Am I the only one who thinks Bush's reelection odds are better than 50/50?

[dolstein]

I hate to rain on everybody's parade, but I'd like to point out that DU'ers have been predicting the downfall of George W. Bush since before he was even inaugurated. If I had a nickel for every post that said something like "Bush is Finished" or "Wow, this is worse than Watergate" or "Looks like the Worm as Finally Turned", I'd be rich enough to get a sizable chunk of the Bush tax cut.

I have to point out a few facts that many people around here fail to acknowledge:

1. While Bush's popularity has dropped substantially, his support among Republicans remains solid.
2. Every incumbent president that has lost in recent years has faced a primary challenge. Bush is running unopposed.
3. Bush will have a huge financial advantage over the eventual Democratic nominee.
4. Only one Democratic presidential candidate in the last fifty years has received substantially more than 50% of the popular vote.
5. The jobless recovery won't last forever -- sooner or later unemployment is bound to go down.
6. Never understimate Bush's survival instincts. Remember, he backed steel tarrifs when he thought it would help his reelection chances. I wouldn't put it past him to strike a deal with the UN over Iraq if he felt he needed to.
7. There are still plenty of Bush fans in the media.

I still think that even under the best of circumstances, the Democrats would be lucky to pull out a narrow victory in 2004. Any talk of a landslide is pure wishful thinking in my opinion. And it's entirely possible that Bush could still win big.

[ulysses]

1. *I'd* like to point out

but I'd like to point out that DU'ers have been predicting the downfall of George W. Bush since before he was even inaugurated.

that there *were* no DUers before Bush was inaugurated.

[qanda]

2. I hope you're wrong,

Because if he wins, I think I may have to find a new country to call home.

[mlawson]

3. We simply do not know.

It's just too early, and LOTS of stuff can happen in 11 months. As I have said, many times, it will come down to the 15-20% in the center, who are not political, but who vote for whom they LIKE best.

Now, I admit that PlumeGate is extremely encouraging. But we still need to wait and see.

[elperromagico]

4. You should know from 2000

... that it isn't necessary to win a majority to win the election. Same thing applies for '92 and '96.

What matters is which states are won. Bush finally gained Florida by a miniscule margin. According to my calculations, if the Democratic candidate in '04 can maintain the Gore states from 2000, he/she will already have 259 electoral votes. Not enough to win, but remember that Bush had very narrow victories in Ohio (won by Clinton in '92 and '96) and Florida (won by Clinton in '96). Gaining either of those states in '04 would give the White House to the Democrats.

By winning Gore's 19 states and reclaiming some of the swing states won by Clinton in '92 and '96, it would be quite easy for the Dem candidate to win handily in the Electoral College, even while gaining only a small majority in the popular vote.

[dolstein]

10. And you should know from 2000

that Gore won a lot of close states in 2000 -- far more close states than Bush did. I can't understand why everyone assumes that all the blue states are going to stay blue in 2000. After all, West Virginia, long considered to be a safe Democratic state, went Republican in 2000, and not by a razor thin margin either. We could be in for some surprises in 2004. Everyone seams to be operating under the assumption that 2000 was a worst case scenario for the Democrats, even those it was in many respects a best case scenario. Voters had a far higher opinion of the Democratic Party in 2000 than they do now. Bush made a lot of strategic blunders down the stretch. And that DUI revelation was perfectly timed.

[The Magistrate]

5. You Are A Sound Commentator, Mr. Dolstein

This thing remains, and will remain, a game of inches. It seems to me that, under all the sturm und drang, very little has changed from the last election. The people of the country are divided into roughly equal portions, with our's perhaps slightly larger, but some of the foe's lesser numbers better placed for electoral effect.

In my view, the contest will go to the side which mobilizes the anger of its adherents best. There are very few people who have not made up their hearts, if not yet perhaps their minds. The key will be to rouse the hearts of those among these in agreement with us, and attach them to our cause. This will require a passionate partisanship, and an evident willingness to fight and fight hard, with no quarter asked or given. It is emotion must be appealed to, not thought, to rouse the "undecided" this time around.

[TruthIsAll]

62. With all due respect, Sir, these are the facts...

Dolstein is totally off base. He has always been thus.

Bush won by a 5-4 Scotus vote. That's it.

Nader took away 1 million net Gore votes. Bush stole Florida by stealing at least 100,000 votes. It is fair to surmise that Bush also stole votes in NH, TN, etc..

Officially, Gore won by 537,000 votes. If not for the above Bush chicanery, Gore would have won by at least 2 million votes, or 2%. And that's with the media fully stacked against him. And I am not even including the Clinton backlash which hurt Gore immensely. Not to mention the poorly managed Gore campaign.


BUT NOW, BUSH HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS A COMPLETE FAILURE. NO ONE IN 2000 COULD HAVE IMAGINED THE DESTUCTION AND CHAOS HE HAS CAUSED AT HOME AND ABROAD. THEY KNOW IT NOW. REPUBLICANS ARE DESERTING HIM IN DROVES, AS ARE THE MILITARY.

There is a growing democratic majority. They have won the last 3 presidential elections. The Senate was stolen from them in 2002.
There is only one way they will lose in 2004 - if Bush and Diebold pull it off WITH MASSIVE ELECTION VOTING MACHINE FRAUD. In a fair election, the Dem cannot lose. They will win with a minimum of 53%-47% spread.

Bush is far less popular that the media propaganda machine has portrayed him - even now, his true ratings are probably in the mid forties.

Witness what has taken place over the last few weeks. He cannot recover from the traitorous Plame outting. This single event will serve as the catalyst to expose all his scandals to public view, starting with the Bush/Cheney/Enron/PNAC/Saudi connections to 9/11 and the coverup.

Wait until the lies justifying the Iraq war (Saddam/Al Qaeda, no WMD) are fully understood by the American people. This awakening of the masses is taking hold more and more every day.

Finally, I question whether Bush will even run. I predict, based on the seriousness and ramifications of the Plame affair, that he will resign and/or be impeached within the next 6-8 months.

[StopThief]

65. Not to be too cute, but. . . .

Pangloss had nothing on you.

[Julien Sorel]

66. LOL

My post of the night. :thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

70. Mr. Dolstein, Sir

Has from my first arrival in this forum impressed me as a fellow with a good understanding of how people vote and why they vote as they do.

They great problem facing the left in this country is that there is a large bloc of people who, although they would be better served by voting for progressive left candidates, vote instead for reactionary right candidates. Saying they do so because they are sheep, or stupid, will not solve the difficulty: understanding them is what is required. Only if that is done can they be effectively appealed to.

The key to a large proportion of them, in my view, is that they feel a thrill of self-less virtue in voting as they do, precisely because their vote is cast against their own best material interests. They might well be better off if they voted for a Democrat, but they put patriotism, or their religion, above such base concerns, and vote for a Republican who appeals to these symbols.

That is one reason it seems to me this current scandal involving exposure of a C.I.A. agent is in fact a most promising thing. To see those who they voted for in the interests of their country, acting directly against their country for the pettiest of political motives, is bound to offend some number of these people, for they do expect that those they vote for will display the same virtuous self-denial they themselves practice in voting thus.

[Jack Rabbit]

89. Excellent post

You lay the problem for the Left down very nicely.

Saying they do so because they are sheep, or stupid, will not solve the difficulty: understanding them is what is required. Only if that is done can they be effectively appealed to.

One might be disappointed in the expression of the popular will from time to time, but to resort to such cynicism as to call the people sheep is to betray an anti-democratic bias.

[elperromagico]

6. I do realize, however...

... that it is very unlikely that a Democrat will win in a landslide in '04. The last two Democrats to win in a landslide, FDR and LBJ, benefitted from poorly-run opposition campaigns (Alf Landon's anti-New Deal position inevitably made him sound like he wanted to continue the Depression; Barry Goldwater's extreme conservativism pushed many voters away).

I have often said (privately, I'm afraid) that the surest sign of Bush's defeat would be a strong primary challenge. But the Republicans are united solidly behind Bush. That's one of our disadvantages right now; we're divided ten ways between ten candidates. The sooner the field is cleared, the better. We need a single candidate we can all get behind, and we need a single candidate the undecideds find palatable.

It's a tall order, but I think it can be done.

[papau]

7. the 24/7/365 positive media for Bush will continue - today's unusual

and will not last because the corporate media owners will pull back on the chains of any that do continue - so this will play out, and we will be pack to a GOP media AND an economy putting jobs on at 100,000 per month and unemployment of 5.5% and GNP growth of 3.5% in the 3rd qtr of 04.

So it will not be easy - our Dem better have a great message and great marketing ability and get folks thinking about the birth tax Bush is increasing so that the rich can have a tax break, the right wing social actions Bush has taken, the deaths caused by the Bush lies, and most important - the lack of planning for Iraq demonstrated by the result - and how that is proof of the Bush team incompetence.

And if we do have such a Dem running, forget about the $250 m Bush next eqq plus hidden corporate spending - the race will be close and the Dem will have an even shot at winning - indeed if all the votes are counted and BBV electronic "upsets" are nipped in the bud, the Dem will win!

:-)

[FloridaPat]

8. As far as I', concered there is no point in caring until Bush gets

back from his vacation next year. He's going to pull something. The public are as wishy washy as it gets. A "terrorist" attack here, a war there - the public would follow anyone - and they have. That's why his rating are so high. Plus, the Democrats have to find a backbone. Should Lieberman or Gephart get the nomination, all we're going to hear about is the economy and not a thing about the crimes against the citizens of the US and the world. Worse comes to worse, the idiot can stage a terrorist attack and claim you shouldn't changed presidents in the middle of an endless war and just cancel the election. There is also the posibility that the election machines are already fixed and so is the election.

[Beetwasher]

9. Ha! The question is: Has he gained any NEW supporters?

Answer: Hell no! Actually, I'd say he's lost quite a few.

He lost the popular vote and arguably the electoral vote in 2000. What makes YOU think he turned that around? If he didn't, he loses, unless he cheats again.

[dolstein]

15. What makes you think he needs new supporters?

First, Ralph Nader could always run again. And if not Ralph, then some other Green candidate. The dilemma for the Democrats is to nominate someone who is acceptable to moderates without alienating the ultraliberals. That's no easy task. It wasn't easy in 2000 and, despite all that's happened since then, it won't be easy in 2004.

Second, the electoral map is weighted more heavily in Bush's favor than it was in 2000. I believe the red states have gained as many as seven electoral votes.

[Beetwasher]

47. Didn't say it would be easy

But Gore won in 2000, even w/ Nader, so Bush would need new supporters to win because no one who voted for Gore is going to vote for Bush. He's lost votes, not gained, IMO. Do you really think he's gained any votes? You think the 7 scattered Red electoral votes would put him over? I'd like to see that math. He will have to cheat again in order to win,

[dolstein]

95. "No one who voted for Gore is going to vote for Bush"

Excuse me? First, I think you're deluding yourself of you think no one who voted for Gore is going to vote for Bush. Many people who voted for Gore are far more moderate and far less partisan than the people who populate DU. Many of these people do not believe the 2000 election was stolen. Many of these people do not hate George Bush. Many of these people had to be convinced to vote for Gore in 2000 and will have to be persuaded to vote Democratic against in 2004.

But even if your statement is correct, what makes you think they'd vote for just anyone the Democrats nominate? Maybe they'll stay home. Maybe they'll vote for a third party candidate.

There seems to be this attitude among DU'ers that anyone the Democrats nominate is automatically going to start with Gore's 49 million votes. But even Gore didn't start with 49 million votes. It took an incredible amount of effort to get those votes. And the fact is, Gore had a far more impressive resume and far more moderate reputation than most of the Democrats who are now seeking the nomination. And, despite the obvious flaws in his record, George W. Bush was a much less formidable candidate in 2000 than he is now.

[TruthIsAll]

96. Last 3 elections, Dems 52.6% ; Rep 47.4%; Gore 51 million votes.

The Dems received 13.7 million more votes then the Repukes in the last 3 elections. And that's conservative. Because the Repukes cheat. You all know they did. And they will again. You all know they will.

Because Bush, this very unpopular War pResident, is

(T)he
(O)nly
(A)WOL
(S)ubversive
(T)raitor

running for reSelection....

Here are the 3 year totals. I am ignoring third party candidates. Gore would have 2/3 of the three million who voted for Nader.

State Total Dem Total Rep
AL 2,040,999 44.78% 2,516,985 55.22%
AL 223,806 37.65% 370,632 62.35%
AZ 1,840,803 48.82% 1,929,864 51.18%
AK 1,393,953 55.22% 1,130,587 44.78%
CA 15,622,463 57.37% 11,610,566 42.63%
CO 2,038,762 48.81% 2,137,888 51.19%
CT 2,211,580 57.71% 1,620,464 42.29%
DE 446,331 56.87% 338,507 43.13%
FL 7,518,453 50.70% 7,312,217 49.30%
GA 3,172,410 47.59% 3,493,944 52.41%
HI 589,608 60.27% 388,610 39.73%
ID 441,195 35.66% 795,988 64.34%
IL 7,341,852 57.93% 5,331,447 42.07%
IN 2,625,068 44.83% 3,230,293 55.17%
IA 1,224,870 51.81% 1,139,264 48.19%
KS 789,710 42.41% 1,072,283 57.59%
KY 1,304,027 46.68% 1,489,698 53.32%
LA 1,608,315 49.19% 1,661,257 50.81%
ME 909,588 57.08% 683,831 42.92%
MD 3,056,743 57.81% 2,231,058 42.19%
MA 4,468,066 65.27% 2,377,417 34.73%
MI 5,953,153 54.74% 4,921,891 45.26%
MN 3,285,583 55.74% 2,609,360 44.26%
MS 1,189,877 44.31% 1,495,184 55.69%
MO 3,189,690 52.46% 2,890,767 47.54%
MT 458,802 44.89% 563,342 55.11%
NE 680,503 37.52% 1,133,090 62.48%
NV 672,514 49.86% 676,178 50.14%
NH 720,648 51.72% 672,783 48.28%
NJ 4,824,988 56.46% 3,721,079 43.54%
NM 800,615 53.00% 710,032 47.00%
NY 11,065,338 62.60% 6,611,221 37.40%
NC 3,470,857 46.60% 3,977,479 53.40%
ND 300,812 40.85% 435,603 59.15%
OH 6,269,369 50.78% 6,077,546 49.22%
OK 1,435,444 42.78% 1,919,576 57.22%
OR 1,666,881 53.57% 1,444,786 46.43%
PA 6,931,372 54.16% 5,866,536 45.84%
RI 705,834 65.57% 370,557 34.43%
SC 1,541,009 44.41% 1,928,786 55.59%
SD 382,987 44.49% 477,926 55.51%
TN 2,820,840 50.51% 2,764,058 49.49%
TX 7,171,296 44.27% 9,027,708 55.73%
UT 606,679 33.63% 1,197,122 66.37%
VT 421,014 59.39% 287,940 40.61%
VA 3,326,930 47.29% 3,707,981 52.71%
WA 3,140,334 55.88% 2,479,841 44.12%
WV 950,892 53.99% 810,355 46.01%
WI 3,355,912 52.69% 3,013,306 47.31%
WY 206,538 38.31% 332,641 61.69%
DC 364,542 90.39% 38,771 9.61%

Totals 138,779,855 52.61% 125,026,245 47.39%

[charlie]

97. In other discussion forums I participate in...

Right after 911 there were suddenly a dismaying rash of posts from people I knew to be liberals that went like:

"Thank God George Bush and not Al Gore is President"

AIEEEEEEEAAAAAA!!! Assholes. They're lucky I didn't have a machinegun.

Saw a lot of the same horseshit on liberal blogs too.

The bulk of them have soured on Dubya since. It only took 2 fucking years of bozoboy turning the US into hell on earth, but they've come around. Dolstein's right, you can't assume a Gore voter will find just any Democrat attractive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Solid, Straight Forward Analysis...

I'll bet * is a 3-1 favorite in Vegas....

I'd like to see the site where you can buy candidate futures....


The distressing thing is the damage * and his gang are doing to the nation....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Dems in Vegas:

Wesley Clark
2/1
Howard Dean
3/1
John Kerry
6/1
Joe Lieberman
8/1
Hillary Clinton
10/1
Dick Gephardt
10/1
Field
10/1
John Edwards
15/1
Bob Graham
25/1
Dennis Kucinich
30/1
Carol Moseley Braun
40/1
Al Sharpton
50/

[Blitz]

43. Here are the up to date odds on the Presidential race

2004 PRESIDENTIAL ODDS

Wednesday, October 1, 2003

By DAVID SCOTT
Senior Analyst
Americasline.com

ODDS TO BE ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2004

Name Party Title Odds
George W. Bush (R) President 4/5
Howard Dean (D) Former Vermont Governor 5/1
John Kerry (D) Massachusetts Senator 6/1
Dick Gephardt (D) Missouri Congressman 12/1
Wesley Clark (D) Retired General 12/1
Joe Lieberman (D) Connecticut Senator 15/1
John Edwards (D) North Carolina Senator 40/1
Bob Graham (D) Florida Senator 40/1
Carol Moseley-Braun (D) Former Illinois Senator 250/1
Dennis Kucinich (D) Ohio Congressman 250/1
Ralph Nader (G) Consumer advocate 500/1
Al Sharpton (D) Civil rights activist 1000/1


At 4/5 Bush is a little better than even money - a slight (1.25 to 1) favorite.
http://www.americasline.com/pres.html

As a bonus, here are the California recall odds as of September 13, 2003. Obviously, quite a bit has happened since then:

ODDS TO BE ELECTED GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

Saturday, September 13, 2003

By DAVID SCOTT
Senior Analyst
Americasline.com


Will Governor Davis be recalled? Odds
Yes -400
No +300

Candidate Party/Profession Odds
Cruz Bustamante (D) Lt. Governor 4/5
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) Actor Even
Tom McClintock (R) State Senator 20/1
Arianna Huffington Commentator 30/1
Peter Camelo (G) Investment Counselor 100/1
Mary Carey (I) Adult video performer 500/1
Larry Flynt (D) Publisher 500/1
Gary Coleman (I) Actor 500/1
FIELD (all others) 1000/1

http://www.americasline.com/governor.html

Here is another site with odds on the Democratic primary as of 9/16/03:

http://bodog.com/sports-betting/non-sports-events.jsp

Clark, who is currently the favorite at 2-1 was 8-1 a week after he announced.

http://bodog.com/press-releases/2003/0916-betting-on-politics.jsp

Oh well, another missed gambling opportunity.

[rock]

12. Sure, fully 33% of the ones who vote

Not bad for a super-maniacal frat boy who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. On the other hand, 66% want his ass gone!

[Gman]

13. Just like a the house in a casino has the advantage

so does the incumbent in an election.

[Rowdyboy]

14. I'd give Bush odds of 55-45...

We're facing an uphill fight with the best candidate. They control the presidency. With that, they can sway the public and easily manipulate the media. Anyone who thinks this is gonna be a cakewalk hasn't lived through enough losing election nights. :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

16. Bush is beatable in 2004

provided all the votes are counted and there are no shennanigans involving voting machines, and that eligible voters are not kept from voting on some pretext such as what happened in Florida in 2000.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. With the war and the leaker story

I think Bush is toast.

[union_maid]

18. Anything's possible

Which is one reason I'm backing Clark. I think he could make lunchmeat out of Bush. However, I know nothing is for certain. But keep in mind that Bush was looking like a one termer before 911. He wasn't doing all that well. He and the rest of his regime used 911 like Arnold uses women and it definitely worked for a while. All smoke and mirrors and no substance except lies takes its toll though.

I'm even starting to form a whole new conspiracy theory. I think that Bushco has done so much damage to this country that even some very powerful forces would like to see him go and that might be why some of these stories are getting legs at last. Business, for instance, isn't Democrat or Republican. It's just business. That's why they donate to both parties. Decimating the middle class might be more than they bargained for. Putting the country in the most precarious position it's been with regard to national security since we all recognized MAD made full out wars obsolete might also be a negative to some. All the top tier Democrats are basically moderates who want prosperity for the country. They might not look so bad to some very powerful interests in the world today.

[CMT]

19. I'd say you are probably correct

That Bush could still win big in 2004, at this time in 1983 Reagan had a 48% approval rating and went on to win by a landslide in '84--but Bush is not Reagan. Reagan had a lot of good will--there is still a partisan divide especially among Democrats from 2000. He also has something that RR didn't have in '84--a messy and very dangerous situation in Iraq. But yes, you are correct in that an incumbent president is usually hard to defeat--but our odds certainly are better than they were six months ago.

[FlemingsGhost]

20. Even if the fight is fixed, at least give the fans a show.

From here on in, I suspect Bush will poll at--or just below--50% in order for him "squeak out another narrow victory."

Methinks the CIA has other ideas, though.

[jiacinto]

21. I agree with you completely

I could very well see Bush winning in a landslide next year.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Please Elaborate.......

A landslide of Nixonian or Reaganite proportions....

The economy would have to take off....


Iraq would have to be totally pacified.....


And we'd have to nominate a totally unacceptable candidate...

I don't see a landslide for either side....

[jiacinto]

26. Two things

1. Money
2. The Media

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I'd Like To See Some Data To Support That View....

The research suggests that most folks vote retrospectively....

If they think the incumbent did a good job they vote to retain him.... If they think he did a lousy job they vote to fire him....

This election will be a referendum on*; his stewardship of the economy and our foreign policy....

[jiacinto]

34. Data?

Easy look at the money stats. Bush has and will have much more money than any of the Democratic candidates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Elections Turn On Objective Issues

Peace and Prosperity

the unemployment rate...

the health of the stock market

is personal income rising.....

are Americans in harms away....

Or as Reagan said "are you better off today than you were four years ago"

Those are the issues that this election and all elections turn on....

[Redneck Socialist]

59. You're right on

The election is going to hinge on two things: The economy and the war. IF both are doing/going badly in Nov. bush loses, end of story. If voters are happy with the economy and Iraq isn't too messy bush wins. If one is bad the other good, we are right back to fifty fifty.

[Julien Sorel]

36. Nixon won in '72 when Vietnam was still simmering.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. You're Right

but Nixon didn't start the Viet Nam War....



And some folks would argue that we did have an "unacceptable candidate"

[Redneck Socialist]

60. and he had a "secret plan" to end the war.

Acid, Abortion, Amnesty was the tag they stuck on Mcgovern. The old "too liberal" bugaboo still has some milage left.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. The War in 1972

The war was winding down. In October, Dr. Kissinger returned from Paris with what appeared to be a peace deal; shortly after the election, Nixon nixed it. He bombed Hanoi for Christmas and then signed a treaty in early February 1973 that was not appreciably different from the one Kissinger brought home in October.

In any case, the war was not a big issue in the fall campaign. McGovern had built his reputation on his opposition to the war; while it would be unfair to call him a one issue candidate, it was his strongest issue. In effect, Nixon pulled that out from under him.

I don't believe any Democrat would have beaten Nixon in 1972. In addition to the wear winding down, the economy was swinging up from a recession. Although many blame McGovern's liberalism for his defeat, that probably had less to do with it than his uninspiring persona. Imagine Dukakis on seditatives.

[ACLYouth]

100. True...

But he deceived America by convincing them that he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War, which is how he got many moderate Democrats and some of the anti-war folk to vote for him...

[Flying_Pig]

44. Oh, now we know you're right Dolstein, Carlos has chimed in with

his usual negative.:eyes:

Got news for you boys. Take it from someone who's been involved in politics and the media for over 35 years, ...Bush is a goner, no matter what. Now go back to hyping your DLC/Centrist candidates..., while the rest of us prepare to do what is needed to win.

[jiacinto]

53. Why the self-righteouss and smug attitude?

And I am not part of the DLC. But I do think you are underestimating Bush.

Get off your self-righteous attitude.

[Forkboy]

61. Get off your self-righteous attitude.

bookmarking this in the certainty I'll have the chance to lob it back at you Carlos.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. no offense dolstein but cut us a break?

isn't the davis debacle enough to deal with right now?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. The Confluence Of Events Calls For A Little Marx....

"....All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and relations with his kind."

If there was a greater polemicist than Marx I haven't read him...

[incapsulated]

25. 50-50, but not "better than"

At this point it's a toss-up. I wasn't thinking that he was beatable until the last few months. The worm has turned.

However. Anything can happen. Our eventual nominee, whoever that is, might be *gasp* unelectable. There might be, god forbid, another terrorist attack, which the rethugs would take advantage of for Bush. Etc.

He is beatable. For now.

[bookman]

27. I agree with your bottom line

The election of a Dem will be a difficult task. It will take much work and resources. There will be a whole lot of "dirty tricks". Expect another Willie Horton type ad. Dems need to narrow the field quickly and get behind the nominiee. I think the nominee will be less liberal than many here think.

Right now I respect them all, but I think it's going to be Dean, Clark, or Kerry. If it's Lieberman we're in big trouble.

All, IMHO.

[DemNoir]

28. Who cares what you think his odds are?

The election is over a year away, no one can possibly know what the situation will be then.

[Uzybone]

29. Huh?

did Bush senior have a primary challenge? Did Carter have a challenger in 1980? I wasnt aware that imcumbent presidents had thier own party run a primary against them.

Apart from that you have some good points. Disregarding the total pessimism in your post, Bush CANNOT win big in 2004, and I see him losing by an embarrassing margin next year.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Pat Buchanan Challenged Papa Bush And Ted Kennedy Challenged

Jimmy Carter

NT

[Uzybone]

32. Thanks for the info.....

no wonder they lost. What better vote of confidence is there than having your party run candidates to replace you ala Cruz Bustamante.

[Josh]

99. And Ronald Reagan challenged Ford in '76

Every presidential candidate in the last 50 that has lost a re-election bid had a primary challenge. No exception.

And the reverse is obviously the same:

Eisenhower, 56 - no challenge
Nixon, 72 - no challenge
Reagan, 84 - no challenge
Clinton, 96 - no challenge

[leesa]

30. He will definitely NOT be elected in a fair election.

[Cocoa]

35. Bush has a lot of advantages

Big ones. Money and incumbency.

I think we're getting excited now because there has been something of a breakthrough. A lot of people are starting to see how sucky Bush is, and once you see that it puts everything in a new light.

I think if he is to reverse his downward trend, he's going to have to actually do something real that improves the country in a real way, instead of just saying shit. I don't see any sign that he's capable of accomplishing anything real. Has he done that ever? In other words, I think he's going to keep on sucking.

[Sterling]

40. It's for the Dems to lose, a ham sandwich could beat Bush

The greatest threat to Dem chances in 04 is the possibility they could nominate someone with positions too similiar to Bush on important issues like perma war.

People already want a change, dems must offer that change in a meaningful way or joe sixpack will stick with the devil they know.

[Tatiana]

41. I think the majority of Americans will not vote for Bush.

They didn't in the last election and they have even less reason to vote for him now. Almost 70% of Americans want a special prosecutor appointed to investigate his administration. Over 50% think he's doing a lousy job with the economy. The man gets a failing grade on every issue that is important to American voters.

My question is, will the votes of the people dissatisfied with Bush be counted? That's our problem, as I see it.

[West Coast Democrat]

42. Bush* Will Have The Same Trouble He Did in 2000....

in the same states where he had the trouble before. I don't see that he's won over many new voters in swing states, yet at the same time he's angered a lot in his base (MILITARY FAMILIES).

I put his chances at about 50-50 right now, which is a lot worse than I would have put his chances several months ago.

[catforclark2004]

45. If Bush Wins...I'm moving to Canada

And that is why I so strongly favor Wes Clark for President



Those who experience WAR work for PEACE

[ozone_man]

46. Bush will lose 45 to 55, probably worse.

The main reason is that you're wrong on number 5.

"5. The jobless recovery won't last forever -- sooner or later unemployment is bound to go down."

It's not bound to go down, instead it's going to get much worse by election '04. In a nutshell, we have to go through a purging cycle of personal debt and inflated prices in real estate and the stock market, before we will see a recovery. We amy be entering a soft deflationary depression only just beginning. Here are some of the factors that will contribute to keeping the economy down for 3-5 years:

- Consumer credit card debt is probably at an all time high.
- Consumer mortgage debt is very high, if not an all time high.
- Mortgage rates will be going up from here (they can't go negative)
- Higher mortgage rate will kill refinance induced consumer spending.
- Real estate foreclosures and personal bankruptcies are increasing.
- Consumer can no longer prop up the economy (2/3 of GDP is consumer).
- Federal deficit is at an extreme, we have to pay interest on it now.
- Unemployment is at an extreme. Unemployment insurance runs out.
- U.S. has lost 3,000,000 jobs since Bush took office.
- U.S. is steadily losing manufacturing jobs.
- The real estate market is in a bubble (will soon go down from here).
- The stock market is still in a bubble (will soon go down from here).
- Tax cuts have not worked.
- The Iraq war quagmire is costing money that could be creating jobs.

Bush will be beaten by any of the top five candidates in what may be a landslide. He will most likely go down as the Hoover of the 21st century (or the Hitler of the 21st century). Remember "it's the economy stupid". (Not directed at you BTW)

On edit: Sorry to be so depressing. The good side (and this is where I plug for my candidate) is that we will be needing a 21st century equivalent of FDR to correct the damage done by Bush. I think that person could be Governor Dean, who as governor of VT for a decade, has the fiscal management skills (fiscal conservative), and knowledge of health care (1st hand), understanding of social problems (social liberal), and leadership qualities to heal this country.

[Rowdyboy]

49. In the 20th century, Democrats only scored 55% or better

in 1932 (Roosevelt 57.4%), 1936 (60.8%), and 1964 (61.1). Two occurred during the Great Depression and one occurred just after JFK was assassinated. Democrats don't get 55% of the vote, just doesn't work that way.

[ozone_man]

56. Nope FDR in 1940 got 55% to Wilkie 45%.

Not that it really matters, because Bush is going down big time like 1932.

The site I checked only had totals, not percentages. I guess you weren't counting FDR's 3rd and 4th terms. Maybe there were some other small candidates that they didn't include in this tally, that might explain our different percentages.

FDR
1932 59.2%
1936 62.5%
1940 55%
1944 53.8%

Clinton did pretty well in 1996. If Perot was not in and his vote was split, I think Clinton/Dole would have been 55/45.

In any case, the numbers only are directly comparable in a head to head contest.

So, my take is that pretty much any ratio can be had including 55/45, which FDR did in 1940.

http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/fdroosevelt.html

[dpbrown]

48. I think you're wrong

He got 50 million votes last time, and lost.

Since then he's pissed off enough of the Libertarians and conservative Democrats and Republicans with consciences that he won't see 50 million votes again.

Gore got closer to 51 million votes, and 80 million voters sat the election out.

The Democrat will get all the Democratic votes. With the right candidate, people will come out of the woodwork to flock back to a renewed Democratic Party. Bush won't stand a chance, and he knows it.

That's why the most important thing is heading off the election stealing moves, black box voting, and the other crap that the Republicans are using to rig the next election.

The only way it'll be close enough to rig is if we nominate a "politics as usual" candidate who motivates the Gore voters to stay home.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[ursacorwin]

51. in a free, fair and democratic society

with a free, critical media: bush would lose, 30/70

in a free, fair propagandic society bush would lose, 40/60

in a free society bush would barely lose, 48/52

in the society we have, where votes are not counted or miscounted in critical areas that are 'primed' to be seen as 'on the verge' and where opposition is stiffled, and there is no fairness in funding or airtime, bush may 'win.'

whatever that would mean.

[fujiyama]

50. I honestly am worried a bit about Dean..

Now I don't have a problem with issues, and he's usually right on them. I also appreciate his new aproach to fundraising and the enthusiasm he has brought to the campaign.

All that said, sometimes, I wonder if he comes off somewhat arrogant and "mean" (the media'll smear him like they did to Gore)...I think he also has a tendancy to lose his cool sometimes.

Then there's this whole bitter primary with Lieberman bashing Dean on Israel and national security. I'm worried that these attacks are already having a weakening effect. Granted these are probably neglible, but I'm sick of the cheap shots taken by all the candidates against each other.

Then there's the problem with the democratic establishment and the DLC. I'm worried that they will actually not give him the same support they would give to a "less liberal candidate" (Dean is not very far left and I don't see huge idealogocal differences between the
front runners).

The same thing applies to Lieberman but almost in reverse. He brings little enthusiam and I'm afraid he couldn't bring out the base, which would likewise lead us nowhere.

[cliss]

52. The incumbent president

always has an advantage over any opponent. How many Republican presidents have been ousted after their first term, besides Daddy Bush? And if they were, what were the circumstances?

Any historians here?

[LearnedHand]

54. Ford

Smeared with the Watergate thing.

[RummyTheDummy]

55. You're way off on number two....

Poppy Bush lost in 1992 and had no primary opponent. Before that, you'd have to go back 12 more years to Carter who had Teddy and lost the general election.
Im not sure there's enough evidence there to make your point. I don't believe he will have a huge financial advantage either. That tends to even itself out thanks to matching funds and party contributions. I also think you assume the Repukes have a statistical advantage in registered voters and I don't think that's accurate either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Pat Buchanan Challenged Papa Bush

in 1992 for the Republican nomination and his "Culture War" speech contributed to Papa Bush's defeat in the Fall...

[kentuck]

57. He couldn't get 50% the last time???

What great things has he accomplished to improve his numbers from then?

[burythehatchet]

58. YES

[Yupster]

63. Too soon to tell

I could see him winning a 1984 landslide, winning or losing a 1888 type election, or losing reelection like a 1980 election.

Just can't tell what Iraq and the economy will look like in a year.

However, I don't think the Democratic nominee will make much difference. People will either reelect Bush or they won't.

[TruthIsAll]

64. Iraq is a proven failure. The economy is a proven failure.

Nothing can erase the misery of the Bush years. The damage has been done. Any improvement will be due to Democratic initiatives with the support of disgusted and disillusioned Repubs who are now about to abandon Bush. The Plame affair is worse than Watergate. Even Repub Chairman Gillespie said so. The ramifications of this scandal are far reaching and unknowable. CIA sources and methods have been and will be compromised.

Bush can take the credit for nothing other than misery, death and worldwide humiliation of the US. The man is hated by his own intel and military. Hewill become even more hated as the passage of time exposes the full extent of his atrocities.

[Yupster]

67. So I guess

you don't think it's too soon to tell?

[farmboxer]

68. I Am Worried About The Republican Manufactured And

programmed voting machines! Republicans are so crooked they will do anything to win! Remember the coup in 2000?!

[osaMABUSh]

69. It is over for *

Since 2000 and up till a month ago I would have agreed with you. It seemed nothing was affecting his re-elect numbers.

It's all changed now we have the big MO and all the * defenders I know have disappeared.

If Clark gets the nomination * loses in a landside. If it's Kerry or Dean we win a close one.

[thebigidea]

72. this looks like a job for... LIEBERMAN!

He's the ONLY one who can stop Bush!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. You're Kidding.......

Aren't you....

Really....

C'mon.....

[thebigidea]

75. He's got CHARISMA. He can UNITE US...

swing voters love him -
but moms think he's high in fiber!

if you're serious about defeating Bush, only Joe Lieberman can do the job.



what does that smile tell you?

To me it says VICTORY.

[Jack Rabbit]

85. No, he's serious

And wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I Don't Think Joe's The Devil

neither do I think he can beat *

I don't know which defecit is bigger


Joe's charisma defecit.....


or


the budget defecit....

[JNelson6563]

74. I sincerely think not Dolstein

If you take away the noise of the media you can hear more clearly what is happening here in America.

Think of what is precious to Republicans. Money. They hate government and the spending it requires. Bush has grown the government substantially. Nevermind what the DOW, Nasdaq or S&P tell you, they are not the most accurate indicators of the economy. Consumer confidence is down, wages are down, and the situation has been so grim that with yesterday's monthly unemployment rate remaining at 6.1% the markets shot up like a rocket. That is a sad testamony of our situation. Oh yes, another trustworthy indicator aside from UE #'s is gold and, a bit less-so but meriting serious watching, Treasuries. Note too record levels of consumer debt and the drop off of refinancing by 80% since May. That certainly has been the major work-horse of the economy.

Also, don't be fooled with "good" GDP #'s either. If not for the massive military spending they would be ugly. It is helpful to point out to Republicans that the reason there is that sort of growth is government spending of their beloved $$$. It is the Achilles heel of this administration with their own party.

Now we can turn to a completely different and yet related realm, Iraq. The lies used to bolster their argument to go to war are getting even more coverage now with the Wilson affair than the "16 words" scandal. We got Kaye's report saying no WMD and his requst for lots more people and $$$.

I know a gal, total dittohead. Thinks Rush is a fabulous source for her political "news". We had an argument just before the war and she told me how wrong I was to be against it. Recently she gave an embarrassed laugh on the weapons and that none had been found and that our guys are in fact not getting pelted with rose petals but ammunition. The thing she seemed most upset about? The money. She had no problem when the innocent bodies of Iraqi civilians were stacking up but now that another huge bill has been presented (on top of the $69 billion last spring) she's having her doubts.

Keep in mind this is a gal who is completely incapable of independent thought regarding politics.

As things continue to see the light of day, the leaks, the lies, the spending etc., more and more will see what a failure Bush is. It is up to us to get the truth out because the "librul media" only seems to take note if a long-term, massive hue and cry is raised. We've got a whole year to work on that and, if we're smart, to get our act together on realizing our common goals as Democrats. I look forward to when we have our candidate in place and can get behind them with one loud, effective voice.

Julie

[bpilgrim]

76. of course with them repressenting the rulling class and BBV in the wings

the media gives'em a free ride - think about the polls that show how misinformed many americans are - since they are the mouth piece of the rulling class there are NUMEROUS WAYS that the ruling class can spin things to prop up their LIES and GREED not to mention he is the incumbent.

BUT they have been having a hard time doing that with REALITY CRASHING in all around and the CIA calling for an investigation of the white house times have certainly changed and no one can deny that.

there are a LOT more folks who don't vote who are disgusted with the system because they feel it doesn't work and BUSH is a perfect example. NOW is a perfect opprotunity for a dem to speak to the people and rouse their ire and hope for a BETTER WAY.

the neo-cons proveide US with a perfect opprotunity via their RECORD to illustrate how radical they are vs our moderation ;->

it happened to his father and it can happen to him.

i'll end by saying DON'T BET ON IT.

peace

[Q]

77. You haven't been listening...

...many of us have been saying this same thing for months now. It's the Dem party that's in danger of imploding...not the Bushies.

- BTW...Bush* CAN'T be 're-elected'.

[maha]

78. He's goin' down, and he's goin' down big.

I'm an old lady; I've been watching elections for awhile. Your points:

"1. While Bush's popularity has dropped substantially, his support among Republicans remains solid."

Republicans are only about 35 percent of the electorate.

"2. Every incumbent president that has lost in recent years has faced a primary challenge. Bush is running unopposed."

That doesn't mean anything. The current political climate is unique in American history. Never before has a party been so browbeaten and intimidated into marching in lockstep. They really are like Nazis.

"3. Bush will have a huge financial advantage over the eventual Democratic nominee."

Yes, and this is s factor that might keep the election close.

"4. Only one Democratic presidential candidate in the last fifty years has received substantially more than 50% of the popular vote."

Zat so? Well, yes, the landslides have tended to go Republican, haven't they? Still, the times they are a changin', and I don't think the recent past will be much of a guide.

"5. The jobless recovery won't last forever -- sooner or later unemployment is bound to go down."

According to people who understand the economy better than I do -- Krugman, for example -- there is no way all the jobs lost by Bush are going to come back before the electioon. The employment numbers probaby will turn up a little, but not enough to make people feel as secure as they did in the late 1990s.

"6. Never understimate Bush's survival instincts. Remember, he backed steel tarrifs when he thought it would help his reelection chances. I wouldn't put it past him to strike a deal with the UN over Iraq if he felt he needed to."

He can't strike the deal we really need with the UN without pissing off his neocon base. He's got himself boxed into an untenable position, and there's no graceful way out. Excellent Josh Marshall article explaining this better than I can:

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/092403.aspx

"7. There are still plenty of Bush fans in the media."

Yes, and that's about all that's prevented Bush from being hauled out of the White House by raging mobs to be tarred and feathered.

[Jack Rabbit]

79. Musings

Yes, Mr. Dolstein, it is a little soon to be planning for the inaguration of a legitimate President in January, 2005. What we are witnessing now is stuff Bush and his handlers can't spin, at least for the moment.

It is noteworthy that in your analysis of why Bush could bounce back that you say little about the occupation of Iraq. This won't go away for him. The UN (meaning our traditional allies) is unwilling to strike a deal. It is their way of voting for the generic Democrat.

The fact is that the invasion of Iraq was not carried out for any of the stated reasons. It had nothing to do with terrorism, since Saddam had no solid ties to terrorists. It had nothing to with September 11, in which Saddam played no part. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, since Saddam had none. Insofar as Saddam was a threat, he had been long ago contained; the war was unjustified.

The fact that Saddam was a brutal tyrant is true. However, that in itself does not justify an invasion. If it did, the list of countries to be invaded would be long and would include the United States. Nevertheless, there is a right way and a many wrong ways to go about removing tyrants. Bush went about it the worst way.

The real reason for the war was to provide business opportunities for Bush's cronies. First, Bush bombed the crap out of the country and then gave Halliburton and Bechtel no-bid contracts to rebuild it. Next, he'll sell the country out from under the Iraqi people. The oil will be sold to multinational corpoations like Exxon; public services, including water delivery will be privatized. The people will have no say about this, since Iraq is governed by an American admisistrator backed by a council of hand picked Iraqi puppets. That council has already approved foreign ownership of public services.

Mr. Bush's plans for Iraq were obvious from the start. As US troops marched to Baghdad, care was taken that oil fields were secured; as they entered Baghdad, the ministry of oil was protected while hospitals and cultural centers were allowed to be looted. Even now, delivery of electricity is sporadic, water is unsanitary and women are afraid to leave their homes for fear being kidnapped and raped by hoodlums. The Iraqi people, left to themselves, could solve these problems. However, the most important thing to the American occupiers is that the problems be solved in such a way as to be profitable to American concerns, especially those that foot the bill for Mr. Bush's campaign expenses.

Now, Mr. Dolstein, I recall from a discussion we had on these pages prior to the war that you resent calling this noble enterprise of nation building by the term I gave it: Colonialism. Nevertheless, what I just described is colonialism.

Whatever name you wish to give it, the Iraqi people know that it isn't liberation. Just because Saddam was a demon does not make he who vanquished him a saint. In fact, Bush is merely a bigger bully than was Saddam. The people will resist foreign occupation and the sale of their natural wealth to foreign multinational corporations. They have every right to do so.

It is a mess. It is a mess entirely of Mr. Bush's making. The UN gave him no authorization to invade Iraq; the members of the Security Council saw through the lies and were prepeared to rebuff the proposed enabling resolution. The invasion was a rogue attack. Mr. Bush flipped his finger to the UN, at US allies and the order of international law that grew out of World War II. Now he wants to make a deal and is wondering why no one wants to help.

The right thing to do will be to turn Iraq over to the UN in order to turn it over to the Iraqis. The colonial administration should leave and the puppet council dissolved. A constitutional convention should be held and free and fair elections called. Recontrustion contracts should be cancelled and any sales of Iraqi resources or public services approved by the IGC should be voided. Contracts should be negotiated under the auspices of a real Iraqi government that is responsible to the Iraqi people. It is this popular government that should put its stamp on a post-Saddam Iraq, not Mr. Bush's colonial administrator.

However, this isn't going to happen while Bush continues to occupy the White House. To do the right thing in Iraq defeats the purpose of making the invasion a profitable enterprise for his cronies. Furthermore, Bush is an international pariah. No one wants to deal with him.

Thus, Iraq will remain a quagmire. As long as that is the case, it will hurt Mr. Bush's re-election chances more than a little. It will be a major issue next year that will be best exploited by a Democrat who questioned the wisdom of the war from the beginning or (in the case of Senator Kerry) who distanced himself from the support for the IWR. It may also help if the Democratic candidate not be seen as one who would oppose going to war on principle, but would resevrve war for cases where diplomacy has beend exhausted and has failed.

Consequently, I believe the best Democratic candidates would be (in alphabetical order) Clark, Dean and Kerry. Kucinich should work to convince voters that he can make a tough decision to go war if it is necessary. Gephardt and Edwards need to better distance themselves from their vote for the IWR. Lieberman continues to dig himself a deeper hole on this matter.

Nevertheless, this is an issue on which Mr. Bush is vulnerable and will remain so. It really shows how inept he is. On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by terrorists. Mr. Bush has turned the desire to make Americans safe from the likes of Osama bin Laden into a series of scandals. That can certainly be exploited.

[The Magistrate]

82. Hear Hear, Mr. Rabbit!

Well said indeed, my friend.

Only triumph is popular with the people, and nothing about the situation in Iraq can today be portrayed as triumph without causing mirth, nor is anything likely to emerge over the next couple of years that could be described as triumph with causing mirth. Leading U.S. officers on duty there speak of a growing sophistication in the sort of attacks their soldiers are subjected to. Reports on the attempt at drafing a "constitution" for the place, and on other actions of "governing council" personalities, make it clear the U.S. cannot even quite control its puppets there. There will be nothing but bad news emerge from Iraq in future.

Awareness of the lies told to promote the invasion of Iraq is becoming inescapable, even for ordinary folks who initially believed them. This will certainly have a profound effect. People do not like being lied to. Worse, people who believed these lies were frightened by what they believed, and people universally detest being frightened for no reason: it makes them feel ashamed, and people hate someone who makes them feel ashamed.

Similarly, awareness of the crass motives behind these lies are becoming inescapable. The award of profitable contracts to cronies will have a particularly galling effect on the people, for in their hearts they will understand that they were shown up as cowards for the gain of corrupt businessmen. The insistence of the criminals of the '00 Coup on shovelling great sums of cash into Iraq will present an excellent line of attack, for every dollar sent to Iraq is not just a dollar that will wind up in the pocket of some administration crony, but it is a dollar that will not be spent on the needs of people here at home. Ordinary, not particularly political people, will respond to this line of attack, and with some enthusiasm: it may well be a base response, but base motives have a surer effect, and a good deal of the political art is to harness the lower motives into service of the higher ones.

[Jack Rabbit]

83. Exactly

Bush lied and it is now obvious. It isn't just sixteen words in the State of the Union address; if that's all it was, that would have blown over. No, it's everything that was said to justify the war.

Over and over again, it is lying that gets a politician into trouble. Nixon could have survived Watergate if he had come clean at the start and made no attempt to cover it. Clinton, guilty of many equivocations, would not have gotten into such hot water over zippergate if he had just said at the beginning: "Yes, I had sex with that woman" or simply refused to answer any questions about it, pleading the advice of counsel.

Bush in Iraq had no good option other than do nothing. Of course, had he been honest before the war, there would have been no support for the invasion. How can he be honest now? The spin he and British Foregn Secretary Jack Straw put on it last week is particularly absurd: The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq show what a threat Saddam was because he fooled us into thinking he had WMDs. Go figure that one. I, for one, am skeptical of the premise that they were fooled.

Let us also consider the extent to which the Bushies were prepared to enforce the cover up of their lies. Outing a CIA operative? I wonder if Poppy has had or will have any private words with his wayward son over that. Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall when that's brought up between the two of them?

But I digress.

The case against Bush is there, waiting to be made. Who's going to take the lead in making it?

[The Magistrate]

86. Sec. Straw Does Indeed Take The Biscuit For Humor, Sir

My own view is that every one of these lies was deliberate, that no one was fooled. The test is the conduct of our own military planners. If there were even a serious suspicion such weapons were available to Hussein, there would never have been such a dense build-up on his border, nor would any ground troops have gone in prior to a months' long "make the rubble bounce" style aerial bombardment.

[Jack Rabbit]

91. I certainly agree that the lies were deliberate

The junta didn't allow the intelligence community to do its job. Field ops are supposed to gather raw data and others provide some analysis. Eventually this gets to policy makers (like the President) who make a decision based on the data and analysis.

In this case, we have evidence that Cheney and Libby were making trips down to the CIA. This is unusal; Mr. Wilson believes they were trying to cook intelligence data. The use of the Niger document, already discredited, in the State of the Union further suggests that the junta didn't care about whether the intelligence was really any good as long as it supported the drum march to war. We also know that the Pentagon relied on the OSP, an intelligence bureau it created to create analyses favorable to war.

We are getting a picture of policy makers determining a course of action and telling the intelligence community to provide a case for it. That's working the process backwards.

[birdman]

80. You're right

things look a lot better than they did a few
months ago but incumbents have all the advantages
and none of the Dems has really caught fire nationally.

I think the demographics (an often overlooked factor)
work the Dems advantage. Expect it to be close but Bush still
has the advantage.

[Selwynn]

81. No you are absolutely not the only one.

I think we are the definitive underdogs and it will be quite an amazing story if we win. For all the reasons you mentioned but one more.

Americans are stupid, lazy and fickle.

Stupid - they are ignorant of facts that would make them vote correctly
Lazy - they aren't willing ot investigate facats that would make them vote correctly
Fickle - they are led around like sheep by whoever has the most effective spin - so far thats BushCo.

[West Coast Democrat]

84. No, there are plenty of you over at Free Republic

and many more Free Republic members lurking over here feel the same way you do.

[birdman]

90. Oh for Chrissakes

Now you're a Freeper if you offer an honest evaluation
of election chances ?

Incumbents usually have an advantage especially when they're
as well-financed as Bush is.

Being honest doesn't make one a Freeper.

:spank:

[West Coast Democrat]

104. I'm tired of these stupid, pessimistic threads

especially when they're started by someone so supportive of Bush's plans to invade Iraq.

[Loyal]

87. I think his re-election odds are

ABOUT 50/50 - not better, not worse. Bush will have a lot of $, and he will try and push a lot of ads out onto the airwaves to cover up the fact that he has no message.

[Jack Rabbit]

92. Analysis from the BBC

From the BBC Online
Dated Saturday October 4

Worries at the White House
Analysis
By Justin Webb

Is President Bush going to go the way of his father?
Until this summer the Bush administration appeared to have taken on board the lessons of the presidency of Bush Senior, who also fought a successful war against Iraq but neglected issues closer to home. Suddenly they seem to have lost their touch.
The polls suggest a continuing fall in the popularity of the president and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction is being seen as a further blow to his prestige . . . .
(T)he broad poll figures do not tell the real story, according to Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center.
He says people still admire Mr Bush and even like him and regard him as trustworthy and decent. But they have come round to thinking his judgement on key issues has been flawed.

Read more.

[dkamin]

93. We'll see

Bush is going to have about $200 million with which to lie, mischaracterize, and distort, not to mention the unflagging support of the right wing media, and the mitigated support of the corporate media.

as compared to about $100 million and alternative media outlets with which to defend against smears, on the dem side.

i think anyone who's objective has to believe that the economy is going to severely negatively impact voters' perceptions of bush. any improvements we've seen have been largely limited to affecting the rock-ribbed republicans (i.e. slight positives in the stock markets, in total economic growth, etc. accompanied by increased joblessness, debt, etc.). at the same time, foreign policy is looking increasingly like a liability for the bushies.

on the other hand, it's pretty clear that bush and his evil minions/handlers will do or say ANYTHING to win. they are clearly the most immoral administration in history. obviously, they can't run on their record, because it's arguably the worst record in history. at the end of the day, it's going to be about how well the dems can keep the country focused on their status under bush.

i think it's very possible that bush will lose by a landslide. the black caucuses are working furiously to bring out the vote big in 2004, as are other lefty groups.

i agree that the economy is the key issue here. i think the bushies overreached. if they had just had a little bit of concern about how the economy would actually respond to their "stimulus packages" they could have made enough improvement to lock in victory in '04. however, just about every economist i've talked to or read has stated that the bush budgets have been about as awful as you can get in terms of providing stimulus to a recessionary economy. (by economists, i'm referring to accredited economists not employed by cato or heritage or the white house).

they provided huge deficits, which cause severe pressure on interest rates, to the point where greenspan can't affect short-term interest rates anymore. (they neutralized greenspan, wtf is up with that!!). at the same time, they effectively created a short term tax burden INCREASE to most americans by withdrawing funds from states, forcing them to raise local income and consumption taxes. so you have these two fairly large negative factors dragging down the economy, as a direct result of the Bush tax cuts.

at the same time, the positive effects of what will, in reality, cost us over $4 trillion in tax receipts, are almost nil. trickle down theory depends at its heart upon the idea that businesses and wealthy individuals, when given more money, will invest it into infrastructure, which will then drive employment and consumption. the reason that trickle down is considered such a miserable failure is because it's very clear that providing the rich with additional money doesn't spur additional investment, certainly not on an efficient level.

in short, i think the bush tax cuts are the reason this recession has been jobless and exacerbated, and i think there's more reason to think it will get worse than better. the rate of personal debt right now is at its highest ever, and housing prices, as we all know, are still historically very high, leading many to talk about a housing bubble and a debt bubble. if either one of these pops, this country could be facing dire circumstances, on a level unseen since the Great Depression.

[dkamin]

94. in other words

i think, unfortunately, in all likelihood, the economy will get worse by next year, and that bush, with all of his hundreds of millions, will still have a very tough time breaking the very real, if often unfair, connection in Americans' minds between the president in power and their own status.

my parents, who have never voted for a democrat in their lives, despite my repeated and ardent efforts, have said they'll vote against bush in 04 because he's terrible for the economy.

[mandyky]

98. I think his odds are less than 50/50

and we'll know for sure when another GOP candidate throws his or her hat in the ring.

[dkamin]

102. also

re: Bush v. Gore.

as i recall, bush was projected to TROUNCE gore. his support firmed up late, defying the polling. the key to that election and gore's majority was high turnout among the demo base, a turnout that did not occur in 2002.

believe you me, there will be high turnout among the base in 2004. e.g., afro-ams will come out in force and vote 90%+ for the democrat. this could prove to be a threat to bush in some of the southern states (i.e. florida, georgia, even south carolina).

with states like california and new york looking like dem landslides in 04, and michigan, penn, and illinois looking safe for dems, the dems can concentrate on border states like w.va, florida, tenn., and even launch some attacks in GOP states like ga. and missouri.

there is no way it's a bush landslide in 04. that's asinine. his approval ratings on issues are way too low, and ultimately, voters are going to vote their pocketbooks, which have been killed under bush/cheney.

why would you possibly think a bush landslide was possible? he's going to get CREAMED in the northeast, the northern Midwest and in the west coast. NY, PA, MA, RI, NH, VT, NJ, MI, IL, WI, MD, CA, OR, WA look like Dem locks. OH, WVA, TEN, ARK look like they'll lean Dem again in 04.

if i'm a bush partisan, there are only a handful of states, and thus electoral votes, that i think are safe in 04, and that's a bad sign for an incumbent 13 months before his election. TX, KS, OKL, MISS, ALASKA, SC, NC, VA, ARI, and maybe a few of the sparsely populated middle states (Dakotas, Montana, etc.) there are a lot more states and electoral votes right now that look like Democrat locks.

i think bush will need every one of those 200 million dollars to convince people in states like Missouri, Florida, and Ohio that the Democratic candidate would do worse than the worst presidential job performance in history.

[papau]

101. GOP Pollsters: Dean Can Beat Bush (with 23 states)

GOP Pollsters: Dean Can Beat Bush (with 23 states)



GOP Pollsters Insist Dean Can Beat Bush
Roll Call Staff
October 6, 2003

A memo being circulated by a prominent Republican polling firm argues that GOPers run a serious risk of underestimating former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) as a general election candidate against President Bush.

(*subscription only, which I don't have but msnbc exert follows)
http://www.rollcall.com/pub/49_35/news/3120-1.html


Roll Call reports on a memo from a couple of GOP pollsters arguing that “if one makes the case that Bush could be vulnerable to the poofy John Kerry or the scintillating (yawn) Bob Graham how can anyone write off Howard Dean?... The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but will not appear threatening to folks in the middle.” The pollsters “also offer an electoral vote scenario under which Dean could defeat Bush in 2004. They give Dean victories in 23 states (270 electoral votes) and point out that Bush lost all but two - Nevada and West Virginia - in the 2000 presidential election.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/924508.asp

[ElsewheresDaughter]

105. imho this all hinges on the results of CA recall results