What if 9/11 never happened: Does Bush get reelected?

without 9/11, Bush is still going to have to deal with Iraq in one way, the no fly zones. They were a long term problem, in that the Iraqis were shooting at the US planes enforcing it. What happens if they get lucky and shoot one down?
 
Kerry romped in the primaries. The only question is the chance of the butterfly effect taking away Howard Dean's screaming at that rally. He wasn't really screaming. It was a combination of a too powerful microphone and building acoustics. It made him sound like he was yelling at the top of his lungs in somebody's living room. Good luck trying to find a shot of that speech that IS NOT a close up of his podium.
Would someone have run though who didn't historically though?
 
without 9-11 and the resulting invasion of Iraq, Bush would have been able to focus on being the Domestic President he wanted to be at the very beginning. No war would have taken away much of the stress that produced the many gaffes of post-9/11 Bush, it would have allowed a much closer focus on his Domestic agenda and it also would have kept him out of the spotlight of many of his critics because he would most likely not make as many appearances.

A freed up budget probably allows for more space programs (which he seemed to be partially in favor of), better disaster relief at the time of Katrina and a Bush more popular and more likely to get stuff done quicker.

Without 9/11, much of the criticisms we have of Bush never exist, up to and including the Patriot Act.
 
I don't think he'd win in 2004 because his only actions of note would have been blowing the Clinton surplus and seeing the good Clinton economy come to an end.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
The 2002 midterm elections would be bad for the Republicans because:

1) The dubious nature of George W. Bush's election could continue to be used to fire up the Democratic base.
2) The Enron scandal exposed a lack of corporate regulations, playing into Democrats' domestic policy agenda.
3) The loss of two million jobs within two years of the Bush presidency doesn't look good.
4) Neither does GDP growth that looks like this:

upload_2016-10-23_14-34-12.png


5) By 2002, a $313 billion surplus was turned into a $21 billion deficit, which was not primarily the result of the War in Afghanistan or an increase in defense spending - something that would be all the clearer here.

6) The Democrats have the ability to frame the Beltway sniper attacks as the result of insufficient gun regulations.

7) The OTL 2002 midterms were only the third time since the Civil War that the incumbent President had his party gain seats in Congress.

I think you'd get results that look like 1990 or 2006, where in the House elections Democrats got 52.1-3% of the overall vote and Republicans received 44.3%, or maybe just a swapped version of 2002, Democrats getting 50% to Republicans' 45%.

Democrats would take the following districts (including OTL 2002 gains in parenthesis):

  1. Alabama's 3rd
  2. Arizona's 1st
  3. (California's 39th)
  4. Colorado's 7th
  5. (Georgia's 3rd)
  6. Georgia's 11th
  7. Indiana's 8th
  8. Iowa's 2nd
  9. Kentucky's 3rd
  10. (Louisiana's 5th)
  11. (Maryland's 2nd)
  12. (Maryland's 8th)
  13. (New York's 1st)
  14. Pennsylvania's 6th
  15. (Tennessee's 4th)
The 2000 Republican redistricting gains would be sufficient to reduce the Democrats' majority to one or two seats, however. In the Senate, Democrats would likely gain in Arkansas and New Hampshire while holding all of their seats (including Minnesota), giving them a majority of ~52-53 in the Senate. These majorities are sufficient to kill the 2003 tax cut, although the Partial Birth Abortion ban probably still passes. I think the primary contenders for the 2004 Democratic primary would be Dick Gephardt, Paul Wellstone, and John Edwards. I'm not sure who would win in such a contest, but I believe the fundamentals would favor Bush and the Republican Congress.
 
The 2002 midterm elections would be bad for the Republicans because:<snip>
The 2000 Republican redistricting gains would be sufficient to reduce the Democrats' majority to one or two seats, however. In the Senate, Democrats would likely gain in Arkansas and New Hampshire while holding all of their seats (including Minnesota), giving them a majority of ~52-53 in the Senate. These majorities are sufficient to kill the 2003 tax cut, although the Partial Birth Abortion ban probably still passes. I think the primary contenders for the 2004 Democratic primary would be Dick Gephardt, Paul Wellstone, and John Edwards. I'm not sure who would win in such a contest, but I believe the fundamentals would favor Bush and the Republican Congress.

John Edwards was too self-destructive, Dick Gephardt was an insomnia cure, but if Paul Wellstone doesn't die in a plane crash that could butterfly Kerry's run.

Otherwise, I agree with all that you posted. Except that it would depend on the unknowable of how Wellstone would do as a national candidate.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
John Edwards was too self-destructive, Dick Gephardt was an insomnia cure, but if Paul Wellstone doesn't die in a plane crash that could butterfly Kerry's run.

Otherwise, I agree with all that you posted. Except that it would depend on the unknowable of how Wellstone would do as a national candidate.

It all depends if the Democrats are able to take credit for the recent rebound of the economy and frame that as the defining issue of election to their favor; they were able to do the latter in OTL with Kerry in 2004, as more of the public trusted the Democrats on economic issues, and the paper I cited earlier discussed how they believe that this is because Bush's campaign's overriding focus was on terrorism. Maybe even if that wasn't the key issue, the Democrats may still have a slight upper hand through Clinton's legacy as well as specific policy proposals that were more popular with the public than the Republicans e.g. people favored universal healthcare and opposed the privatization of Social Security, for instance. However, the elephant in the room here is LGBT rights. Most Americans opposed the advancement of those, and it was quickly becoming a key issue in the 2004 election. The aforementioned paper cited constitutional bans on same-sex marriage via referenda in several key swing states as crucial to Bush's re-election. Ultimately, I think a 9/11-free 2004 election would come down to fiscal liberalism (which the public liked and cared strongly about) versus social conservatism (which the public also liked and cared strongly about).
 
A lot of these answers make sense. As much as I want to answer, I can't for fear of spoiling my timeline (which is not dead, just haven't had much time to dedicate to it).
 
IDK. The Democratic Party was pretty weak. And as I said, Kerry romped. Look at the 2004 Democratic primary map.
The 2004 primary was largely shaped by 9/11 and Iraq, though. A lot of John Kerry's support came from the idea that a war veteran would be more electable in the national security climate, a lot of Dean's support came from younger liberals mobilized by opposition to the Iraq War. Both of those candidates likely lose a lot of support in this scenario. Lieberman's image as a conservative largely comes about from his extremely hawkish response to 9/11 and outspoken support for the invasion, which alienated him from the Democratic base; in a world where foreign policy remains an afterthought, his liberal domestic policy and status as VP to Gore both mean he is a much more serious candidate.

As for people who didn't run? Hillary Clinton was widely seen as a potential candidate; she didn't run that year (and her Iraq vote still has political ramifications today), but she might try ITTL. Al Gore was also discussed for a rematch, but ruled himself out early. Looking at all the Democratic senators and governors who lost in 2002 OTL, I'm not seeing many notable candidates (aside from a surviving Wellstone, who's been mentioned already). A lot would depend on the political and economic situation; would-be candidates need to make the decision early, and in 2003 (when they would need to really be starting their preparations), Bush was OTL riding high off the initial popularity surge from Iraq, which probably also scared off some plausible candidates.

Ultimately, I suspect incumbency would be strong enough for Bush to win; without an Iraq War (which I can't see happening in this scenario; Clinton made it through 2 whole terms without one breaking out, and Democrats will be a lot less willing to go along with a full-scale invasion w/o 9/11). It's hard to predict the economy, but Democrats will likely keep control of the Senate after 2002, so there will probably be a reasonable level of moderation just coming from that.
 
As for people who didn't run? Hillary Clinton was widely seen as a potential candidate; she didn't run that year (and her Iraq vote still has political ramifications today), but she might try ITTL

I do not see a person who has merely had four years of Senate experience run; you need to be the most charismatic person in a generation to pull that off.
 
I'm pretty certain that Iraq still gets invaded - Bush was dead set on that well before he took office, if his PNAC membership is any indication, and the Bush era Republicans didn't cotton none to such niceties as the existence of an opposition party. Throw in the collusion of Democratic hawks like Lieberman and Clinton and I'd give it at least a three-quarters chance of passing Congress even without a casus belli.

That being the case, I'm not sure Kerry and Dean can be counted out, because national security would remain an issue - and of course Republicans would want it to be, to take advantage of their traditional invincibility on the subject. I'm not sure if Bush still wins, but his chances might not be much worse than OTL, really.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I'm pretty certain that Iraq still gets invaded - Bush was dead set on that well before he took office, if his PNAC membership is any indication, and the Bush era Republicans didn't cotton none to such niceties as the existence of an opposition party. Throw in the collusion of Democratic hawks like Lieberman and Clinton and I'd give it at least a three-quarters chance of passing Congress even without a casus belli.

That being the case, I'm not sure Kerry and Dean can be counted out, because national security would remain an issue - and of course Republicans would want it to be, to take advantage of their traditional invincibility on the subject. I'm not sure if Bush still wins, but his chances might not be much worse than OTL, really.

Amazingly, it even had the support of a majority of the public pre-9/11.

upload_2016-10-23_20-15-42.png


http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx
 
Amazingly, it even had the support of a majority of the public pre-9/11.

It had moments where it was in the 60-70% range like when it hit 72% after the plot against Bush 41 and 60% range in 1998 when he booted the weapons inspectors and declared he would try to shoot down American planes.

We were dealing with a no fly zone costing over a billion a year and had three relatively large bombing raids on Iraq in the 'interwar years' in 1993, 1998 and 2001. Yes, half the public supported a second invasion before 911, but the political class knew in 2000 those numbers would collapse the second you got over a few hundred dead.

You want to read the ordinary public view read Trump's book in 2000 where he says we can't allow this guy to continue to support terrorists and develop WMDs and fire on our planes and when we deal with him we have to finish him this time. Now his public view is Saddam was a great hero who kept the terrorists down.

I think in terms of a historical look back nothing says it better then the vote to make regime change against Saddam Hussein in 1998 the offical policy of the United States for violating the terms of the cease fire which even Bernie Sanders signed.
 
Last edited:
In a general sense, I think America would continue as in the late 90s and the 00s up to 9/11. There wouldn't be the sudden spike in anti terrorism measures, things would be more focused on the post Soviet void and the evolving world around it. 9/11 was one of those landmark events that changed the course of America's history. Without it you'd see the general zeitgeist lumber onward without the massive impact of 9/11. So look at 2001 pre 9/11 and extrapolate from there.

My personal opinion is that things felt complacent and detached just before 9/11. The entire 90s felt like a hangover from the Cold War and we were really getting to the point where we sobered up, took a hot shower and wondered what we were going to do next. Without 9/11 to provide direction, I think the 00s would be defined by more national introspection. This would be both internal and external, with internal probably having the edge unless a big power (Russia, China) started throwing a lot of weight around.

One thing that might happen in a No 9/11 timeline is increased friction with China. There was a lot of bruised feelings over that spy plane incident a few months before the 9/11 attacks, and a rivalry with China would naturally slot into the Cold War mentality of a lot of Washington officials in Dubya's administration.

I doubt anything major would come of it, mind you, but there could be more an anti-China edge in popular culture. America got anxious enough in the mid-to-late 2000s OTL about the rise of China as a potential rival superpower, and that was with the War on Terror occupying the forefront of its mind.
 
I do not see a person who has merely had four years of Senate experience run; you need to be the most charismatic person in a generation to pull that off.
She'd bring the history factor and had been a first lady. Barack Obama was a first term senator four years into his term. Yes, he had charisma, but she would have cleared the field.
 
Top