2004 Democratic primaries without 9/11

Yanladman

Banned
How would the 2004 Democratic primaries have turned out without 9/11? I'm thinking that it would have been a very close race between Gore and Hillary.
 
Without 9/11 W, who won in a disputed election and liked to take vacations all the time would bring out the most bloodthirsty batch of Democrats they could muster. Gore might stand down as he did in OTL, Kerry and Wes Clarke might still try, plus who knows who else? 2002 midterms would be an anti-Bush bloodbath And the bloodbath would be worse if 9/11 was prevented by Richard Clark stepping above his authority and capturing the hijackers.

Without 9/11 W is an obvious one termer.
 

Yanladman

Banned
Without 9/11 W, who won in a disputed election and liked to take vacations all the time would bring out the most bloodthirsty batch of Democrats they could muster. Gore might stand down as he did in OTL, Kerry and Wes Clarke might still try, plus who knows who else? 2002 midterms would be an anti-Bush bloodbath And the bloodbath would be worse if 9/11 was prevented by Richard Clark stepping above his authority and capturing the hijackers.

Without 9/11 W is an obvious one termer.

I wouldn't say that Bush is an obvious one-termer without 9/11, but his odds of getting reelected would be diminished. Keep in mind that the U.S. economy was recovering in 2004 and that housing prices were rising (which is good for many homeowners). This should give Bush some kind of boost.

I honestly think that Hillary would have ran in 2004 without 9/11. The main reason that she didn't run in RL was because she was afraid of Bush's post-9/11 momentum and rise in popularity.
 
I wouldn't say that Bush is an obvious one-termer without 9/11, but his odds of getting reelected would be diminished. Keep in mind that the U.S. economy was recovering in 2004 and that housing prices were rising (which is good for many homeowners). This should give Bush some kind of boost.

I honestly think that Hillary would have ran in 2004 without 9/11. The main reason that she didn't run in RL was because she was afraid of Bush's post-9/11 momentum and rise in popularity.

Actually, according to Game Change, everyone who knew her, including Bill, were fanatical about her challenging Bush. The only reason she didn't run was because 1) she promised to serve a full term in the Senate and didn't want the flip-flopper label; and 2) Chelsea Clinton said that she did not approve because she didn't want the media attention that such a campaign would bring. That, and she is one of Hillary's biggest advisors.
 
Bush is a one-termer without 9/11. The economy was bad and Bush barely won re-election even as a wartime President IOTL. Without 9/11, the Democrats probably take back control of Congress four years ahead of schedule and win the White House by a modest margin in 2004. As to who wins, my money is on Hillary.
 

Yanladman

Banned
Actually, according to Game Change, everyone who knew her, including Bill, were fanatical about her challenging Bush. The only reason she didn't run was because 1) she promised to serve a full term in the Senate and didn't want the flip-flopper label; and 2) Chelsea Clinton said that she did not approve because she didn't want the media attention that such a campaign would bring. That, and she is one of Hillary's biggest advisors.

I wouldn't put too much trust into everything written there. I seriously doubt that Bush's approvals being in the 50s and not in the 40s (where they would have been without 9/11) throughout 2003 was not a factor at all in Hillary's decision.
 
I wouldn't put too much trust into everything written there. I seriously doubt that Bush's approvals being in the 50s and not in the 40s (where they would have been without 9/11) throughout 2003 was not a factor at all in Hillary's decision.

She was on the verge of running, and everyone was telling her to jump in for precisely this reason. But there were other factors that ultimately influenced her decision not to run. Being labled a flip-flopper doesn't do a lot of good for a candidate (especially a Democrat). That, and the fact that it would be seen as another Clinton-Bush war, with W being able to draw comparisons to her husband as Hillary struggles to get out from under his shadow.
 

Yanladman

Banned
Bush is a one-termer without 9/11. The economy was bad and Bush barely won re-election even as a wartime President IOTL. Without 9/11, the Democrats probably take back control of Congress four years ahead of schedule and win the White House by a modest margin in 2004. As to who wins, my money is on Hillary.

The economy was mediocre, but it was significantly recovering in 2003 and 2004. Keep in mind that Iraq also hurt Bush's popularity by the time of the 2004 election. I agree with you that the Democrats gain Congress in 2002. As for the 2004 election, I think that it's more likely that Bush loses than that he wins. However, if he loses, he'll lose by a narrow margin (by winning about 230-268 EVs).

As for the primaries, I'm honestly not sure which way it will go. I think Gore and Hillary will suck all the oxygen out of the Democratic primary field. However, I'm not sure whether Gore's "give me another chance" message or Hillary's "let's try someone new" message would be more appealing to the primary voters. Looking at it, the Democratic primaries could be as close as Hillary vs. Obama 2008, except with Gore as the heir-apparent as Hillary as the insurgent.
 

Yanladman

Banned
She was on the verge of running, and everyone was telling her to jump in for precisely this reason. But there were other factors that ultimately influenced her decision not to run. Being labled a flip-flopper doesn't do a lot of good for a candidate (especially a Democrat). That, and the fact that it would be seen as another Clinton-Bush war, with W being able to draw comparisons to her husband as Hillary struggles to get out from under his shadow.

I'm not saying that there weren't other factors. The factors that Game Change mentioned were probably accurate to some degree. My point was that I think that Bush's popularity was also a factor in whether or not Hillary decided to run.
 
I'm not saying that there weren't other factors. The factors that Game Change mentioned were probably accurate to some degree. My point was that I think that Bush's popularity was also a factor in whether or not Hillary decided to run.

I agree. It was a factor in whether or not she decided to run. But it wasn't the deciding factor in whether or not she decided to run. That fell on other occurances that ultimately changed her mind. The numbers said go but her heart said no.
 

Yanladman

Banned
I agree. It was a factor in whether or not she decided to run. But it wasn't the deciding factor in whether or not she decided to run. That fell on other occurances that ultimately changed her mind. The numbers said go but her heart said no.

Actually, the numbers throughout 2003 were pretty decent for Bush.
 
Actually, the numbers throughout 2003 were pretty decent for Bush.

But that doesn't mean that they can't turn against him at any time. Bottom line: If you want Hillary to run in 2004, you're going to have to change Chelsea's mind and have Clinton break her promise about serving a full term in the Senate along with the fallout from that decision.
 

Yanladman

Banned
But that doesn't mean that they can't turn against him at any time. Bottom line: If you want Hillary to run in 2004, you're going to have to change Chelsea's mind and have Clinton break her promise about serving a full term in the Senate along with the fallout from that decision.

I think Chelsea's mind might have been changed without 9/11. Also, Obama also said that he would serve a full term in the Senate. No one complained about him lying. Thus I seriously doubt that the fallout for Hillary would be that large.
 
I think Chelsea's mind might have been changed without 9/11. Also, Obama also said that he would serve a full term in the Senate. No one complained about him lying. Thus I seriously doubt that the fallout for Hillary would be that large.

Thing of it is, Obama was largely unknown in 2008. Hillary was already a national figure and under intense observation by the media. Obama could afford to break such promises because nobody would have remembered (or much cared) that he had made them in the first place. Clinton however, would have been taken at her word, and it would have damaged her by having her change her positions and thus be labled flip-flopper. Clinton had a lot more to lose than Obama by going back on her word.
 

Yanladman

Banned
Thing of it is, Obama was largely unknown in 2008. Hillary was already a national figure and under intense observation by the media. Obama could afford to break such promises because nobody would have remembered (or much cared) that he had made them in the first place. Clinton however, would have been taken at her word, and it would have damaged her by having her change her positions and thus be labled flip-flopper. Clinton had a lot more to lose than Obama by going back on her word.

Breaking a promise like that isn't that big of a deal. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut and then refused to deliver. He didn't suffer any political fallout from his decision. Hillary could just claim that she saw the huge damage that Bush was doing to the US and felt that it was her duty to run to prevent him from causing more damage. She could also say that she'll still represent NY as President, but will also represent 49 other states as well. Also, be in Hillary Clinton's shoes in 2004 (without 9/11)--Bush looks very vulnerable, and my choice is to either run now or likely wait until 2012 at the earliest to run. By 2012 I'll be too old and I'll be old news. I might as well run now while I and my husband are still popular and widely remembered.
 
Without 9/11 W, who won in a disputed election and liked to take vacations all the time would bring out the most bloodthirsty batch of Democrats they could muster. Gore might stand down as he did in OTL, Kerry and Wes Clarke might still try, plus who knows who else? 2002 midterms would be an anti-Bush bloodbath And the bloodbath would be worse if 9/11 was prevented by Richard Clark stepping above his authority and capturing the hijackers.

Without 9/11 W is an obvious one termer.

Incumbent Presidents are rarely turned out of office; when they are, there's some sort of economic difficulty occurring (Carter, Bush 41). Much of the economic pain of the early part of the decade was the direct result of 9/11; take that away and the economy is probably in pretty decent shape heading into 2004. So, while it is unlikely that Bush is going to coast to an easy win, it is by no means "obvious" that he's a sure loser, either. In fact, I think that given the divisions in the country that were made clear by the 2000 result, and largely replicated in OTL 2004, you'd have a general election that looks a lot like OTL 2004. In fact, much of the energy that fueled Democrats in 2004 as a result of discontent with Iraq would in this case be dissipated, which would actually work to Bush's advantage. No 9/11, a decent economy, rising housing prices and no wars going on may = a pretty contented electorate that might be inclined to think that Bush did better than expected and should be reelected. OTOH, the demise of Enron, which was somewhat lost in the shuffle after 9/11, might become a bigger negative for Bush than it turned out to be OTL, given Bush's ties to that company's executives.
 

Yanladman

Banned
Incumbent Presidents are rarely turned out of office; when they are, there's some sort of economic difficulty occurring (Carter, Bush 41). Much of the economic pain of the early part of the decade was the direct result of 9/11; take that away and the economy is probably in pretty decent shape heading into 2004. So, while it is unlikely that Bush is going to coast to an easy win, it is by no means "obvious" that he's a sure loser, either. In fact, I think that given the divisions in the country that were made clear by the 2000 result, and largely replicated in OTL 2004, you'd have a general election that looks a lot like OTL 2004. In fact, much of the energy that fueled Democrats in 2004 as a result of discontent with Iraq would in this case be dissipated, which would actually work to Bush's advantage. No 9/11, a decent economy, rising housing prices and no wars going on may = a pretty contented electorate that might be inclined to think that Bush did better than expected and should be reelected. OTOH, the demise of Enron, which was somewhat lost in the shuffle after 9/11, might become a bigger negative for Bush than it turned out to be OTL, given Bush's ties to that company's executives.

I don't think that 9/11 had a significant impact on the economy. And again, the economy was recovering in 2003-4, but I'm not sure if it would have been recovering fast enough for Bush to get reelected. Who do you think the Democratic nominee against Bush would have been in 2004 without 9/11?
 
I don't think that 9/11 had a significant impact on the economy. And again, the economy was recovering in 2003-4, but I'm not sure if it would have been recovering fast enough for Bush to get reelected. Who do you think the Democratic nominee against Bush would have been in 2004 without 9/11?

The people who decide when a recession is a recession disagree with you. According to the NBER, there may not have been a recession without the 9/11 attacks.

"Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?
A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession."

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

As for who the nominee would have been, I really feel that it is impossible to give you an opinion. 9/11 shook up so many things in so many different ways that the political climate would have been very different. For one thing, while we can speculate, none of us really knows what a Bush presidency without 9/11 would have looked like. Personally, I tend to think that the race would have had many of the same characters who ran OTL, as many were planning a run before 9/11. The difference in the race is that national security/terrorism/defense would likely have had a much lesser role in shaping the contest (bad for Kerry, Clark probably doesn't run), but candidates like Gephardt and Edwards probably run anyway. I tend to think Hillary doesn't run -- too thin a resume, better to wait for '08 and I think Gore probably doesn't run either. Dean has much less momentum and energy -- he may run, but wouldn't have the antiwar people behind him. No 9/11 butterflies away (in likelihood) the death of Paul Wellstone in 2002, so there's another potential candidate. One big line of attack against Bush would have been on the tax cuts and deficits -- wiping out the Clinton surplus, so a candidate with credibility on fiscal issues might have had a leg up. Surprisingly, that actually may help Dean, who might have run a far different campaign playing up his conservative fiscal record and relatively liberal record on social issues.
 

bguy

Donor
One big line of attack against Bush would have been on the tax cuts and deficits -- wiping out the Clinton surplus, so a candidate with credibility on fiscal issues might have had a leg up. Surprisingly, that actually may help Dean, who might have run a far different campaign playing up his conservative fiscal record and relatively liberal record on social issues.

Will the deficit even be that bad though without 9/11? No recession to drive down tax receipts, lower military and homeland security spending, and the 2003 tax cut almost certainly won't get enacted since the Democrats will keep control of the Senate after the 2002 mid-terms.
 
Top