2004 without 9/11

[DPKdebator]

I'm sure this is an old topic that has been extensively discussed, but what do you think the 2004 map would've looked like without 9/11 happening?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Kerry probably wins Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and the election. Even with the "Rally around the flag" effect that 9/11 had on Bush's approval ratings, he was still only able to win very narrowly versus a pretty poor Democratic candidate, and without 9/11 I don't see him winning.

[Hydera]

Kerry probably wins Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and the election. Even with the "Rally around the flag" effect that 9/11 had on Bush's approval ratings, he was still only able to win very narrowly versus a pretty poor Democratic candidate, and without 9/11 I don't see him winning.

Assuming 9/11 didnt happen and hypothetically that no terrorist attacks happen up to 2004.  Then still a lot of those 11.5 million new voters in 2004 that voted for Bush would turn out.  Especially considering a lot of them were evangelicals who turned up because of Bush and also the anti-gay marriage referendums statewide. Along with suburbanites who liked Bush's tax cuts.
 without 9/11 then a sizable portion of these voters wouldn't have turned up. So maybe only 7-8 million new Bush voters instead of 11.5. Meanwhile those 1-2 million voters who came out (the anti iraq war kerry voters) wouldn't have turned out.

Also a one million kerry voters probably switched their votes at the last minute because of the Osama tape so assuming 9/11 doesnt happen and Osama was never a factor in most of the 2000s. the popular vote would range from a near tie to 1 million in favor of kerry. 

[Mr. Morden]

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

[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/

[Mr. Morden]

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/

Well, it's speculative as to whether there would be an Iraq War without 9/11.  But even if there were one, a 9/11-less Iraq War might not have led to the nomination of Kerry.  Maybe the war in that timeline is less popular, and leads to the nomination of someone more dovish than Kerry.  Dean's collapse in support just before Iowa may well have precipitated in part from the timing of the capture of Saddam Hussein.  If that had been different, who knows.  No way to know if the same field of candidates would have run if Bush was less popular, for that matter.  Maybe Gore would have run if he thought he had a stronger chance of winning this time.

[Lechasseur]

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

This. I think without the war factor the nominee would have been someone like Gephardt or Edwards. Maybe even Gore would have ran again and won.

Or maybe without the war Bush isn't that unpopular and wins. There are just too many variables to say what would happen. What I do think though is without 9/11 AND Iraq Kerry would not have been the nominee.

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Kerry wins 289-249

[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.

[Arbitrage1980]

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?

Sure. The 2008 election would have been closer without the financial collapse, but Obama still would have won. The 2012 election would have been a bigger victory for Obama.