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?
Would someone have run though who didn't historically though?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.
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.
Wasn't the primary reason why that happened because of the cost of the two wars?
Would someone have run though who didn't historically though?
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.
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.IDK. The Democratic Party was pretty weak. And as I said, Kerry romped. Look at the 2004 Democratic primary map.
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'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.
Talk about being careful what you wish for.Amazingly, it even had the support of a majority of the public pre-9/11.
View attachment 292215
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.
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.
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.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.