A Kerry Landslide? Why the next election won't be close

[wyldwolf]

But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.

Bush: the new Carter

In the last 25 years, there have been four elections which pitted an incumbent against a challenger--1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. In all four, the victor won by a substantial margin in the electoral college. The circumstances of one election hold particular relevance for today: 1980. That year, the country was weathering both tough economic times (the era of "stagflation"--high inflation concurrent with a recession) and frightening foreign policy crises (the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Indeed, this year Bush is looking unexpectedly like Carter. Though the two presidents differ substantially in personal style (one indecisive and immersed in details, the other resolute but disengaged), they are also curiously similar. Both are religious former Southern governors. Both initially won the presidency by tarring their opponents (Gerald Ford, Al Gore) with the shortcomings of their predecessors (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Like Carter, Bush is vulnerable to being attacked as someone not up to the job of managing impending global crises.

Everyone expected the 1980 election to be very close. In fact, Reagan won with 50.8 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 41 percent (independent John Anderson won 6.6 percent)--which translated into an electoral avalanche of 489 to 49. The race was decided not so much on the public's nascent impressions of the challenger, but on their dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

Nor was Carter's sound defeat an aberration. Quite the opposite. Of the last five incumbent presidents booted from office--Bush I, Carter, Ford, Herbert Hoover, and William Howard Taft--only one was able to garner over 200 electoral votes, and three of these defeated incumbents didn't even cross the 100 electoral-vote threshold: --1992: 370 (Bill Clinton) to 168 (George H. W. Bush) --1980: 489 (Ronald Reagan) to 49 (Jimmy Carter) --1976: 297 (Jimmy Carter) to 240 (Gerald Ford) --1932: 472 (FDR) to 59 (Herbert Hoover) --1912: 435 (Woodrow Wilson) to 88 (TR) to 8 (Taft)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.todd.html

[OneBlueSky]

1. not so sure about that . . .

in previous elections, the incumbent didn't own the media and the voting machines . . .

[UrbScotty]

2. True.

Bush may win big. Kerry may win big. Either way, I doubt this will be close.

[themaguffin]

3. polarized

The country is polarized. Remember, all of the effort is on the battleground states as the other states are severaly polarized one way or another. There have been some recent reports on how much more divided counties are in a particular partisan direction. We'll see maybe (hopefully0 disgust ofver W will come through in states considered red, maybe Edwards, Clarke and others helped push Arkansas, NC and somewhere else to the blue... but I expect to be close. The only other thing that might make a difference, given this situation is if voter turnout is particularly high, mich higher than 2000.

[Mz Pip]

4. I'm going to Ohio

to work for Kerry this fall. I've decided to do this because Ohio could very well decide this election.

I am just one person, but I suspect there are many more out there just like me who are willing to camp on a friends couch to help defeat Bush.

MzPip
:dem:

[MAlibdem]

5. hell yes...

ill be in new hampshire...i love that im going to school in a swing state!

[mdmodem]

6. I wish it would be a Kerry landslide...

but indications right now suggest that it will be a close, hard fought election. This nation is split 50-50 along cultural, political, and ideological lines. I would say that Kerry is the probable winner, just ask John Zogby who recently said that it was his election to lose.
What I think is interesting it the possibility that Kerry win the Electoral College by maintaining Gore's 2000 states and adding Ohio or Florida, but losing the popular vote due to the probable decrease of the Democratic vote in New York and California.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi mdmodem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Poiuyt]

7. I heard the author of this article on public radio this morning

His arguments made a great deal of sense. For the first time, I am starting to feel a little optimistic.

[dolstein]

9. Carter had Anderson; Bush Sr. had Perot

Sorry, but one of the reasons this election will not be a Kerry landslide is because there isn't anyone attacking Bush's right flank.

In 1980, Anderson's third party candidacy was very attractive to disaffected Democrats. In 1992, Perot's candidacy was very attactive to disaffected Republicans. But in 2004, where the hell are Republicans going to go -- Nader? Not a chance. Bush's base is rock solid. On the other hand, the liberal fringe of the Democratic Party may very well abandon Kerry for Nader, and there's not a heck of a lot Kerry can do about it. Any further movement to the left and Kerry starts hemoraging votes in the center.

Besides, no Democrat has won in a landslide since LBJ in 1964. Kerry's no LBJ. And sorry, Bush is no Goldwater. Bush remains extremely popular among Republicans, which is a something that, to this day, DU'ers seem incapable of comprehending. And as long as Bush has the overwhemling support of Republicans, this election will remain very close.

[dolstein]

10. Also, Carter had Ted Kennedy; Bush Sr. had Pat Buchanon

It isn't a coicidence that the last to incument presidents to lose an election also faced intraparty challenges. Intraparty challenges are a sign that the incumbent is weak, and in turn inflict further damage on the incumbent. George W. may be despised by liberal Democrats, but he remains very popular among Republicans. We'll see whether any cracks begin to show in the Republican wall of unity. But the fact is, Republicans really don't have anywhere else to go. Nader is deluding himself if he thinks he'll benefit from a Republican protest vote. And Kerry is much too liberal to attract many crossover votes. Probably the best that Kerry can hope for is that many Republicans will simply decide to stay home on election day.