2004 without 9/11

[uti2]

If there's no 9/11 and no Iraq War, then it's unclear that Kerry would win the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

[uti2]

Without 9/11 and assuming no other terrorist attack until the 2004 election, there would have been no Iraq War, and the economy would have been a lot stronger. The 9/11 attacks plunged the U.S. into a recession. Although the economy was recovering by the 2004 election, it was weaker than 2000, with many people still feeling like we were in a rut. This partially explains why Bush lost WI, MI, OH, PA, NH.

If you accept the premise of this argument do you also accept that Obama would've also done better vs. Romney in 2012 had Lehman Brothers never collapsed?

[uti2]

Without 9/11 and assuming no other terrorist attack until the 2004 election, there would have been no Iraq War, and the economy would have been a lot stronger. The 9/11 attacks plunged the U.S. into a recession. Although the economy was recovering by the 2004 election, it was weaker than 2000, with many people still feeling like we were in a rut. This partially explains why Bush lost WI, MI, OH, PA, NH.

It's actually entirely plausible to suggest the net benefit Bush obtained from 9/11 in approval ratings were greater than any potential accelerated economic recovery would've given him without 9/11, especially when you consider just how high his numbers were at one point.