a war unless the President makes the decision and gets permission from Congress. That not going to happen unless there is public support. 9/11 created an atmosphere where Bush could successfully link 9/11 to Saddam Hussien.

[ANTIcarrot]

Random ideas...

One effect 9/11 had was to clamp down on US press criticism of the government. You might have a more open press without it. Maybe subprime gets put under a spotlight?

US airport security on internal flights remains as lax as ever. America continues to believe it is immune from external attack. UK and Israel continue to bang their heads against a brick wall trying to change this. F-22/35 face much less opposition. US Marines get their EFV, but the US Army probably doesn't ge tthe Abrams TUSK kit.

US economy *MUCH* better able to cope with sumprime related recession if/when it hits. (See above for press.)

Atheism has one less rallying point, so maybe a little less success there in terms of demographic growth. Maybe even a lot less success if Richard Dawkins publisher had not suddenly warmed to the idea of The God Delusion. On the other hand no strong need to intigrate muslims into society, so islamiphobia is much less of a PC issue.

Also... How to put this... In parts of the arab world, 9/11 was seen as a punch to the nose of a swaggering bully, and a 'yes we can, and so can you!' rallying point. So much less copy-cat terrorism - but maybe also a delayed arab spring?

Twelve reasonably ordinary men brought the most powerful nation on the planet to its knees, that might have played some inspiration in Lybia. Not in a 'we hate america' sense, but rather 'the world can change' sense.