2004: Bush vs. Kerry, No 9/11

[rebeltarian]

It's 2004 and George W Bush is running for re-election.  A few changes to history:

1. September 11th never happened.
2. Dick Cheney is stepping down after the term.  In an effort to shore up his credibility with fiscal conservatives and northern moderates, GWB has chosen Pennsylvania governer Tom Ridge to be his new VP/running mate.

John Kerry still wins the nomination for the Democrats and he selects Senator John Edwards to shore up his credibility with the working class/common man/heartland Americans.  They focus their campaign on labor issues, protectionism, the environment and a more internationalist foreign policy of UN/NATO alliances.  Bush has governed just as he said he would in 2000: a moderate/populist on domestic economic issues and an arm's length distance from the UN, putting an end to the Clinton-era nation building.  The economy has been sporadic since the dot.com bust.  Unemployment is hanging around 5-6% and the Clinton surplus remains in the black (no Iraq and Afghanistan war spending here), but the corporate tax cuts combined with increased domestic spending has considerably depleted that surplus.  Some of the rising hot topics are China trade, taxes, abortion, stem-cell research, environmentalism and education.

Discuss with maps! 

[Psychic Octopus]

Bush/Ridge: 290
Kerry/Edwards: 248

Despite economic pressure, George W. Bush is able to narrowly win re-election. The surplus/deficit campaigns never matter, or Mondale would have lost and Gore would have won (I mean actually taken office). Bush would cruise to a four-percentage point victory due to the calm world stage and recovery from the Dot Com bust.

[JerryBrown2010]

[fezzyfestoon]

Scaring people was Bush's only strong point in the 2004 election and Kerry's was just sitting there.  With nothing to scare people with, Kerry's sitting prevails.

[President Mitt]

In my opinion, if there is no Iraq, Kerry would probably not be the nominee, and we'd probably have a President Gephardt. But here is the scenario described.

[Psychic Octopus]

In my opinion, if there is no Iraq, Kerry would probably not be the nominee, and we'd probably have a President Gephardt. But here is the scenario described.

That's my real life prediction as well. I think Bush would have lost to every democrat EXCEPT Kerry in this scenario.

[rebeltarian]

Close call but I think John Kerry would pull this one out.  Despite the peaceful world stage, concerns regarding the so-so economy sway enough voters to the populist/protectionist agenda of the Democratic ticket.  They sucessfully paint George Bush as a mistake made 4 years ago from a close election.  The presence of Tom Ridge gives the DNC a run for their money in PA, but they hang on by a hair. 

Kerry/Edwards 289
Bush/Ridge 249

[RosettaStoned]

In my opinion, if there is no Iraq, Kerry would probably not be the nominee, and we'd probably have a President Gephardt. But here is the scenario described.

I wish!

[Lahbas]

There really is no way to tell how Bush's first term would have turned out without the War on Terror. We might still be in Afghanistan (such an operation was already in the planning stages), but public opinion would not have allowed an intervention into Iraq (without 9/11 and the desire to destory Al Qaeda), which was what really made him vulnerable.

As a result, I would assume that Bush would make a slightly better performance then he did historically, but with the economic worries (if any still) came on equal ground, this is the result I would expect.

George Walker Bush : 321
John Forbes Kerry : 217

Basically, a comfortable victory in regards to the electoral vote, but there is a relatively narrow victory in the popular vote, comparable to the 1916 Presidential Election.

[Sasquatch]

If there was no 9/11 or Iraq, people like John Kerry, Wes Clark, and Howard Dean wouldn't even be in the conversation.

The strong contenders would be a sorry field with Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. It's also possible that Gore would have ran again, but I'm not sure.


I'll just say President Gephardt aswell and the map is similiar to 2000, flip Missouri and New Hampshire.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Bush v. Gephardt:

[RS.Ngai]

Um...Bush could still attack Iraq (finish Sr.'s job of defeating Saddam Insane) even without 9/11.
Here's my prediction (looks similar to the real one except for one thing).

[DS0816]

I can't recall the exact time line, but despite the controversy of Election 2000 … George W. Bush was popular in his first term. So I'm figuring re-election with essentially the same electoral map as the real one.

[dwkulcsar]

I fight the premise that if 9/11 did not happen; Kerry would not be the Democrats choice. Bush's war on terror in a way distracted the economic situation. I don't think the economy would be much different, and a populist outcry over the effects of the tax-cuts would have seen a populist like Howard Dean or John Edwards become viable candidates for the general election.

Now without 9/11. I would predict that a populist candidate that could have framed the ever changing economy as being a bad thing for middle wage earners. Say, Howard Dean talks about his record as Governor and tells Ohioans about how globalization and rich tax cuts are bad for them.

This is assuming Dean is the Nominee. Kerry would have trouble showing his credentials as someone who did much. He is known for three things, being a Veteran, Senator, and rich. In a peacetime election his military service may not have been an actor in the decisions of voters, and his possible elitism would have been just as large a factor as it was in the real 2004 election.

[Bo]

Kerry narrowly wins, since Bush has nothing to scare people with and Kerry would constantly hammer Bush on his mediocre economic record (in comparison to Clinton's) and especially on the fact that no new jobs were created during his first term.