Could President Bush have won re-election without Iraq?

Bush win re-election without Iraq War: possible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 78.8%
  • No

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Total voters
    33
The theory is that without Iraq in 2003, Bush wouldn't have as much of a platform to run on re-election in 2004. His 90% approval rating following 9/11 would have probably dropped to about 40-50% as people begin to realize his ineptness in preventing the attacks before 9/11 and his inability to bring the top leadership of Al Qaeda to justice in a quick manner.

Instead, with the Iraq diversion and the capture of Saddam before the end of 2003, Bush was able to give off the image of a strong President who could defend America's interests abroad against terrorism (even though the evidence was shaky at best) and was able to defeat John Kerry in 2004, whom he was able to portray as a Vietnam dodger.

Without Iraq, was it possible for President Bush Jr. to have successfully won re-election in 2004 in your opinion?
 
It depends, my question is how do you keep Bush from invading Iraq without changing Bush's cabinet (Cheney and Rummy in particular) and I'm many ways changing Bush himself? If he stays out of Iraq for the sake of commiting more resources to Afghanistan and the fight against Al Qaeda, Bush's re election prospects are higher, especially if that means Bin Ladden getting captured and killed. If Iraq is avoided because Bush couldn't get the war off the ground and we still do a half assed job in Afghanistan, than yes Bush loses as a botched war in Afghanistan and a lack of progress there will get more attention.
 

jahenders

Banned
The theory is that without Iraq in 2003, Bush wouldn't have as much of a platform to run on re-election in 2004. His 90% approval rating following 9/11 would have probably dropped to about 40-50% as people begin to realize his ineptness in preventing the attacks before 9/11 and his inability to bring the top leadership of Al Qaeda to justice in a quick manner.

The general theory that he might have less to run on without Iraq has merit, but the assertion that he was inept in preventing the attacks is simply inane. Most of the planning for 9/11 started well back in the Clinton presidency and several of the key participants entered the country, and trained, during Clinton's time. Further, the detection of the terrorist and/or plan was greatly hindered by "the wall" between Law Enforcement and Intelligence that was substantially buttressed under Clinton (you might recall Janet Reno say, "We must build a wall ....").

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission in April of 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft made his own observations about how the “wall” had greatly hindered terrorism investigations:
“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall. When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’

So, no, Bush had not in 8 months completely changed the guidance put in place during 8 years of Clinton, but it takes time to even ID such a problem. Clinton played a large part in creating the problem.

As far as hunting Al Qaeda, several of them were captured fairly quickly, but most worked hard to hide where we couldn't get at them. First, they hid in Taliban Afghanistan, then (once we made it clear we were coming), they ran and hid in extremely remote caves, and then in pseudo-allied Pakistan where they kept an extremely low profile. People with lots of money and lots of fanatical allies can hide pretty well when they want to. The fact that Obama happened to be found during the Obama presidency was irrelevant -- he was found as the culmination of operations put in place years before that just happened to 'get lucky' during his term.
 
I also suspect that without Iraq there will be a much greater focus in Afghanistan and the rooting out of the Taliban. If that can be done properly it should make up the ratings.
 
He probably would have won by a much more significant margin.

No Iraq to divide the country, or the coalition in Afghanistan.

The US Military focuses much more on Afghanistan.

That political capital spent on Iraq could be used on domestic projects.

Bush derangement syndrome may not be as popular. No nightly news going out of its way to list people killed in Iraq every day, or celebrities burning his effigy.

The Dems are much less confident going into 2004, and as such, may run a "sacrificial candidate".
 
The Dems are much less confident going into 2004, and as such, may run a "sacrificial candidate".
John Edwards? Howard Dean? Dick Gephardt? The three of them were either already out of office (Dean) or on their way out (Edwards and Gephardt). John Kerry could still win the nomination if as OTL Dean and Gephardt have a "War of Words"resulting in them tearing each other down.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Iraq did not win him the election. What won him the election, despite being a lower key issue, was Medicare Part D and demographics. Bush lost seniors in 2000 and won them in a large swing in 2004. This was because Medicare Part D, although disliked by staunch conservatives, was hugely popular among seniors, and the Boomer generation more and more started to overtake the Depression generation as more and more people died off. Demographics also helped him in how he made his pitch to Hispanic voters in a way that no Republican had done before or since, and worked hard enough for their votes that he got over 40%. That is not easy for a Republican to manage, and as a result, it was crucial in flipping New Mexico and keeping Colorado and Florida for him.

Bush was also helped by Rove's strategy of putting a very unpopular proposal of gay marriage up for grabs and turning out Evangelicals at rates much higher than 2000.

Iraq ultimately in my view was an issue that deepened the convictions of the left and was on the news constantly, but the way people voted, in '04, '06, and '08, had a lot more to do with other issues.
 
Iraq was very controversial even in 2004; it wasn't as unpopular as it would become, but it was unpopular enough to mobilize the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and destroy the Gush/Bore "both sides are identical" thinking that had dominated a lot of public perceptions in 2000. While people forget it now, the War in Afghanistan was actually very popular with Democrats (indeed, a common attack on the Iraq War was that it was a distraction from the main fight in Afghanistan). 9/11 guaranteed that Foreign Policy/Defense would be a dominant issue in the election, and Republicans were trusted on that issue more than Democrats (this wouldn't even start to change until it became obvious how disastrous Iraq was).

Without Iraq and the resulting controversy, I suspect he wins much more easily (Kerry actually made it surprisingly close OTL, the second closest election since Watergate). He'll still have the triumph of overthrowing the Taliban (and the decay of the situation in Afghanistan was less obvious at that point), and a fairly disorganized opposition (as Iraq was what helped move a lot of Democrats from "politics as usual" to "we desperately need to defeat Bush").

As for Democratic candidates, Kerry/Gephardt/Edwards will still definitely be in the mix (I don't see Dean catching on as much without opposition to Iraq as a mobilizing force), but so will Lieberman (whose alienation from the party came about in large part due to his full-throated support for the Iraq War and a hawkish foreign policy more generally; on domestic issues he was still a bog-standard New England Democrat, who had just been the VP candidate). I suspect Kerry's veteran status still makes him the last one standing, especially without the Iraq vote on his resume.
 
The Iraq was a negative for bush in 2004. Terrorism was his big issue. ITTL he still has that going for him. i say he wins by a wider margin,
 
IMO Bush would win bigger. He has 9/11 and the War on Terror to run on, but he doesn't have the questionable Iraq War that rallied the Democrats base and was becoming unpopular. He runs as the tough on terrorism President and gains a solid win as the swing voters support him while Democrats are unenthusiastic.
 
genusmap.php

George W Bush/Dick Cheney-Republican: 348 EV 52.73%
Dick Gephardt/Russ Feingold: 190 EV 46.26%
 
genusmap.php

George W Bush/Dick Cheney-Republican: 348 EV 52.73%
Dick Gephardt/Russ Feingold: 190 EV 46.26%

Woah, Pennsylvania is Republican!

Russ Feingold would likely make Democrats more enthusiastic because he was and still is hugely popular in the Democratic Party.
 
Bush would still win, probably with a good margin if the focus remains on Afghanistan and they can capture OBL.

Also, I find it amusing that Kerry wouldn't be considered a "sacrificial" candidate in this timeline when that's what I thought he was in OTL :biggrin:
 
I found this which might help.
cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif

Bush got an initial bounce from Iraq but was soon in the low 50s due to the fallout from it. I think the gradual downward trend seen in 2002 would continue but that was more his ceiling falling as Democrats became partisan again, so he probably ends up around 55%. How'd you interpret this?
 
Woah, Pennsylvania is Republican!

Russ Feingold would likely make Democrats more enthusiastic because he was and still is hugely popular in the Democratic Party.
With Pennsylvania:
genusmap.php

President George W. Bush (R-TX)/Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY) 327 EVs
Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-MO)/Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC) 211 EVs
 
Top