NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say 9/11 never happened. Let's say the hijackers decided to stay home and watch the Today Show, or they decided to go blow themselves up in another part of the world, and bin Laden decided that the attack was never going to work, for whatever reason. This is a hypothetical, so suspend whatever disbelief is necessary. Say that it didn't happen and wasn't going to.

That established, what would Bush's shot at a second term be? Would he have been able to do everything he did in our timeline? Could he get away with invading Iraq? What about trying to amend the Constitution? Outsourcing jobs? Or did 9/11 actually hurt Bush's chances at re-election, and without it, he would be a shoo-in for a second term?

There's many different types of possible events for our October Surprise. So the chances are still pretty high.

I was referring to an alternate timeline. Take 9/11 out of the history books and weigh Bush's chances. Of course there's going to be an October surprise...maybe I should do another poll on that.

I think that taking out 9/11 changes the picture drastically...and it's impossible to tell what would've happened. Of course, everyone here is going to vote on "Well, Bush wouldn't be able to run his campaign of 9/11 so obviously Kerry would've won." I honestly thing if Bush didn't have to deal with foreign affairs very much, he'd stand a real good chance of being re-elected.

If 9/11 never happened. John Kerry would be so far ahead in the polls it wouldn't even be funny.

If 9/11 never happened. John Kerry would be so far ahead in the polls it wouldn't even be funny.
No he wouldn't.

If 9/11 never happened. John Kerry would be so far ahead in the polls it wouldn't even be funny.

Only if Bush ran his admi9nistration the way he did in our timeline. If he changed things up, he would still be in it, though you are right about Kerry probably being ahead.

I am also not convinced the Dems would have chosen Kerry...or maybe they would have; I don't know.

If 9/11 didn't happen, Iraq didn't happen--not the same way anyway. Just keep that in mind.

As far as I can tell the only thing holding bush up in the race is national security. People think bombing Iraq=national security. He would have had a much harder time picking on Iraq without 11/09.

Considering that most of the halfway-intelligent Bush-supporters I have talked to say something like "I disagree with a lot of what Bush has done, but he's better on national security," I'm pretty sure the Democrats would have this election fairly easily if 9/11 had never occurred.

That said, I don't think Bush is all that great for national security anyways, but there are those who disagree.

Bush wouldn't stand a chance.

It has become clear that his main reasoning of staying in the presidency is because he is much better at handling Iraq than Kerry would be. Without 9/11, Iraq would never have happened because the US people would not have stood for an invasion where there was NO evidence of terroism in the USA (not that there is any today anyway) but more to the point without this main issue he couldn't really go against Kerry.

On the flip side however, without all this ever happening, Kerry would also have to find something else to pick at Bush, but that wouldn't be very hard.

First off, I think if you remove 9-11, then you remove the pivotal moment in Bush's Presidency. Say it were so, if the media had continued to portray Bush as complete retard (amazing considering the man who ran against him in 2000 flunked out of grad school twice), then Bush's Presidency would have been highlighted with his stands against abortion, against homosexuals trying to redefine marriage, and his efforts to pull the economy out of the slight recession that started during the Clinton years.

Secondly, Iraq may or may not have happened. Would we still have problems with Iraq? Of course, since they were breaking the peace roughly every week during the Clinton administration by firing at our planes. I believe that Bush would have pressured for action against Iraq, but whether or not militarily, I cannot say. He wouldn't have had to try to link Iraq to terrorism/al Queda, even though links between Saddam and Palestinian terrorism were painfully obvious ($25,000 to families of suicide bombers). Most likely, Bush would have pushed for U.N. reform of the Oil for Food program, and the corruption involved there would have been brought fully into the light inside of somewhat hidden and eclipsed by the United States invasion of Iraq.

Would Howard Dean have had a chance for the Presidential nominee had Iraq not happened? I very strongly doubt it. My guess would be that Lieberman might have been at the top of the list, although his policies on most matters are very close to Bush's being as they are both fairly moderate on most matters. Of course, Lieberman would still be Jewish. It took us way too long to get a Catholic into the Presidency...and he went and got himself shot. The poor Jew wouldn't have had a chance. (I'm not trying to be racist here, although the irony of the last statement is humorous. I'm just trying to list the facts and possibilities as I and the people I know see them.) I really don't see Kerry as even coming close to being the Democratic nominee. Maybe Wesley Clark...maybe.

Naturally, this entire thread is fairly pointless considering that we are throwing out hypotheses about what may or may not have happened in a three and a half year period.

About the same. If 9/11 doesn't happen, there's no war, and while there are fewer people who hate Bush, there are also fewer who are terribly worried about what will happen if they don't re-elect him.

Until 9/11 he was a lame duck. He's spent more time on vacation than any president in history. Something like 4 months in the first year up to 9/11, including the entire month of August.

As my daddy would say, Bush's chances would be "slim and none and slim just left town." But who would the nominee be? Almost certainly it would not be John Kerry--nor would there have been the phenomenon known as Howard Dean, because Dean got his initial momentum from standing up to the pro-war, pro-Bush Democrats in the party, and without the abuses that followed 9/11, that group doesn't get motivated.

I think that we might have seen a replay of 2000, with Gore taking his shots again, but swinging harder and from a more progressive stance on the issues, and winning this time by enough of a margin that the Supreme Court was left out of the decision--speaking of which, there's a hell of an article in this month's Vanity Fair (not available online, sadly) about the 2000 election, the recount, and the part the Supreme Court played in it told from the point of view of some of the clerks who work for the justices. If Florida 2000 made you mad, the article will certainly piss you off even more.

Yes, but your all forgetting that butterfly Kerry stepped on in the other timeline, y'see, it created all those hurricanes, and since there were no hurricans Kerrys campaign took him to Oregon, where he was hit by a Doug Fir tree.

Clearly if 9/11 doesn't happen he really has a hard time campaigning. Look at how much of his campaign is based upon national security (which is sad, given events like 9/11 and failure to capture/kill Bin Laden), and how much support he has on that issue. Take that away and what do you have left?

Also, you have to take into consideration that Bush really is doing poorly compared to how he should be doing. Kerry is someone who really doesn't have a definitive "issue" to run on, and doesn't invoke a great deal of personal support, as most people support him because he's not Bush. Kerry has run a lackluster campaign, missing valuable oppurtunities (Bush saying he doesn't think the war on terror can be won), and repeatedly using a poor choice of words. Despite all this, Bush does not hold a clear advantage over Kerry in the popular vote.

Originally posted by Diamond Mind:
He's spent more time on vacation than any president in history.

And you can interpret that vacation time any way you want to. Because I recall how one vacation over a major holiday was really just a diversion to get Bush on the ground in Iraq where he could encourage the troops without the SS fearing for his personal safety as much. That's not what I'd call being lax on the job, but rather that opposite.

Would we still have problems with Iraq? Of course, since they were breaking the peace roughly every week during the Clinton administration by firing at our planes.
Maybe they were firing at your planes because your planes were bombing them?

I really think it is just impossible to say what the effect would be. The war on terrorism is the pretty much the entire basis of the Bush Administration. This is essentially the equivalent of asking how the 1864 election would have gone if it had not been held in the middle of a civil war. Too much would be different for us to really know what would have happened.

I really think it is just impossible to say what the effect would be. The war on terrorism is the pretty much the entire basis of the Bush Administration. This is essentially the equivalent of asking how the 1864 election would have gone if it had not been held in the middle of a civil war. Too much would be different for us to really know what would have happened.

People speculate on that all the time, too...alternate historians ask crazy questions like that all the time. I haven't heard that specific one, but I have heard some equally implausible ones, like what would have happened if the South won the Civil War.

I think Bush would have found some lame excuse to invade Iraq, anyway, and without people all scared about 9/11, this would have been extremely unpopular.

9/11 is the only reason he's anywhere near *close* to competetive in this election.

I think that taking out 9/11 changes the picture drastically...and it's impossible to tell what would've happened. Of course, everyone here is going to vote on "Well, Bush wouldn't be able to run his campaign of 9/11 so obviously Kerry would've won." I honestly thing if Bush didn't have to deal with foreign affairs very much, he'd stand a real good chance of being re-elected.

With his abomination he calls domestic policy? You've got to be kidding, please tell me you're kidding. Debt, joblessness, and tax-breaks for the wealthy aren't going to get him re-elected. If he didn't have the "vote for me or your children will die at the hands of terrorists" stance, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it into office for a second term.

I think Bush would have found some lame excuse to invade Iraq, anyway, and without people all scared about 9/11, this would have been extremely unpopular.

9/11 is the only reason he's anywhere near *close* to competetive in this election.

Bush was looking to get into Iraq well before 9/11, if I understand correctly...my source is Richard Clarke, and I don't have a lot of details on it at my fingertips right now but I could find it if I were slightly less lazy. But yes, Iraq would be insanely unpopular as far as wars go, especially if Bush went about it the way he did. However, I don't think Bush would have done everything he did without 9/11 - things like blatant disregard for the environment and the economy I could see. Sending jobs overseas I could see. That bogus Constitutional amendment I could see. Iraq or Afghanistan? He wouldn't pull it off. And his approval rating would probably be in the low 40s at best.

With his abomination he calls domestic policy? You've got to be kidding, please tell me you're kidding. Debt, joblessness, and tax-breaks for the wealthy aren't going to get him re-elected. If he didn't have the "vote for me or your children will die at the hands of terrorists" stance, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it into office for a second term.
That assumes the domestic situation would be the same with or without 9/11 - which isn't true.

That assumes the domestic situation would be the same with or without 9/11 - which isn't true.

I don't seem to remember him doing anything to create more jobs, protect the environment, or help the economy BEFORE 9/11... as a matter of fact, I remember he had a 36% approval rating because he spent too much time on vacation... He was still for the "No Child Left Behind" crap, and that also wouldn't go over any better than it is now (which means it isn't).

That assumes the domestic situation would be the same with or without 9/11 - which isn't true.Lest you forget--the economy was stagnant prior to 9/11, because Bush's plan to jump-start it gave tax breaks to the wrong people--people who weren't going to spend the money. Gee, where have I heard that before? It's his M.O. So there's no reason to think that the economy would have improved measurably beyond where it is today. Bad policy is still bad policy, no matter if there's a terrorist attack or not.

I don't seem to remember him doing anything to create more jobs, protect the environment, or help the economy BEFORE 9/11... as a matter of fact, I remember he had a 36% approval rating because he spent too much time on vacation... He was still for the "No Child Left Behind" crap, and that also wouldn't go over any better than it is now (which means it isn't).
The question is whether he would have needed to do much more to create more jobs and help the economy before 9/11. The bubble burst hurt but the economy wasn't in the big dumps until after tourism, travel, and basically every other industry took the hits from 9/11.

Lest you forget--the economy was stagnant prior to 9/11, because Bush's plan to jump-start it gave tax breaks to the wrong people--people who weren't going to spend the money. Gee, where have I heard that before? It's his M.O. So there's no reason to think that the economy would have improved measurably beyond where it is today. Bad policy is still bad policy, no matter if there's a terrorist attack or not.
Less than 10% of the tax cut went to people making over $200,000 in 2001.

Less than 10% of the tax cut went to people making over $200,000 in 2001.

The effect of the tax cuts in 2001 is hardly representative of the entire Bush plan. In 2001, none of the capital gains tax cuts had been phased in, for one. While your statement may or may not be literally true for fiscal year 2001, it's hardly relevant to what Bush's entire tax cut plan did. And those figures indicate that around 70% of the tax cuts (69.6% was the CBO figure I saw) went to the people in the top quintile (top 20% of earners in this country). I admire your desire to spin things well, but maybe you should try for a more comprehensively accurate assessment.

Or maybe you meant that less than 10% of people receiving tax cuts made over $200k in 2001, which might also be correct, given how few people in this country make over $200k a year.

The effect of the tax cuts in 2001 is hardly representative of the entire Bush plan. In 2001, none of the capital gains tax cuts had been phased in, for one. While your statement may or may not be literally true for fiscal year 2001, it's hardly relevant to what Bush's entire tax cut plan did. And those figures indicate that around 70% of the tax cuts (69.6% was the CBO figure I saw) went to the people in the top quintile (top 20% of earners in this country). I admire your desire to spin things well, but maybe you should try for a more comprehensively accurate assessment.

Or maybe you meant that less than 10% of people receiving tax cuts made over $200k in 2001, which might also be correct, given how few people in this country make over $200k a year.
I was just going by what the TPC (Tax Policy Center) says about the EGTRRA Tax Cut, if you look at the brackets yourself you'll see the top four brackets only got a 1% income tax cut in the first couple of years, the lowest bracket got an immediate 5% reduction. If you look at the average income tax rates for people with 1/2, the, and twice the median income, you'll see the biggest fall, about 3%, from 2000-01 in the 1/2 category.

Although, if none of the capital gains tax cuts had been phased in, or other tax cuts which help the rich more than others hadn't been yet, to say that it is the fault of cutting the rich's taxes and not the poor's would be false because it didn't really happen like it would in later years.

I was just going by what the TPC (Tax Policy Center) says about the EGTRRA Tax Cut, if you look at the brackets yourself you'll see the top four brackets only got a 1% income tax cut in the first couple of years, the lowest bracket got an immediate 5% reduction. If you look at the average income tax rates for people with 1/2, the, and twice the median income, you'll see the biggest fall, about 3%, from 2000-01 in the 1/2 category.

Although, if none of the capital gains tax cuts had been phased in, or other tax cuts which help the rich more than others hadn't been yet, to say that it is the fault of cutting the rich's taxes and not the poor's would be false because it didn't really happen like it would in later years.

The percentage reductions initially were much higher for lower brackets. There are a couple problems with using this to represent the amount of tax cuts received:

1. Everyone that is taxed got the lowest tax cuts as well, including Bill Gates. His first 8,000-14,000 or so is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's (depending on whether he files singly or jointly). This means that the high percentage cuts going to the lower income families are also applicable to every other family.

2. Even a slight income tax cut is huge when you make $100 million a year. A one percent cut of that is...you guessed it....$1 million. Do you know how many low income families it would take (even at $1000 a family) to equal just that one tax cut? A bunch (1000 families if they all got $1000). The converse of this is true...even a high percentage tax cut at low income levels isn't that much.

I would have a hard time imagining Bush being anywhere close to reelection, for several reasons.

1) The absence of continual war would only highlight the failings of his domestic policy. On the home front, Bush's record is overshadowed by one monumental achievement: a massive rollback in taxes. Unfortunately, that tax cut hasn't had the desired effect in any of the three modes it's been cast in (it didn't further not hurt the surplus, as was originally claimed, nor did it raise us out of a deficit, as the plan was initially recast, nor still did it seem to stave off further economic collapse all by itself as it was recast yet again when they couldn't claim the rebound they were initially hoping for). Now, thus far the administration has been able to shield this from the public's consiousness first by running a series of combats at us which, deliberately or not, served to take the focus off the spiraling deficit and onto other matters, secondly by claiming the deficit to be the result of the war, not the tax cut. Take away the war, and the Bush Administration would have a serious problem.

2) The absence of 9/11 would additionally highlight Bush's catering to special interests. If you'll recall in the month's before Sept. 11 '01, Bush was looking pretty weak and wounded, primarily because he was pushing for some seriously goofy stuff: raising the amount of arsenic that can be found in your drinking water and yet still be declared "safe" (to reduce environmental cleanup costs for multis), drilling in ANWR, actively demolishing Superfund, etc. Had he not had Sept. 11 to firstly shield his activities, and secondly to portray them as necessary actions to either stimulate the economy or protect national security, far more people would have taken exception to his cronyism before now.

3) The absence of 9/11 would also take away the very best raison d'etre that Bush has: right or wrong, people see him as a leader with a solid view of what needs to be done to make America safe. Take that away, and all you have is one failed policy or unfunded mandate after another.

Bush has a smart team behind him, I think his chances would be pretty much the same as they are now. Karl and co. would find something the people could related to, they would find or make beforehand whatever they needed to launch a successful campaign.

The percentage reductions initially were much higher for lower brackets. There are a couple problems with using this to represent the amount of tax cuts received:

1. Everyone that is taxed got the lowest tax cuts as well, including Bill Gates. His first 8,000-14,000 or so is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's (depending on whether he files singly or jointly). This means that the high percentage cuts going to the lower income families are also applicable to every other family.
Indeed they do go to everyone. If we just cut lower income brackets the rich would still get the cut.

2. Even a slight income tax cut is huge when you make $100 million a year. A one percent cut of that is...you guessed it....$1 million. Do you know how many low income families it would take (even at $1000 a family) to equal just that one tax cut? A bunch (1000 families if they all got $1000). The converse of this is true...even a high percentage tax cut at low income levels isn't that much.
True. There are many more lower-income families than people who make $1 million a year though, many, many more.

Take a look here :
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=212

I do believe that 9/11, and thus Iraq, has given the Democrats their only possible chance at beating the Republicans. Do you know why? One word. Economy. You see, so many people have remarked on how much better the economy was during the Clinton administration. However, all the hubbub over Iraq has kept people from making the next logical leap in this chain to another single word. Enron. If you think that American companies were actually making as much as they said they did before Enron got busted, then you are insane. Thanks to Clinton's economic policies we had an incredible economy! Bush doesn't! Of course, everyone has forgotten now about exactly why those figures used to be so high....

That said, I think 9/11 helped Bush quite a bit. His approval rating hit over 90% during that period, in case you have forgotten. However, Afghanistan hurt him some, and then Iraq did too. And yet, even with all that, the Democrats managed to pick the one candidate who could lose. Thank you for Kerry! After all, Bush leads the electorate 296-238 according to the latest polls (which have to be taken with a grain of salt) which can be found in a very pretty map at http://www.electoral-vote.com/, and he will most like keep Florida because Kerry simply hasn't paid enough attention to it yet. Bush, however, has actively taken an interest in the plight of storm-ridden Florideans, and they appreciate that. Moreover, his brother is there.

Anyways, without 9/11 Bush would have had far more ammo to attack Kerry with, especially since most of Kerry's campaign has involved either Vietnam or how he could run the operations in Iraq better. I would say that they are both obsessed with war. If we simply left it at economics, the scandals following the exposure of the corrupt big businesses would have supplied more than enough fuel for Bush, and could be combined with a wonderful product of the Democratic party that you know as "out-sourcing." More restrictions on businesses = Democratic party = higher costs for production. And that means that we can't compete on the open market and afford labor costs here at the same time. The amount of money the CEOs make is minute compared to what they pay their workers. Here where I live, workers in the steel mill make at least 60k a year, and they don't even have a high school education in many cases. Thank the Unions, they killed our economy.

It should also be noted that back in '01 the much-maligned top 1%'s average income was just over 1.1 million, going down as low as 373k, the amount of people who earn 100 million a year are very rare.

the US as with every other advanced imperialist nation on the earth is a two party state. One establishment party messes up, the other picks the flag up, raises the banner and marches in the same line as those who fell before them. I think that bush would really, in light of what I have just said, have a 50 50 chance of winning the election. However, because he is pitted against a guy who has not done the job before, bush has it slightly in his favour, this is because the us electorate know that he is not just about to drop dead

With his abomination he calls domestic policy? You've got to be kidding, please tell me you're kidding. Debt, joblessness, and tax-breaks for the wealthy aren't going to get him re-elected. If he didn't have the "vote for me or your children will die at the hands of terrorists" stance, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it into office for a second term.
How much of those negative effects on the economy are a result of 9/11 though?

And you can interpret that vacation time any way you want to. Because I recall how one vacation over a major holiday was really just a diversion to get Bush on the ground in Iraq where he could encourage the troops without the SS fearing for his personal safety as much. That's not what I'd call being lax on the job, but rather that opposite.
Now...I'm not too good with history, was that before or after 9/11, becuase the person you quoted was clearly talking about 1/20/01 through 9/11/01...

I was talking about "vacation time" in general and how it is really too vague to actually know what Bush did during those times. The example I gave was much after 9-11. It doesn't change the idea though.

If 9-11 had never happened, Bush's domestic policies would have been much more prominent. Because they would be the only real issues to talk about.

And I still think that if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, someone would have assassinated him after 9-11. The man had no personality. He could not have possibly been a voice of strength for a nation in grieving...which is exactly what Bush was and why his approval ratings went so high.

I was talking about "vacation time" in general and how it is really too vague to actually know what Bush did during those times. The example I gave was much after 9-11. It doesn't change the idea though.

If 9-11 had never happened, Bush's domestic policies would have been much more prominent. Because they would be the only real issues to talk about.

And I still think that if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, someone would have assassinated him after 9-11. The man had no personality. He could not have possibly been a voice of strength for a nation in grieving...which is exactly what Bush was and why his approval ratings went so high.Watch Gore's speeches for Moveon and then tell me he couldn't have been a voice of strength.

I do believe that 9/11, and thus Iraq, has given the Democrats their only possible chance at beating the Republicans. Do you know why? One word. Economy. You see, so many people have remarked on how much better the economy was during the Clinton administration. However, all the hubbub over Iraq has kept people from making the next logical leap in this chain to another single word. Enron. If you think that American companies were actually making as much as they said they did before Enron got busted, then you are insane. Thanks to Clinton's economic policies we had an incredible economy! Bush doesn't! Of course, everyone has forgotten now about exactly why those figures used to be so high....

That said, I think 9/11 helped Bush quite a bit. His approval rating hit over 90% during that period, in case you have forgotten. However, Afghanistan hurt him some, and then Iraq did too. And yet, even with all that, the Democrats managed to pick the one candidate who could lose. Thank you for Kerry! After all, Bush leads the electorate 296-238 according to the latest polls (which have to be taken with a grain of salt) which can be found in a very pretty map at http://www.electoral-vote.com/, and he will most like keep Florida because Kerry simply hasn't paid enough attention to it yet. Bush, however, has actively taken an interest in the plight of storm-ridden Florideans, and they appreciate that. Moreover, his brother is there.

Anyways, without 9/11 Bush would have had far more ammo to attack Kerry with, especially since most of Kerry's campaign has involved either Vietnam or how he could run the operations in Iraq better. I would say that they are both obsessed with war. If we simply left it at economics, the scandals following the exposure of the corrupt big businesses would have supplied more than enough fuel for Bush, and could be combined with a wonderful product of the Democratic party that you know as "out-sourcing." More restrictions on businesses = Democratic party = higher costs for production. And that means that we can't compete on the open market and afford labor costs here at the same time. The amount of money the CEOs make is minute compared to what they pay their workers. Here where I live, workers in the steel mill make at least 60k a year, and they don't even have a high school education in many cases. Thank the Unions, they killed our economy.

Considering that it was the Republican Congress that was pushing through most of the concessions for Enron, and later that it was Bush who was closest to Enron in relationship, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that he could have used cronyism to hurt the Democrats.

Exactly. I actually think the Republican Congress was responsible for weakening the economy at the end of Clinton's Presidentcy. Things were strongest when we had a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Then the Republicans went on a Clinton witchhunt, cost taxpayers millions investigating Whitewater, and finally nailed Clinton on a blowjob.

Now, Back on topic. Dubya's popularity was so low pre-9/11, that I don't see that he would have had a snowball's chance of being re-elected. Furthermore, his unpopularity would have probably caused the Republican party to lose several Congressional seats as well.

Soooooooooooooooo many things would be better if 9/11 never happened (like if the intelligence community had translated the Al Qaida communication that 9/11 was "zero hour" in time, or had taken up Clinton's terrorist strategy instead of discarding the whole plan.)

Ah well. Kerry 2004!

Exactly. I actually think the Republican Congress was responsible for weakening the economy at the end of Clinton's Presidentcy. Things were strongest when we had a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Then the Republicans went on a Clinton witchhunt, cost taxpayers millions investigating Whitewater, and finally nailed Clinton on a blowjob.

The jobs created in Nov 1996 to Nov 2000 were double in number compared to those 1992-1996. (109205, 120826, and 132317).

bush would most likely not be re-elected.... i don't think kerry would be the dem's choice either