Who Would the Democrats Have Nominated in 2004 if 9/11 Did Not Occur?

[Bo]

Also, would this Democratic nominee have defeated Bush?

[Dancing with Myself]

It would have been Howard Dean with John Edwards as his VP.

He might have won due to Bush's poor economic record, but we will never know.

[Bo]

Personally, I think Hillary would have won the Democratic nomination because she would have Bill's active support, due to the female vote, and due to her massive fundraising. I think that those factors will scare away any serious challengers. Even if Gore would have decided to run, he would be perceived as a loser for blowing an election he was supposed to easily win, and thus Hillary would be able to beat him as well with her husband's support. I also think that Hillary would have defeated Bush Jr. (probably by a narrow margin) in the general election as she would constantly attack him for his low job creation and mediocre economic record in comparison to that of her husband. I think Hillary would have run in 2004 because the economy was just coming out of a recession (a jobless recovery is considered part of a recession by most people), and Hillary would be afriad that the economy might be in good shape in 2008 and that she (and Bill) will be too old and old news in 2012. Thus, she would think 2004 was her best shot and go for it. I think that Hillary declined to run in 2004 due to the comparatively popularity of the Iraq War and its unpredictability, knowing that the war will likely be unpopular by 2008 and that she would have a good shot then. Without a foreign war (which Bush would be very unlikely to start without 9/11), Hillary would have no incentive to wait until 2008 when she would be unsure what the political circumstances (how would the economy be, etc.) would be at that point in time.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

What I'm wondering is what Bush would have done differently, and how he would have been perceived. There'd probably be a heavier emphasis on economics rather than foreign policy, and there'd probably be no Patriot Act, no Department of Homeland Security, and maybe even no Iraq.

[sentinel]

What I'm wondering is what Bush would have done differently, and how he would have been perceived. There'd probably be a heavier emphasis on economics rather than foreign policy, and there'd probably be no Patriot Act, no Department of Homeland Security, and maybe even no Iraq.

I agree, I think with such a catastrophic and global event, its hard to imagine what would have happened without it now. It's like imagining what would have happened if Archduke Ferdinand was not assassinated and WW1 didn't happen.

I think, in writing timelines, that 9/11 would have happened independently of who was in office unfortunately.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It would have been Howard Dean with John Edwards as his VP.

He might have won due to Bush's poor economic record, but we will never know.

Nah, core of Dean campaign was his opposition toward Iraqi war. Without 9/11, it would be really hard for Bush to "justify" attack on Iraq.

Gore may run and win.

[Bo]

[quote author=Saddam Hussein Abd Al-Majid Al-Tiqriti
Gore may run and win.
[/quote]

He may run, but I seriously doubt he'd win the nomination, since Hillary would also probably run and since she would have her husband's active support. Also, Gore would be perceived as a "loser" for blowing a surefire election in 2000 and thus I think many Democrats would hesitate to nominate him again (fearing that he would lose again). Also, Hillary would likely have the female vote locked up and will win many votes due to her and her husband's charisma.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I'm not sure if Gore would have been worried about being perceived as a loser, since he won the popular vote by like 500,000 votes and while I believe that Bush won that night, there are many people to this day that believe that Gore won the election and that Bush simply won through political chicanery. I think that Gore would have been able to deflect loser criticisms. That's not to say his primary challengers wouldn't have portrayed him as a loser, I think they would, but I don't think that would have affected his decision.

Also, Gore might not have run because he was so involved with the environment and he might have figured that he could do more by not running for president. I remember a few years ago my biology teacher didn't want Gore to run because he wanted him to continue his environmental activism.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary pledged to served full Senate term before anything like that.

[Bo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary pledged to served full Senate term before anything like that.

Hillary can break her promise. May politicians made promises that they later broke. Obama promised not to run in 2008, I believe, but later chose to run anyway.

[Bo]

I'm not sure if Gore would have been worried about being perceived as a loser, since he won the popular vote by like 500,000 votes and while I believe that Bush won that night, there are many people to this day that believe that Gore won the election and that Bush simply won through political chicanery. I think that Gore would have been able to deflect loser criticisms. That's not to say his primary challengers wouldn't have portrayed him as a loser, I think they would, but I don't think that would have affected his decision.

Also, Gore might not have run because he was so involved with the environment and he might have figured that he could do more by not running for president. I remember a few years ago my biology teacher didn't want Gore to run because he wanted him to continue his environmental activism.

It's irrelevant whether Gore won the PV or not--he knew he needed to win the EV to win the election. Besides, more people voted against Gore than voted for him. I read that Terry McAuliffe said in September 2001 (right before 9/11) that even though he thought Gore won in 2000, the election wasn't supposed to be that close in the first place and thus Gore's loss will makes him unsure of whether he will support Gore in 2004. I'm sure many Democrats felt the same way, thus I think many Democrats would hestitate to nominate Gore again (since they would fear that he would underperform expectations again and blow the election a second time) when they would have stronger candidates like Hillary Clinton available. Also, you got to keep in mind that Bill Clinton would have actively supported his wife if she ran in 2004 (which I think she would have), and I think Clinton was more popular in the party than Gore (considering he won two elections whiel Gore didn't win any), thus dramatically increasing Hillary's odds of winning the nomination. Gore might have ran, I just don't think he would have won for the reasons I listed above. Also, I agree that Gore might have decided to focus more on global warming and the environment to run in 2004.

[pragmatic liberal]

I don't know that Al Gore would have run anyway - his decisions not to run seemed to come independently of 9-11 and the Iraq War. It was more that he was just tired of politics and didn't want to go through the process again. Remember too that Kerry had been seen as the non-Gore frontrunner for some time.

My guess, though, is that John Edwards would have won the nomination absent 9-11 and maybe picked John Kerry as his running mate.

It's interesting to speculate as to whether no 9-11 makes Bush's reelection more likely or less. On one hand, Bush's approval ratings were sinking pre-9-11, and he was able to win a narrow reelection as a "war president." OTOH, without 9-11 and without the Iraq War, Bush may not have been as polarizing a president and in a weak-but-growing economy that may have been enough for a comfortable reelection in a low turnout race.

Of course, the Neocons wanted to go to war with Iraq even pre-9-11, so maybe there would have been an Iraq War anyway, just on a different pretext.

[Dancing with Myself]

The economy would have been the number one issue if there was no 9/11 or Iraq War. With that it would have been Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or Al Gore getting nominated. John Edwards would have been the VP for either three.

[Psychic Octopus]

Edwards/Kerry, and they win.

[hcallega]

Of the candidates that ran in 2004, probably either Gephardt or Edwards. The economy would have been a bigger factor. Both Kerry and Dean's campaigns were bolstered by the war: Dean because of progressive opposition to the war and Kerry because he was anti-war but not a dove per se. If Gore or Hillary ran they would win the nomination, and if one got into the field than the other and many others would not have. I believe that Gore, Hillary, Edwards, or Kerry would have won the general, as the economy would have been a major issue.

[Bo]

Of the candidates that ran in 2004, probably either Gephardt or Edwards. The economy would have been a bigger factor. Both Kerry and Dean's campaigns were bolstered by the war: Dean because of progressive opposition to the war and Kerry because he was anti-war but not a dove per se. If Gore or Hillary ran they would win the nomination, and if one got into the field than the other and many others would not have. I believe that Gore, Hillary, Edwards, or Kerry would have won the general, as the economy would have been a major issue.

What about if both Gore and Hillary got in? Who do you think will win? Also, in my opinion, I think that in this case Edwards and Hillary would have beat Bush, while Bush would have been in a tossup with Gore and Kerry that could have probably went either way. Hillary and Edwards are much more charismatic than Gore and Kerry, and thus I believe that would be able to win over more voters than Gore or Kerry could. In fact, I think Hillary would have beaten Bush in 2004 with 9/11 if she ran. About Edwards I'm not sure.