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

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.

She'd also probably be weighed down by a contentious war vote, and certainly by the perception that in pursuing the White House right after she just left it, that she's being too ambitious for a woman, just used the Senate term as a stepping stone/fig leaf, etc.
 
She'd also probably be weighed down by a contentious war vote, and certainly by the perception that in pursuing the White House right after she just left it, that she's being too ambitious for a woman, just used the Senate term as a stepping stone/fig leaf, etc.
What war vote? Iraq is not likely without 9/11. Barack Obama was a state legislator five years before he was elected president. Isn't that being too ambitious?
 
What war vote? Iraq is not likely without 9/11. Barack Obama was a state legislator five years before he was elected president. Isn't that being too ambitious?

If you read my first post in the thread, you'd see that I'm confident Iraq would happen regardless. Bush wanted it, he was astonishingly successful at getting nearly everything he wanted, and Democrats didn't trust themselves on national security. As for the Obama comparison, remember sexism plus the assumption that Bill and Hillary are conjoined twins means that it would seem more "suspect".
 
If you read my first post in the thread, you'd see that I'm confident Iraq would happen regardless. Bush wanted it, he was astonishingly successful at getting nearly everything he wanted, and Democrats didn't trust themselves on national security. As for the Obama comparison, remember sexism plus the assumption that Bill and Hillary are conjoined twins means that it would seem more "suspect".
Sexism trumps the possibility of the junior senator from Illinois being seen as "uppity" by racists?

As for Iraq, the war is likely less unpopular if it's not competing for attention with Afghanistan. Also, Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.
 
If you read my first post in the thread, you'd see that I'm confident Iraq would happen regardless. Bush wanted it, he was astonishingly successful at getting nearly everything he wanted, and Democrats didn't trust themselves on national security. As for the Obama comparison, remember sexism plus the assumption that Bill and Hillary are conjoined twins means that it would seem more "suspect".

Bush wasn't going in without minimally 60-70% national support. The high point of post 911 support was in October of 2001 when it hit 80%, but when we went in it was at 72%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

If Saddam does something that manages to get support back into the 60-70% range war is on the table not just more bombings which we were already doing. If not it won't be.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I think Bush would wait until 2005 for the Iraq War so it won't look like a political ploy, if he does it at all.
 
Sexism trumps the possibility of the junior senator from Illinois being seen as "uppity" by racists?

Possibly. Again, the fact that she'd just left the White House opens an additional can of worms. Expect complaints about it being a backdoor third term for Bill, which, however popular he may have been, would still be seen as unseemly. Democrats like to whine.

As for Iraq, the war is likely less unpopular if it's not competing for attention with Afghanistan. Also, Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.

But without 9/11 to bludgeon dissenters into silence with, the base would likely revolt sooner and louder. And Hillary wouldn't have Kerry's war hero bona fides. It wasn't his Senate record, but his Rambo cred that people were interested in.

Bush wasn't going in without minimally 60-70% national support. The high point of post 911 support was in October of 2001 when it hit 80%, but when we went in it was at 72%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

If Saddam does something that manages to get support back into the 60-70% range war is on the table not just more bombings which we were already doing. If not it won't be.

You mean like the 60-70 percent support his tax cuts had? The other thing to remember is that his circle expected a cakewalk of a war and minimal reconstruction work, so they wouldn't need to ride out or weather anything in particular, and they figured success would justify itself like in the First Gulf War.

I think Bush would wait until 2005 for the Iraq War so it won't look like a political ploy, if he does it at all.

That runs the risk of it not happening, since he couldn't be assured of re-election.
 
As for Iraq, the war is likely less unpopular if it's not competing for attention with Afghanistan. Also, Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.

Kerry was a special case due to timing. In 2004, the Democrats had to play the war card to not seem like cheese-eating surrender monkeys. That's why Kerry, popularly percieved as being a moderate Democrat to Dean's (antiwar) left and Kucinich's (very antiwar) far-left, gave his twee little "Reporting for Duty!" thing at the convention.


By 2008, the Democratic party had solidly turned against the war and didn't much like anyone who'd supported it, with more than a few anti-war/anti-Bush activists viewing anyone who'd voted for the war and hadn't recanted as... well, the best modern equivalent would be how the alt-right calls a lot of GOPers "cuckservatives". Obama not supporting the Iraq War was an important playing card for him, and a deadly anchor for Hillary.
 
You mean like the 60-70 percent support his tax cuts had? The other thing to remember is that his circle expected a cakewalk of a war and minimal reconstruction work, so they wouldn't need to ride out or weather anything in particular, and they figured success would justify itself like in the First Gulf War.

Going into war is not like tax cuts, he was in office for quite a few months without beating the drums of war with Iraq any louder then Clinton then after 911 he refused advice to do Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time which would have been much more politically popular and waited and put off attacking Iraq a number of times at Blair's request to get the UNSC to agree so no he was not quite as gung-ho to send divisions into Iraq as you make out.

Quite frankly he waited too long as his window to invade before Zarqawi built the infrastructure for a jihadi insurgency ended by late 2002.
 
Possibly. Again, the fact that she'd just left the White House opens an additional can of worms. Expect complaints about it being a backdoor third term for Bill, which, however popular he may have been, would still be seen as unseemly. Democrats like to whine.
A party base less than disgusted with her conduct at the State Department is not a party base that will turn on her for running in 2004. The half of the party that doesn't see Bush as an illegitimate president practically worships Bill how they remember him (and not how he was). Complaints about Bill's third term will be heard more in the fall campaign than in the nomination fight.


But without 9/11 to bludgeon dissenters into silence with, the base would likely revolt sooner and louder. And Hillary wouldn't have Kerry's war hero bona fides. It wasn't his Senate record, but his Rambo cred that people were interested in.
People revolting sooner and louder are not going to get behind a stodgy old free trader.
 
Possibly. Again, the fact that she'd just left the White House opens an additional can of worms. Expect complaints about it being a backdoor third term for Bill, which, however popular he may have been, would still be seen as unseemly. Democrats like to whine.

There's also the dynasty issue to consider. It was muted OTL with the election of Obama, but if Hillary is nominated in 2008 it'll rear its ugly head. The country will have been run by a Bush or a Clinton since 1989—twenty years. The prospect of the country being run by two political dynasties for, potentially, nearly three decades will be an issue.
 
Going into war is not like tax cuts, he was in office for quite a few months without beating the drums of war with Iraq any louder then Clinton then after 911 he refused advice to do Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time which would have been much more politically popular and waited and put off attacking Iraq a number of times at Blair's request to get the UNSC to agree so no he was not quite as gung-ho to send divisions into Iraq as you make out.

He wanted a coalition, yes, if only to make the invasion easier. That's no reason to wait on/care about domestic opinion. Deposing Saddam was part of his platform in 2000 and he got elected, that's good enough for any Washington figure.


A party base less than disgusted with her conduct at the State Department is not a party base that will turn on her for running in 2004. The half of the party that doesn't see Bush as an illegitimate president practically worships Bill how they remember him (and not how he was). Complaints about Bill's third term will be heard more in the fall campaign than in the nomination fight.

A party base that doesn't know her as a Secretary of State, an experienced Senator, and other such things also has less of a reason to be impressed by her much thinner resume, and just as much reason to perceive cynicism and opportunism in her rush to return to the White House.

People revolting sooner and louder are not going to get behind a stodgy old free trader.

I don't pretend to know who has the advantage in 2004 under these circumstances, just that it'd probably be someone more experienced and less contentious than Hillary Clinton. Before you bring up her First Lady bit, I'll remind you that the part of that people would most remember at this point would be her failure on health care, which doesn't inspire additional confidence.

There's also the dynasty issue to consider. It was muted OTL with the election of Obama, but if Hillary is nominated in 2008 it'll rear its ugly head. The country will have been run by a Bush or a Clinton since 1989—twenty years. The prospect of the country being run by two political dynasties for, potentially, nearly three decades will be an issue.

These guys are talking 2004, when Bill had just left.
 
A party base that doesn't know her as a Secretary of State, an experienced Senator, and other such things also has less of a reason to be impressed by her much thinner resume, and just as much reason to perceive cynicism and opportunism in her rush to return to the White House.
Her resume this year consists of pushing for help for 9/11 victims, something that was broadly popular, while she was a senator, and telling the Chinese when she was First Lady that women's rights are human rights. Her record now is not that impressive now, given the state of Middle East and of Eastern Europe, yet she had little real competition for the nomination, and has considerable clout wit the party apparatus, clout which is stronger and not weaker before the rise of Barack Obama.


I don't pretend to know who has the advantage in 2004 under these circumstances, just that it'd probably be someone more experienced and less contentious than Hillary Clinton. Before you bring up her First Lady bit, I'll remind you that the part of that people would most remember at this point would be her failure on health care, which doesn't inspire additional confidence.
She tried. She will be able to point to what she did accomplish as first lady, much like she has this cycle, and will be able to point to possible Democratic gains in the 2002 midterms as indications that health reform may be achievable now.


These guys are talking 2004, when Bill had just left.
And Bill was arguably more popular then than now.
 
Her resume this year consists of pushing for help for 9/11 victims, something that was broadly popular, while she was a senator, and telling the Chinese when she was First Lady that women's rights are human rights. Her record now is not that impressive now, given the state of Middle East and of Eastern Europe, yet she had little real competition for the nomination, and has considerable clout wit the party apparatus, clout which is stronger and not weaker before the rise of Barack Obama.

Is her clout weaker now? Could've fooled me, when half the Party's congressional contingent had endorsed her by June 2015 or so, as opposed to most people holding their cards close to chest until quite late in 2007-08. The Party still has a leader right now in Obama that nobody really disputes, and it was widely assumed from the beginning that he had her back in 2016, so that meant that she had incredible institutional support. Bill Clinton out of government wouldn't have that same strength in 2004, and the war vote would still have split the party. Wellstone(?), Durbin, and other doves would be on the lookout for an alternative.

She tried. She will be able to point to what she did accomplish as first lady, much like she has this cycle, and will be able to point to possible Democratic gains in the 2002 midterms as indications that health reform may be achievable now.

I don't see the Republicans losing the House in 2002, so that would be a fool's hope. Honestly, I don't think she'd go for anything even as ambitious as Obamacare, as opposed to incremental stuff like Medicaid expansion.

And Bill was arguably more popular then than now.

It's really not that simple, but since I see a rather large concern with a First Lady running for office the term after her husband left office and you see none at all, we probably won't see eye-to-eye on this being a matter of interest for voters.
 
Is her clout weaker now? Could've fooled me, when half the Party's congressional contingent had endorsed her by June 2015 or so, as opposed to most people holding their cards close to chest until quite late in 2007-08. The Party still has a leader right now in Obama that nobody really disputes, and it was widely assumed from the beginning that he had her back in 2016, so that meant that she had incredible institutional support. Bill Clinton out of government wouldn't have that same strength in 2004, and the war vote would still have split the party. Wellstone(?), Durbin, and other doves would be on the lookout for an alternative.
People hedged their bets in 2007 to the limited extent that they did because they did not want to be seen as shutting down the candidacy of the man who became the first black president. We also don't know that she would have voted the same way on the war. Wellstone? Because Joe Lieberman did so well!


I don't see the Republicans losing the House in 2002, so that would be a fool's hope. Honestly, I don't think she'd go for anything even as ambitious as Obamacare, as opposed to incremental stuff like Medicaid expansion.
Lose? No, but the majority would be weakened.


It's really not that simple, but since I see a rather large concern with a First Lady running for office the term after her husband left office and you see none at all, we probably won't see eye-to-eye on this being a matter of interest for voters.
It's not that I don't see the concern; it's that I don't see it as more of a concern then than it would have been in 2008, or even now, when it's much more obvious that everything she's done has been so that she could be POTUS.
 
People hedged their bets in 2007 to the limited extent that they did because they did not want to be seen as shutting down the candidacy of the man who became the first black president. We also don't know that she would have voted the same way on the war. Wellstone? Because Joe Lieberman did so well!

I don't see it. If Congressional Democrats really saw her as an exalted savior who'd be guaranteed their endorsements under normal circumstances, then they'd also assume she could handle Gary Hart 2: Electric Boogaloo. And yes, she'd vote the way that the Clinton Administration foreign policy team thought was best, and they also thought we needed to be harder on Saddam. And Wellstone isn't someone I take too seriously as a candidate, just as an example that there were quite a few Democratic Senators who opposed the Iraq War and would have reservations about Clinton because of her vote.

Lose? No, but the majority would be weakened.

Not enough so for Hillarycare 2.0 to seem possible. It's pretty clear listening to her campaigning that she's still shaken by the original's failure to some extent today. You'll notice that her health care plans now build upon Obamacare, and in 2008 the debate was driven to a large extent by John Edwards.

It's not that I don't see the concern; it's that I don't see it as more of a concern then than it would have been in 2008, or even now, when it's much more obvious that everything she's done has been so that she could be POTUS.

In 2008, her opponent was someone who was even faster racing to the Presidency. In 2004, she might face Howard Dean, who'd been a Governor for over ten years, or, I dunno, someone like John Kerry or Joe Biden who'd been in the Senate for decades. She'd be the one in a hurry, is the point. And by the same token, she'd have a harder time playing an experience card.
 
Bill Clinton was still extremely popular among both Democrats and the public at-large. "Clinton's third term" would be seen as a good thing by most of the Democratic base.

She was absolutely seen as the candidate-in-waiting; if she wanted to run in 2004, a lot of the people who threw their hats in would almost certainly sit it out. The only potential candidate with similar status was Al Gore (and OTL, a lot of people were waiting to see what those two did before making any decisions about the primary). And she's certainly capable of beating e.g. Joe Biden (who got precisely zero traction in any of his presidential runs, and would have a lot of the same baggage she did ITTL).

You seem to be hanging far too much on the assumption that there will be an Iraq War without 9/11, that she will vote for it, and that that will be an albatross around her neck. While many of Bush's foreign policy advisors were pro-war, foreign policy didn't dominate the agenda before 9/11. Bush famously promised a "humbler" foreign policy and to eschew "nation-building" in his campaign; left to his own devices, he'd probably be happy continuing the no-fly-zone (a billion dollars a year is chump change) and focus his efforts on tax cuts, education reform, and miscellaneous conservative domestic policy. OTL he seemed far more focused on China, and would probably be content with just funneling money to Ahmed Chalabi and other "resistance" groups to support a more covert regime change strategy. He didn't start pushing for an invasion hard until after 9/11, so even if he wanted to, he might wait until later in the election cycle to push for it. As for Hillary Clinton, she's less likely to vote for it if there isn't the OTL fear of being portrayed as "soft on terrorism"; she might or might not, but she would probably be more in tune with the Democratic base (especially if she were planning to run in 2004 instead of 2008).

As for the experience issue, it's more or less irrelevant. It's hard to run on "experience" against an incumbent; you just need to pass some minimum bar. She can certainly claim first-hand experience with the White House (and again, the Clinton administration was still viewed with a lot of nostalgia by a lot of people), and her four years in the Senate. Indeed, there's some research that suggests that being in the spotlight for too long actually counts against you in election campaigns (as people gravitate to fresh new faces).

She may or may not run; it would be up to her, and would likely depend on whether she thought Bush would be vulnerable in 2004 (because if she loses the general election, she's done as a presidential candidate).
 
I don't see the Republicans losing the House in 2002.

I can see the Dems retaking the house in '02 in a No 9/11 world, even if narrowly. The Democrats would be fired up to vote after the loss in 2000, and Bush would be hurt by the economy, which would still be weak without 9/11 due to the "dot com" crash. Not to mention, Enron could also prove to be damaging to Bush as well.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
As far as Hillary Clinton goes, she is consistently a cautious and traditional politician. Running against a relatively popular incumbent with four years of elected experience is neither cautious nor traditional, and I don't think she would do it. However, the idea that might Al Gore could run again without 9/11... hmm... it's possible.

I don't see the Republicans losing the House in 2002, so that would be a fool's hope.

I think they would, for these reasons:

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:

View attachment 292164

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.

It's honestly a fluke that they kept it in 2002.
 
Honestly, with no 9/11 its impossible to say whether or not Iraq would have been invaded. On the one hand, Cheney and Rumsfeld were dead set on some kind of action against Saddam even before 9/11; on the other, by all accounts 9/11 radically altered the power dynamics of the Bush cabinet (and apparently did a real number on Cheney's psychology and outlook), so without that we might see more level headed figures like Colin Powell push back against any kind of direct action. Odds are we'd see the no-fly zone remain, more covert action to foment a kind of "group up" regime change, and an outside possibility of a push for a UN-backed intervention ala the first Gulf War.
 
Top