Ha! He refuses to raise PAC money (no name recognition) so Kerry and Gephardt would run circles around him in the liberal circles during the primaries. Plus, he’d have to give up his Senate seat, which is looking increasingly safe as Wisconsin is embroiled in political scandal, making Feingold look like Bob LaFollette reincarnated.
My predictions:
-
The Democratic challenger is most likely to be Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, or someone who’s not even on the radar screen today - in decreasing order of likelihood.
-
Bush of course gets the Republican nomination. There are no serious challengers.
-
McCain doesn’t run. Certainly not as a Democrat. *Possibly as an independant, but I’d give pretty long odds that he stays out of the race entirely.
-
If McCain does run, he loses. Big time. Independants just don’t have the infrastructure or funding. The best he’d do as an independent would be about like John Anderson - he might get into the high teens early on, but in the actual election less than 10%. But that might hurt Bush.
-
The usual fringe suspects will run again. Nader, Buchanan, et al. None of them amount to anything.
-
Cheney will still be on the ticket, barring some huge scandal that forces him off of it.
-
If Cheney does leave, Bush will not pick Tom Ridge for VP. The guy has built too much of a bad reputation as Homeland Security advisor. And I’d point out that it can only get worse - I have no idea how you can possibly make people happy as Homeland Security director - if the U.S. is attacked he wasn’t doing his job, and if it’s not attacked he’s doing too much. Can’t win.
-
Possible nominees for Bush VP would be Colin Powell (doubtful - the right doesn’ t like him much), Rumsfeld (but probably too old), or (outside shot) Condoleeza Rice, which I think would be a brilliant choice unless the Bush team knows something about her I don’t. But the most likely pick for VP would be for the ‘traditional’ reasons. You have to remember that there is a lot of electoral strategy in a VP pick. If you want to take a good guess at a Bush VP, just look at the larger swing states where Bush might be vulnerable - that’s where he can be expected to shore up his strength through a VP pick. So look for a popular governor from a swing state or geographic region that would help Bush.
-
There will be war with Iraq, before the end of the next winter. And it will have the support of many Muslim countries (including, importantly, Turkey and possibly Jordan). There will also be widespread coalition support for the attack.
-
Bush will be elected president again in 2004.
Nothing. I’m not saying he doesn’t want to do it–I’m saying it’s impossible for him to do it.
It’s impossible for him to succeed, maybe, but it’s certainly possible for him to launch some spite-ridden, penile-compensatory folly that will get a lot of people killed anyway. That’s what we have to fear.
Any specific candidates? Few governors from the class of 1994 are popular and pro-life (both of which are necessary to get on the ticket).
What odds would you give to me on a bet? I’m quite interested.
Without thinking too hard about it, I’d probably give you 4:1. Incumbancy has big advantages. Bush has historic approval ratings, and they’ve stayed high throughout all the latest scandals and criticisms. It looks like the people have voted on the issues, and decided they really don’t care. Or that Bush is innocent.
Being president means you generally get to avoid a fractious nomination battle, which often leaves the winner scarred and half broke going into the Presidential campaign.
The president can raise a TON of money.
The people usually vote for the incumbent.
Those are all the cynical reasons why Bush has a big natural advantage over any challenger. It has nothing to do with whether or not Bush is doing a good job. That’s another factor to be evaluated. But the people have to think that he would be substantially worse than the alternative before their preference will overcome the effects of his advantages.
And if the people think he actually is doing a good job, the next election will be a Reaganesque landslide.
Bush will get a Reaganesque landslide only if we put him against a Mondalesque candidate.
My prediction:
-
The 2004 elections will be close. Again.
-
Because the 2004 elections will be close, third-party candidates could decide the winner. At the moment, the challenge from the right looks more serious than the challenge from the left.
-
2004 could be tricky for Al Gore. After all, how could a former vice-president who lost an election to a semi-unknown ever win the presidency? Why that’s never coughRichard Nixoncough. I’m sorry, I lost my train of thought.
-
The current timeline as I see it is that Bush invades Iraq in late 2002/early 2003. This still allows plenty of time for his approval rating to go through the floor. Six months of peacetime could do it.
-
The House will not go Democrat this year. In fact, we’ll be lucky if the Senate stays Democrat.
-
Nobody will care about Bush’s financial dealings for the same reason nobody cared about Clinton’s financial dealings: People already know politicians do that, so there’s no element of shock to it.
-
Historical odds aside, I would say at the moment that the chances of Bush retaining the White House are about 50/50, assuming a viable Democratic candidate runs against him and nothing really weird happens. These odds are subject to change; ask me again in 2 years and I can probably give you a better answer.
Cheers,
One more prediction: Unless his heart trouble gets worse, Dick Cheney will be on the ticket again next time around.
Cheers,
Sam:
I see him being a lot stronger than Anderson - more in the Perot (1992) range. A lot more people take McCain a lot more seriously as a person and a politician than they did Anderson back in 1980.
I aree that he’s unlikely to run as an independent, and he’d almost surely lose if he did. But he’d pull enough votes for his candidacy to be a political earthquake - especially if he decided to use it as a vehicle to start a party of the center.
Such a party would have resulted from Perot’s 1992 run, if Perot had been willing to let go of his toy for a few minutes and let his volunteers have a voice in shaping it. There’s a lot of people who think that the Democrats are too liberal and the GOP too conservative. And McCain is in just the right spot to step into that vacuum if he were to choose to do so. But I agree that he won’t.
FWIW, I agree with Elvis on Iraq. I think Bush is hell-bent on doing something in Iraq and the Dems, ever concerned not to look soft on terrorism, will not oppose it, at least not entirely, when it comes. If it is timed right it will come close enough to the election so that there isn’t time yet to see what a meaningless and politically strategic act it is. Is there some risk that Bush will be called on the strategy? Perhaps. But look how Clinton was able to drop Monicagate bombs without any serious mainstream opposition. I’d guess that Bush would only get serious flak on the matter of there were American deaths. Americans seem to have a high tolerance for what I’ve heard some call “push-button war.”
So while I agree with you minty, I do think, nonetheless, that Iraq could figure in 2004.
I also agree with RT on McCain’s popularity–though I have no predictions on what it will amount to. I think that running as indep. is seen more than ever as a dangerous and politically irresponsible thing to do by mainstream Americans. I don’t think McCain wants to squander his political capital that way.
Well I did say Bush might be able to pull off “more meaningless airstrikes.” But if your point is to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it’s quite clear that airstrikes ain’t gonna accomplish that, so I don’t see even airstrikes turning into a sustained campaign–probably something more like Clinton’s week-long, let’s-remind-them-we’re-here air campaigns.
Oh, there’s no way McCain will either switch parties or challenge Bush for the Republican nod. McCain’s claim to centrist status lies chiefly in his advocacy of campaign finance reform and his unwillingness to kiss Christian conservative ass. At times, he’s actually been outright hostile towards Christian conservative leaders. But McCain is himself staunchly conservative, right on down to his strong opposition to abortion rights. I like the guy quite a lot, but he’s Republican through and through.
I’ll take that bet, Bricker, one Virginian to another.
Long ago and far away I covered politics for two years. Hired as a marketing guy I got thrown into the fray when Impeachment went down. Ugh.
My best guess? Gore over Bush, closely.
And I agree with Sam Stone, Condy Rice would be an excellent pick to replace Cheney on the VP slot. Cynically she would allow Bush to siphon off (or at least confuse) parts of the african american and women’s vote and that should plant a real hole in the traditional Democratic electoral strategy. If only she were a former Union leader she’d be perfect. Hell, she’s probably the smartest person in the current administration.
The other contenders are there, Edwards, Lieberman, etc. But the only standout at this point is Gore. I’m not saying we won’t have a sudden emergence a la Clinton or Carter, just that the smart money (right now) is on Gore.
And speaking as a former political reporter I’d LOVE the story.
Bush-Gore Deathmatch 2004!
I can only imagine the NYPost headlines.
Jonathan Chance:
Bush wishes.
As it is, the NAACP (don’t recall hearing anything from NOW on Rice, so let’s stick with the African-American angle) accuses Bush of using Rice and Colin Powell as window dressing to cover up what they perceive as deep-seated racism, and berates them for letting Bush “use” them in that way.
I don’t know what could ever make African-Americans abandon the Democratic Party. Hell, you could have every elected Democrat in America take a dump on Martin Luther King’s grave and you’ll just hear Kweisi Mfume and Jesse Jackson talk about how terrible Republicans are, and African-Americans will still vote for their beloved Democrats to the tune of 95% loyalty.
Perhaps Condi as Veep would narrow the gender gap a bit. But the race gap? Dream on.
Chaim Mattis Keller
No, I truly believe you’re underestimating the impact she might have on the race. Changes in approach can lead to changes in voting behavior pretty quickly.
I think your stated position of the NAACP (I’ll take it at face value) is a bit shortsighted. Suddenly when an african american person acheives recognition outside the ‘accepted’ approach they’re allowing themselves to be ‘used’. That’s a position that admits of no possibility of reasoned debate. And I think it’s a tactic that would work against them in the long run. Far better to allow debate across the issues than simply brand one’s opponents as evil with a capital ‘E’ for disagreement.
And, as I said, cynically, there are people who will vote strictly based upon race and gender. I’m not saying it’s right or justifiable. But it’s as true as the fact that there are people who will vote based simply upon party affiliation or television charisma.
I think black voters already have a pretty good idea of which party’s leaders are more likely to do such a thing, Chaim. There are some very solid policy reasons why black voters support Democrats in such overwhelming numbers. That support is due to a lot of things, including general perceptions of each party’s inclusiveness, but it is not fairly attributable to blind ignorance.
I voted for Gore and would do it again, although I might have voted for McCain if he had beaten Bush.
Then again, I originally wanted Bill Bradley.
I wish the Dems would dump Lieberman, though. I’ve known he was a loon ever since he went off on “Mortal Kombat” and “Night Trap”. Someone PLEASE buy that man a copy of Grand Theft Auto 3, because it’s obvious he has never played a video game in his life.
Indeed Elwood I might have voted for McCain over Gore as well. Bradley was a bit too liberal for me, however.
Lieberman is almost as scary as Ashcroft. It seems to me that any person who is deeply religious and a war hawk, has serious personal issues. The two attitudes are just so incompatible, that a lot of mental baggage is required to hold them both at the same time. I really hope Gore dumps him this time around (perhaps in favor of Edwards or Kerry?)
Interesting note. According to French sources (via an Isreali newspaper?) the attack on Iraq will be well underway by the election. Bush may be planning to swing the midterms by Invading Iraq while he’s on vacation!.
The term cynical just fails to do him justice…
I know I’m late to the party, but what the hell…
I don’t think Gore is a good candidate, whether he’s “fired up” or not. But he did get 500K more votes than Bush last time, and if Bush doesn’t do anything to convince people that he’s not a tool for industry Gore can edge him out, but no landslide. Al gets points for policy, George gets points for not being Al. I mean, Al Gore is that guy from high school that was always running for class president, and while most people said they liked him no one wanted to hang out with him. He can get past that if the economy is still in the tank in two years, but if a recovery is making things better, I’m not so sure. Georgie’s just got to figure out how to keep his trap shut, and maybe things will get better. “I’m-a gon’ git those malfeeance-doers, dead’r’alive!”
If Dick Cheney is Bush’s runningmate again I think it will cost them. He’s got Halliburton problems, Arthur Anderson problems, the ticker, and is also a major league asshole (oh yeah, big time). Condoleeza Rice might be an attractive option, but I think that runs the risk of the VP candidate outshining the President. I also think her approach to foreign policy is a disaster, but Joe Sixpack probably doesn’t care what I think. Powell would also be attractive, but he’d have the same problem as Rice, plus I don’t think he’s too happy with the way he’s been marginalized by the likes of Rumsfeld and Rice. I think somebody like Fred Thompson, the former Senator from Tennessee, might be a more logical choice to the powers-that-be. Intelligent, pretty well respected, well-spoken, yet otherwise wishy-washy and uncontroversial. And he could counter Gore in Tennessee if that state leans Al’s way.
As for other candidates, don’t be so sure that Nader won’t show up again, or that he won’t have an effect on the midterm elections. He wants to take down the most “liberal/progressive” Democrats like Paul Wellstone to open the door to Republican control of both houses, so that the country will turn into one big toxic waste dump so everyone will be begging him, Saint Ralph of Green-land, to save them. So I see no reason for him to sit out in 2004. Anyways, as for “serious” candidates I don’t see Lieberman having much support as he kisses Republican ass way too much for him to survive primary season. Hillary is still “Bill’s Wife” at this time and needs more time to establish her own identity, and there is still a widespread hatred for her (right, Rush?). Kerry? Eh… Edwards sounds interesting, but he’ll need a lot of exposure. McCain, as a Republican, Democrat or Independant would be able to pull at least ten percent based on his personality, but I think as a Republican he has Lieberman’s problem, as a Democrat he’d give bigger numbers to Nader, and as an Independant he’d have no money. However, I do like him and think he would make the race interesting.
Oh, and Big Kahuna Burger, Russ Feingold has run two very successful campaigns for the Senate on about $3 and a boatload of integrity. Granted, Wisconsin tends to favor “progressive” candidates (be they of liberal or conservative nature, see the Tommy Thompson reign for the other side) but his 1992 campaign was something bordering on genius. But, yeah, nationally he’d have his work cut out for him, even if any other candidate would have a hard time pinning anything nasty on him. I also don’t think he wants to be the Prez.
I’ll admit his 1992 race was probably one of the best in the decade (his stunning win in the primary, “No Skeletons” and Elvis were superb), but in 1998, which was a wash nationwide, his victory margin went down and he seemed a little less energetic. If he had raised money like his opponent had he would’ve won by much more. I’m sure you’re familiar with the flap they had in 1998 with the DSCC funding an ad there. I hear Neumann might want another crack at it in 2004. Still, Wisconsin’s becoming increasingly Republican (It was a close win by Gore, I think Dukakis won it by more), which means a win in 2004 would be quite impressive. He’s been the 1 in so many 99-1 votes that he’d be easy to portray as too liberal for the country.