Unificiation. . .

[True Democrat]

What if 9/11 occurs near the end of the Bush term.  Bush's approval goes up to 91% by March 2004.  Even Democratic approval is at 85%.  In the remaining Democratic primaries, a write-in campaign for Bush gains momenum until he actually wins a couple of primaries.  At the convention, most of the superdelegates break for Bush and he amazingly wins the Democratic convention.  The Democrats and Republicans endorse the same candidate meaning basically an uncontested election.  Bush goes on to win the election 82-18 (with an assortment of liberal third party candidates making up the 18).  Does anyone think someone like this is realistic?  Even in the 2002 midterms, Bush's approval was still so high the Democrats had nothing to run against.

[MasterJedi]

I doubt it, there would be some ultra liberal sacrificial lamb to run and they'd win only Vermont, Massachusetts and DC, probably less.

[True Democrat]

I doubt it, there would be some ultra liberal sacrificial lamb to run and they'd win only Vermont, Massachusetts and DC, probably less.

But what if Bush has 90% approval going into election day?

[Lincoln Republican]

With 90% approval, Bush sweeps all 50 states.

DC would likely still go for a liberal third party candidate, however, Bush could win DC as well if the vote split between the assortment of liberal third party candidates falls the right way.   

[polier]

I've posed this question to my students ... I think that if it occurred very late in his term, several things would be different. 1 - the Iraq war wouldn't have started yet and 2 - the economy would have been better. 9/11 hurt Bush as much as it helped him in the election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush could have easily landslided anyways in 2004. He had the media behind him, all he needed to do was not take batsh**t extremist positions. The only thing the media loves more than crazy right-wing Republicans are right-wing Republicans. Instead he blew it by pandering to the far right, and had the smallest popular margin of victory ever for a sucessful re-election.

[polier]

Well I disagree ... the media is not liberal-biased as some claim, but it is biased against incumbents and those in power. Bush did not have the media on its side.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush did not have the media on its side.

As far as I can tell, the media didn't critcize the worst President once for an entire year after 9/11. Bias doesn't even begin to describe that.

[polier]

The media's goal is to get viewers. Generally, viewers tend to be intellectual, who tend to be anti-incumbent. However, after 9/11, viewers were overwhelmingly patriotic. In an effort to appeal to their viewers, the media stayed away from attacking the president. All media bias is caused by the market, and the goal to make a profit.