And Republicans would dump an incumbent whose positions are in line with their ideals for a maverick rumored to have flirted with switching parties because…
I think I’ll take those odds 
And lenin, in French “pantalon” is masculine singular. It is Ou [accent grave on the u] est mon pantalon.
Thoughts on possible Democratic candidates:
Edwards has no name recognition and he’s only won one statewide election. He should win at least one reelection and try to take the lead on some big issues before he even enters the race for the nomination.
Hillary did win in New York, but if IIRC, by a smaller margin that Gore won in the state of New York. The problem is that the groups that she appeals to most are already solidly Democratic; but swing voters wouldn’t like her as much. She might work ok as a running mate.
Gephardt’s main supporters are unions, and they can’t make donations under the new campaign finance laws. On the other hand, if he becomes Speaker of the House this fall, he’ll get lots of publicity.
I would say that Gore is the best candidate. If he’s smart, he’ll choose Lieberman for VP again, since that would emphasize his commitment to ethics. He could probably take Florida this time, which would balance out Bush’s buying of Pennsylvania with the steel tariffs issue. Thus, the race would again be a contest for a handful of small states.
Uh, Lieberman’s committment to ethics? Is that why Lieberman lobbied so strongly against having options treated as costs in 1994?
I’m not sure that Lieberman is a good choice, given that.
And let’s not forget how the 2002 election was settled. That the courts got involved sets a dangerous precedent. Given the right set of circumstances, it’s entirely possible that 2004 could end up there, too.
Robin
Refresh my memory: what was that message again? I’m not trying to be smartass, I just don’t remember much of the campaign beyond its clusterboink ending.
Tejota:
Beautiful prose.
I assume this means you’re taking my bet offer?
Not necessarily. Al D’Amato, a Republican, was a three-term Senator, George Pataki, a Republican, has been Governor since 1994, Rudy Giuliani, a Republican (of uncertain cloth, but nevertheless…) was mayor of NYC for two terms. The State Senate has a Republican majority.
Hillary won every county in the state. 12 out of 31 districts sent Republicans to the house
I’m not saying she’d be able to replicate this on the national stage, but underestimating her would be a mistake.
What Tejota said, and very well too. But it’s foolish to stand behind a prediction made more than a few months in advance - it’s only now becoming clear that the House and Senate will both be solidly in control of the Democrats next term. I’ll bet on that. I’ll also bet on the media not discussing the candidates or their policies any more deeply or responsibly in 2004 than they did, well, just about ever.
This regency is taking on water, in case anyone hadn’t noticed. All of Bush’s individual problems are politically survivable, but the total is approaching critical mass.
Welcome to North Carolina, Doctor J! Glad to have you with us.
I like Edwards, but I don’t think he has the name recognition or the clout just yet to be a serious contender. In 2008, yes, in 2004, doubtful.
My prediction is that Gore will get talked out of running again (just too much past baggage there) and that the Dems will run Lieberman. They know that committed liberals are going to vote for them–especially after the Nader debacle–so they will pick someone likely to appeal to the more conservative crowd. I don’t like Lieberman one bit, but I’d hold my nose and vote for him. Not that my vote counts; North Carolina has hasn’t given any electoral votes to a Presidential candidate in 20 years. I could vote for Ronald McDonald and it would have just as much impact as my vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. Not that I’m bitter…
Damn, this thread gets cheerier and cheerier every minute! 
Well-said, Tejota… really, really well-said. I liked your whole post, but the “beer” comment stuck out as being the most apt. 
I think that Bush has a good chance of being dumped by the Reps in ‘04 if what we’ve seen this week and last continues. The hits just keep on comin’, and Bush’s chances get slimmer with every one. McCain should be looking better and better.
If Gore were to run an aggressive, positive campaign in 2004, he might even net my vote this time around. Last time round, I watched in amazement as he missed opportuinity after opportunity to show up Bush on policy… he tried to fight Bush on Bush’s turf (“as President, I’ll be yer buddy!”), and really lost the campaign for himself. Can he run a stronger campaign next time? Maybe… we’ll see.
Um…
With all the applause for Tejota’s well-reasoned, can’t-miss analysis…
Why aren’t people tripping over themselves to accept my wager? At the very least, they’d earn $90.
No courage of conviction, folks?
Avalonian, you said "If Gore were to run an aggressive, positive campaign in 2004, he might even net my vote this time around. "
I’m not trying to pick on you, and please forgive me if I’m assuming too much, but I hope that the issues and platforms of the candidates mean more to you than the nature of the campaign. Since that is very close to what you are agreeing with Tejota on in that very same post, that statement seemed odd (and I probably misunderstood it).
These aren’t your typical Republicans though (with the exception of D’Amato, who was thrown out in 1998). Every single CD went for Clinton in 1996. He went 31 for 31, that’s virtually unheard of. The last vestiges of Rockefeller Republicanism are in New York State, most of the GOPers there would be Dems if they were south of Philadelphia or west of Pittsburgh. The 2000 American Conservative Union scores of the GOPers are 64, 80, 56, 43, 72, 40, 73, 56, 84, 70 and 52 (my book doesn’t have the 12th in 2000, Rick Lazio). Only 5 got a C or better, only 2 got a B and none got As. It’s not a conservative state, and Hillary, while she ran a good campaign there, couldn’t win nationwide.
Also, do you have a cite for her winning every county in the state? There are some fairly conservative counties, and it’s a surprising statistic. I’m going to go to the New York SoS site right now to figure it out.
OK, the list is here [you need Adobe Acrobat to view it] and she only won 16 of 62 counties in New York State. I doubt even Daniel Patrick Moynihan won every county in his best year, and he’s one of only three senators to reach 4,000,000 votes (Kay Bailey Hutchison and Diane Feinstein being the others, and it’s doubtful someone will join them this cycle).
Yeah you’re right. Never mind about the winning every county part. I just popped into CNN’s website and didn’t look at the results properly. My mistake.
Carrot Topp in 04!
;)
OK, I’m going to try this post one more time.
Revtim, you’re quite right. That particular statement was poorly-structured. It’s only partially true, at least for me.
My opinion is that, had Gore run a more aggressive campaign, focusing on the real issues and challenging Bush on that basis, he would have won. Tejota is right that, in a contest between Bush and Gore on the issues, Gore wins.
Campaigning is a game of perception, and I think that a large percentage of the voting public base their vote solely on the perception they get during the campaign, from TV or otherwise. Credit where credit is due the Bush team did a great job convincing (coughfoolingcough) the “average American” the Dubya was just like them, wanted what they wanted, wanted to be their buddy, and would be a great President just because he was a fun guy. Kudos to them. By comparison, the Gore team failed miserably to convey a consistent portrayal of Gore. Even Gore supporters lamented the fact that Gore seemed to be unsure of his own convictions during the campaign, so much so that he seemed to many to be waffling. Time and time again, he backed down when challenged on the issues. He almost seemed to deliberately avoid his strong points as a debater and an issues “expert.” In the end, it lost him the election. This is why I expressed dismay; as much for the American perception of him as for my own.
For myself… yes, I do vote pretty much exclusively on the issues and platforms of the candidates. I took time during the 2000 campaign to research the stated opinions of all the candidates (not just Presidential, either), and in the end I voted my conscience based on the issues. However, I have to say that the campaign did have some effect on me. Before the 2000 campaign, I might have voted for Gore based on some of his stated opinions, but any confidence I had in him as a leader or a consistent advocate for things I believed in was slowly eroded away, not by the opposition, but by his own poor performance on the campaign trail.
So, for 2000, my vote would probably still have remained as it was, even if Gore had run a better campaign… neither Bush nor Gore got it, based on the issues, though Gore was much, much closer. In 2004, though, I am fairly certain that he will have to run a much stronger campaign to get the vote of most of America, and it sure would help me believe in him as well.
Though issues are most important to me, the impressions I get as the candidates campaign do have an influence. I guess that’s what I should have said.
Bricker, as has already been stated, two years is a long time… and I’m not really a scotch drinker anyway.
Oh, and speaking of the hits that keep on coming, anyone else catch Bush’s high-concept metaphor on Monday? Gotta love a President who describes our nation’s economy in terms most readily associated with alcoholism:
Well, I guess if anyone would know… Dubya’s gonna choke on that foot if he’s not careful.
Cite for the above, if anyone’s interested… ‘Bush: Economy is hung over but basically sound’
Hardly. Simple common sense. Perhaps you’ve missed all the comments about near-zero predictability so far in advance. A wager on the 2004 election is like a wager on a coin toss - and “courage of conviction” is not relevant.
A few things:
1) The advantage of incumbency: since WWII, four out of the six incumbents running for re-election, and two out of the three unelected incumbents running for election, have gotten themselves re/elected President. (The losers were G.H.W. Bush 1992, Carter 1980, Ford 1976. The economy didn’t do any of them any favors, FWIW.)
If I were to take Bricker’s bet, I’d want odds, since the White House occupants seem to have a 2-1 advantage over their challengers over that period.
2) McCain: if he runs for the GOP nomination, he loses, unless Bush’s approval ratings have absolutely tanked by the end of 2003. (And even then, maybe.) The GOP likes to nominate an anointed candidate, and Bush is it.
And despite the fact that it’s looking like an increasingly good fit (see the May 2002 Washington Monthly, which is unfortunately no longer online), I don’t think McCain will switch parties. Too bad - if he did, he’d be my first pick. And that of a lot of other Democrats, I’d bet.
3) 1988: what were we smoking? I’ll forgive you, BKB, because you were young then. But Gary Hart was the man to beat two years ahead of time, and he had a little Monkey Business problem. (One italicizes names of boats.) Gore and Gephardt were a bit too new then, and neither ran well. Jesse Jackson ran well, but not that well. Mondale, the 1984 candidate, had been exiled for losing, despite having lost respectably to a popular incumbent. I can’t remember who else was in the field, but Dukakis ran strongly in the primaries, and looked like a winner - not a captive to liberal ‘special interests’, more of a technocrat than an ideologue, enough years and success as a governor to strike people as competent. Really, he was our best choice. And how were we to know what a lousy campaign he’d run in the fall, how Willie Horton, Boston Harbor, and his ACLU membership would become albatrosses around his neck?
The ACLU thing is instructive, though: the nominee has to know what he’s for, what he’s against, and why, deep down - so when his opponent brings up something like that to make him look bad, he can remind the nation of why it’s good.
OK, on to 2004:
I think the Dems could win, but I don’t think it’s the way to bet. I’m hoping we nominate someone who’s been on the national stage already; since Carter, I’ve got an aversion to inexperienced unknowns.
My real hope is that Gore really does catch fire, take strong stands on the issues, and that sort of good stuff. He would make an excellent president if he can get there, he’s the most competent and experienced politician in the field, and he’s about as representative of the party on the issues as anyone you could dig up. All that’s missing is being able to run a good campaign, one that excites committed Democrats and appeals to swing voters. I guess we’ll find out if there’s a piss-and-vinegar Al Gore, or whether robo-Gore is all there is. If he can come alive, then I’ll be ready to order “Re-Elect Gore in 2004” bumper stickers.
But at this point in the game, with the course of the next two years unknown, I’d want to be given odds before I plank down a bet. A race between an incumbent and a challenger is generally assumed to be the incumbent’s race to lose. The 2-1 odds suggested by (1) above seem right to me.