There’s a factor here that no one’s mentioning - Putting ANYONE up against ‘Brand X’ is a distortion, because ‘Brand X’ has no negatives. In essence, what you’re doing is putting a real human, with all his identified strengths and weaknesses, up against an ideal, a faceless philosophy.
What makes it worse is that Bush has has to preside over a very difficult time, and that is bound to cause people to question his leadership, fair or not.
Let’s wait until a real-life Democrat emerges from the pack, and has to go through a real-life vetting process. Let’s see who’s left standing after another human has to weigh in on difficult issues of war and peace, go through many debates, suffer the character assassinations that are bound to happen during a fractious primary season, and then try to put a campaign together.
And let’s remember that Bill Clinton’s approval rating just before the 1998 election was 43%., and that George Bush was trailing Al Gore by over 20 points right up until about four months before the election.
“Kerry’s got a major weakness (the fact that a large segment of the electorate hates politicians from New England), and the only positive is money”
He has several other advantages. He is an authentic military hero in a time of war which should appeal to many Southerners. He has a lot of experience in the Senate. He projects gravitas and should do well in the debates.
“Putting ANYONE up against ‘Brand X’ is a distortion, because ‘Brand X’ has no negatives.”
You could argue exactly the opposite ie. that Brand X is at a disadvantage because it doesn’t have any concrete positives. At least Bush is known to stand for something.
“that George Bush was trailing Al Gore by over 20 points right up until about four months before the election”
No it was exactly the other way round . Bush had a big lead over Gore until a few months before the election. During the campaign Gore basically eliminated the entire lead.
There is indeed a long way to go and like I said a lot will depend on what happens with Iraq and possible future terrorist attacks. However it’s fairly clear from a number of polls that Bush is not particularly popular. I don’t think that he is very good as a campaigner. If the Dems nominate a strong candidiate , and they have a couple, and push a coherent platform (unlike 2002) my best early guess is that they will win.
I do agree that the Dems have way too many candidates now and there is even a possibility of a couple more entering the fray. I hope they don’t drag the party too far to the left.
But he’d probably carry three or four states as a third party candidate, the way things are going.
I do like the way most posters are assessing honestly rather than going rabid-partisan in this thread. Speaking as a constitutent of Edwards’s, he’s a media darling at the moment – photogenic and hasn’t said anything stupid yet – but I think you’ll find that he’s mostly style rather than substance, and will end up dropping out, probably fairly late in the line-up-the-primaries campaign. Dean’s stance is interesting – he has to cast himself as a viable alternative to Bush in order to draw any national attention, which he desperately needs, with his current campaign finance problems. I think you’ll see him take a New Democrat stance after the primaries if he should happen to make it as the candidate. Kerrey has a lot of support in unexpected places; I suspect he’s as close as there is to a frontrunner right now – and of course, will suffer from the problems that role causes any candidate.
McCain is really the big question mark right now. What will he do, and how will it affect the dynamics of the races?
If Bush is smart, he’ll try to play “big tent” as he moves closer to the re-election race, rather than the Great Polarizer. He’s showing some tendencies in that regard already. And if the war and the economy cooperate and he does cast himself as “the President of all Americans” and make it fly, he’s definitely in the catbird seat.
To add to the Hillary hijack - all those Republicans gloating about a sure Bush re-election win in '04 (incredibly premature speculation) should realize that a Bush win will be a major boost to a Hillary candidacy in '08.
All the true Hillary-loathers should be praying for another Democrat to win in '04.
Don’t worry, I’m sure he’ll easily become a part of some think-tank somewhere.
I saw a brief piece regarding Ralph Nader considering running again. I hope he recognizes his role in where we are as a country, and chooses wisely.
I firmly believed that Bush would not win. In fact, I came into work one morning saying, “Any candidate that calls someone an asshole at a campaign speech is doomed.” I firmly believed that the electorate would rise up and send a message at the mid-term elections. I have no faith that a minority of the people will do anything but re-elect Bush again in 2004. Even if we are still in the crapper economically. Even though the Republicans control all aspects of the government and things will still be miserable. 1992-2000 will serve as a brief and shining moment of what we can do and who we can be.
CyberPundit: You’re right. I got those twisted around.
BTW, I’m thinking that Hillary is preparing herself to run for president in THIS election. I say that because she just released a statement a couple of days ago saying that she ‘fully supports’ the Bush Administration’s position on Iraq. That, and her seat on the security council, is going to allow her to position herself to the right of the other candidates on foreign policy.
I believe she’s biding her time until the Iraq war is over. She’s going to see how that turns out. If it goes well but the economy tanks, she’s just positioned herself to attack the other Democratic candidates for not being strong enough on defense, and Bush for screwing up the economy.
I never thought Hillary was running this time around, but there was really no other reason for her to make that statement.
BTW, I think it’s a big mistake to underestimate Hillary Clinton’s chances. Just like Democrats made a mistake in underestimating Bush, Republicans would do well to take Hillarys’ chances seriously. She is an extremely smart woman, and a brilliant politician. She has gotten excellent marks from colleagues on both sides of the Aisle in the Senate, and she has worked very hard in New York.
And, Sept. 11 gave her the chance she needed to distance herself from the big negatives she had before. She has been saying all the right things since then, and keeping her more liberal impulses in check. In short, she has Bill Clinton’s political skills, without his major failings. She’s got a few failing of her own, of course, but she strikes me as being able to control her worst instincts much better than Bill ever could.
Maybe I just fell off the turnip truck, Sam, but she may actually mean it. It’s possible that she remembers Saddam’s antics better than some, having been First Lady.
But, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her run in 04 either. She would obviously make a formidable candidate whenever she chooses to run.
Personally I don’t think Hillary has much of a chance of winning the Presidency. She is extremely unpopular in the South and no one is more likely work up the GOP base. She appears to be capable but comes off as stiff and not very likeable. She has the weaknesses of Al Gore without the advantage of being incumbent VP. Plus there will be a small-to-moderate penalty in being the first woman Presidential candidate especially in an era when national security has become more important. The Democrats would be very foolish to nominate her particularly when there are other stronger candidates.
She has high name recognition, high positives, and high negatives in poll parlance right? So, all she has to do is reduce the negatives by playing centrist - done - and, voila!, perfect candidate. I’ve seen her public appearances recently. She is polished, sounds reasonable, even moderate, makes jokes, seems more relaxed. She’s running for something.
I don’t think being a woman will hurt her. I think most people have moved past that one. Nor do I think the South is so difficult for Hillary to win. It’s split down here, like most everywhere. Whoever brings out the voters is going to win most elections. We are dealing with a situation where the eligible non-voters outnumber the voters.
“I think most people have moved past that one”
Sure but if even a few percent haven’t that could cost her a close election. Especially since the Democrats are already weaker with men and perceived as being weak on defense.
“So, all she has to do is reduce the negatives by playing centrist - done - and, voila!, perfect candidate”
The problem is that for many the negatives are based on her personally rather than the issues so it’s going to be very hard for her to reduce them.
“Nor do I think the South is so difficult for Hillary to win. It’s split down here, like most everywhere”
At the Presidential level it’s anything but split since Gore lost every single Southern state A crucial swing vote is the Southern ,white ,working-class male; the kind of person who might benefit from Democratic economic policies but is put off by the the cultural baggage. How does Hillary play with this vote especially compared with Kerry or Edwards? Pretty badly and many such voters have probably already made up their mind about her.
Beagle: I think she DOES believe that. As you say, she has 8 years of experience in the White House, and knows the danger posed by Iraq.
That doesn’t change the fact that there was no reason for her to split with the Democratic base and make a formal statement of her opinion. I think she’s staking out a position, “Just in case”. In other words, I don’t think she’s decided to run, but she’s preparing the ground to position herself in the best way she can so that if conditions look right after the Iraq war is over, she can step into the field.
I mean, think about it this way: If Hillary really wants to become President, then she really doesn’t want a different Democrat to win in 2004, unless she were picked for running mate. Because if a Democrat wins in 2004, then she wouldn’t be able to get the nomination in 2008, and the VP would be the likely candidate in 2012. That puts her either 8 years away from the White House if that Democrat is a 1-termer, or 16 years if he isn’t. If Bush wins a second term, she’s got a shot at 2008. So why not align yourself with the President on foreign policy? That gives you an edge over the other Democrats if the war goes well. Then she has to hope for a sick economy, and suddenly Hillary has a real shot at the White House in 2004. She can even use her 8 years in the White House plus her experience on the armed services committee, along with her support of Bush, to paint herself as being strong on defense and experienced in foreign policy.
So I were Hillary, I’d be looking very carefully at 2004.
But she’s not weak on defense. Luckily for her she has no record to tarnish her in that regard. Bill was nice enough to not put her in charge of a blue ribbon base closing commission. Joke. That, of course, is another third rail of politics.
Personal negatives? I’m not sure what you mean. I could speculate in a funny way, Howard Stern style. I better not do that. As I said, the last few times I saw her in public she did not seem like a b
Anyway, Bill had real personal negatives with the Christian right and the feminists who had to hold their noses and support him. Hillary only has some perception issues. Much easier to fix.
Throw Gore out of the mix. Face it, he was painful to listen to. Yes, Bush makes me want to yell also. Hillary is much smarter and better spoken than either of them.
A workable Democratic southern strategy, IMO: go conservative on defense, that’s where the majority is right now. But, rally the black voters and get the women to vote for the candidate despite the somewhat hawkish rhetoric. Hmmm, maybe Hillary?
Sam:
I agree. I think that as Bush’s numbers slip the nominee field may reach triple digits. Hillary would be a giant in any Democratic field. No name carries more clout right now.
“Hillary only has some perception issues”
No actually many people believe that she was heavily invovled in various financial scandals especially Whitewater. Plus she will remind voters of all the other Clinton scandals which probably cost Gore the presidency.
“But she’s not weak on defense. Luckily for her she has no record to tarnish her in that regard”
She doesn’t have much of a record on defense issues to help her either compared to , say, Kerry. Anyway the point is more in the context of her being a woman. Again it doesn’t matter if most of the country has moved past stereotypes. Even if just 10% of voters are skeptical of a woman commander-in-chief that could be fatal.
Ultimately to win the Democrats have to reach out to swing voters and not just their base. After four years of Bush their base will be fired up anyway. They want someone to reach out to Southern,white, working-class males like I said. And they want someone who doesn’t fire up the other party’s base. By all these criteria Hillary seems weak especially compared to Kerry or Edwards.
Hillary campaign slogan, “While Bill was busy chasing interns, I was busy running the country!”
I can’t see Hillary even getting the Democratic nomination or even winning. It really all depends upon how North Korea goes. If the Republicans manage to pin the blame on Clinton (and no doubt they’ll try) for NK getting nukes, Hillary’s shot at the White House is pretty much over. If the Democrats want to win the White House back, then they need to field a candidate with vision, one who can articulate a philosophy of how the country should be ran. Having someone who looks good on camera wouldn’t hurt, either. IAC, it’s too early to call.
