Does Al Gore run again in 2004 and win the US Presidency that year without 9/11?

[Sylvanus]

Does Al Gore run again in 2004 and win the US Presidency that year without 9/11? Before 9/11, there was still widespread anger among Democrats and the feeling that Al Gore was robbed of the US Presidency in 2000 and thus deserves a second chance--as well as the feeling that Bush was illegitimate and a bumbling buffoon. However, after 9/11, Bush's approval ratings went up into the stratosphere and thus running again in 2004 suddenly became considerably riskier for Al Gore since if he would have lost to Bush again, he would have been viewed as a two-time loser rather than as the guy who had the US Presidency stolen from him.

In a 2013 interview with Al Gore, here is what was said about this topic:

Al Gore on His Golden Years and Why He Thinks Obama Has Failed on Climate Change -- New York Magazine - Nymag

The almost president has become the ultimate Davos Man, a moral entrepreneur and richer than Mitt Romney.

nymag.com

After Gore’s defeat in 2000, he thought hard about resuming his campaign for the presidency. He considered Bush a coward—unable to say no to the stronger personalities around him. “I thought very seriously about running again,” he tells me. “It’s hard for a lot of people to remember now what it was like just prior to September 11. Bush and Cheney were in trouble.” And Gore’s stature had only risen—he was the anti-Bush, curious and intelligent. Then came the attacks on the Towers, and everything changed. Politically, Bush was untouchable, and Gore’s view of his role in the American firmament made it imperative that he give Bush his full backing. “George W. Bush is my president,” Gore said in a speech, “and I will follow him, as will we all, in this time of crisis.”

But in another sense, 9/11 freed Gore to move past politics. Gore’s heart was not in a rematch. “I don’t think he wanted to run,” says Eskew. “There was not a systematic series of conversations about running. As a friend, I thought losing again would’ve been really devastating.”

So, what do you think--does Al Gore run again in 2004 without 9/11 and win the US Presidency that year in such a scenario? Also, if so, just how exactly does US history subsequently unfold in this scenario?

 

[GBW]

So, what do you think--does Al Gore run again in 2004 without 9/11 and win the US Presidency that year in such a scenario? Also, if so, just how exactly does US history subsequently unfold in this scenario?

Think about how W was seen in the waning years of his second term as the 9/11 immunity wore off, then add 50% more of it. That's probably what he'd be facing in a reelection year in 2004 without 9/11, whether it just didn't happen or it got busted open and the hijackers arrested before it could. He was already under criticism pre-9/11 for his administration's handling of the Hainan Island Incident in April 2001, and post-9/11 he was given a lot of leeway for his foreign policy missteps due to the period of sympathy he ultimately used up with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 OTL. I don't see him getting the ability to invade Iraq without 9/11, though he might try to justify it on much less sympathetic ears, both foreign and domestic.

In this event, I can see Gore running again. Without 9/11, the minutiae of the controversy around the 2000 election would be studied a lot more and all of W's missteps would exacerbate it. Gore's heart not being in it is possibly hindsight colored by 9/11 and its aftermath. In this ATL, Gore might be more willing to have a rematch with W and could quite possibly win. One of the big changes in this TL would be that Karl Rove, who was W's Senior Adviser during his first term, wouldn't get a chance to then become his Deputy Chief of Staff and have more opportunity to spread his strategy of demonizing W's political opponents. This might lead to a less toxic political atmosphere in this TL.