No 9-11 And The 2004 Presidential Election: Bush Vs. Lieberman?

In 2004 Joe Lieberman ran (briefly) for the Democratic nomination but was considered too pro-war to win.

But what if there had been no 9-11, and, subsequently, no Afghanistan or Iraq wars? (Bush probably would have done something about Saddam Hussein eventually, but an invasion would have been a difficult sell in a peacetime environment).

So, Joe Lieberman runs for and wins the Democratic nomination. As a candidate who is more popular with social conservatives than Bush (who runs on the kind of moderate platform he had in 2000) Lieberman stands a good chance of turning Bush Jr. into a one-termer like his father. Or does he?
 
It probably comes down to how the economy. If the economy is doing well then Bush would have a good chance of winning reelection. Also if there is no 9/11 would be there a different foriegn policy crisis that Bush would have to face.
 
If the September 11 atrocity had not happened Enron would have been huge and deeply damaging to GW Bush.

I think that on economic type issues Democrats would tend to move to the left.

I think that the campaign would be to "RE elect" Gore, probably with a VP to his own left.

GW Bush would have lost heavily- unless he were denied renomination, perhaps by McCain.
 
I don't know if McCain would have run for a second time against Bush.

Lieberman is a critic of the entertainment industry; that might have given him some leeway with social conservatives although his record is otherwise liberal.

He could effecively claim that he's not Al Gore. That might have brought him independent as well as Democratic votes (assuming Gore fights him for the nomination).

Of course it is entirely possible that the Iraq War might still have happened; whether it would have been as initially popular without a WOT to tie it into is another question. The war might have cost Bush the election after Abu Ghraib was exposed.
 
Top