Talk Elections

What would happen upon the WMDs being found?

The war would have still been wrong IMO. But that being said, I'm sure as sh!t glad that he didn't :P

The most likely case would be (and tbh it's legitimately shocking that this didn't happen) that Saddam still had leftover stockpiles of chemical weapons, especially chlorine or mustard gas, squirreled away somewhere. They're absurdly easy to make (you can make chlorine gas with the stuff under your kitchen sink, technically), don't pose the difficulty of more advanced gases like VX or Sarin, let alone the difficulty of biological and nuclear weapons, and are...completely ineffective as an actual tool of warfare in the 21st century.

Lumping chemical weapons in with biological and nuclear weapons is an absurdity. A very powerful chemical weapon, Sarin, was unleashed in absolutely ideal circumstances on a subway in Japan in 1995 and "only" killed 12 people out of over 1,000 exposed. Chlorine and mustard gas were out of date 100 years ago and, while exceptionally cruel ways to kill someone, are NOT tools of "mass destruction" in any real sense. They deserve to be banned for the same reason land mines are banned: it's not that land mines are tools of mass destruction, it's that they're tools of war crimes.

The War remains popular for much longer than it did in OTL. It wouldnt change the fact that Bush still competely mishandled the aftermath of the invasion but still the war would remain popular till around 2007 at the very least and 2011 at the very latest. This is what I think happens


2004:

Presidential:

()


Bush/Cheney 356 53%
Kerry/Edwards 182 46%

Bush easily wins the election, and its quite possible even NJ could flip in this scenario. Kerry also would only win CA by around 5-6 points maybe less



Senate:

Republicans Gain: All the states they gained in OTL
Dems Gain: Just IL


So Senate would finish at 56 Republicans to 44 Democrats


House:

Republicans : 240
Democrats:  195



2006:

Senate:

Republicans Gain: NJ
Democrats Gain: PA, RI, OH

So Senate Ends up at Republicans 54 to Democrats 46


House:

Republicans: 225
Democrats: 210

Republicans narrowly keep the house



2008:


Presidential:

()

Clinton/Bayh 315 51.5%
McCain/Romney 223 48.5%


Senate:

Democrats Gain : CO, NM, VA, NC, NH
Republicans Gain: Nothing

Democrats take control of Senate with a 51-49 majority


House :

Democrats : 232
Republicans: 203

Democrats take control of House as well with a gain of 22 seats

I don't think it would have mattered all that much. The reason that the Iraq War became unpopular wasn't primarily the lack of WMDs (partly because Bush/Republicans were able to cast some doubt on the lack of WMDs), but rather the emergence of an insurgency and the long-term deployment of 100k+ American troops in Iraq.

If the Iraq War remains highly popular in 2004, I doubt Kerry gets the nomination.  He got it in large part because it was thought he could successfully counter Bush on defense issues. If Dems have no hope of doing that, someone else, perhaps Edwards, likely gets the nomination.

Kerry won the votes of those who cited the economy and jobs as their top focus in the primaries.

Iraq was popular until April 2004 and by then Kerry had already won the nomination

I don’t think it matters much. Bush would’ve gotten a temporary boost in popularity like when he got Saddam, but that’s it.

Good analysis, though I may have flipped Maine, New Jersey (where Bush trailed by just 6) and Hawaii (where Bush was narrowly leading before Election Day) on the 2004 Electoral map.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/hi_polls.html

What would the Democrats talk about in 2004? With Bush’s credibility on foreign policy still intact, would the Democrats talk about domestic issues more?

Saddam Hussein had WMD's, they were taken underground to Syria. Every weapon was found in Syria, with Assad. But, Dubya was wrong about Nukes in Iraq and ousted a CIA operative, which an impeachable offense, but R's controlled House.

Well, what scenario are we talking about? Is it the same as real life up until the moment American troops enter Baghdad, & suddenly, "Oh s*it!," they find several caches of chemical & biological weapons? If it's that, then the neo-cons remain the central locus of the GOP to this day, Rumsfeld never loses his s*it eating smirk, France & Germany eat crow for the next decade, yada yada yada.

The problem is that, if Iraq actually had a usable stockpile of WMD's during the run up to the invasion, then there's no way they wouldn't have used them once it became clear that there would be no stopping the coalition forces. IIRC, the Iraqi military was left in the dark about the non-existence of the WMD's, & included them in their defensive schemes up until the moment they realized that they didn't exist. Even if that's not the case, somebody's gonna end up pulling the trigger & using chemical weapons on advancing American troops. Once that happens (& it would, because the US military is/was light years ahead of the Iraqi military, & once they realize they're gonna lose, someone on the Iraqi side is gonna say "F**k it" & uncork the genie), all hell is gonna break loose.

From what I understand, coalition troops rolled over the border in full gas mask kits, so causalities are (hopefully) minimal. What the response is, however, is up in the air. If it's some rogue Republican Guard general, then I doubt the US would retaliate in kind, especially if it leads to a splintering of the Iraqi military & causes some of the saner factions to lay down their arms & surrender. If it's clear that the decision came from the top down, & wasn't some Lt. General with a death wish, than s*it goes very, very poorly for the Iraqi's.