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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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."
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.