Lets talk the 2004 election......

Great Debates
21

I think the wars will be much more ‘in play’ in 2004 than they were in 1992, which (right now, at least) is a positive for Bush.

The reason I say this is that Gulf War I was much more of a one-shot deal - OK, we’ve done it, now it’s over. Gotta tend to the home front. But GWII is part of what is portrayed as an ongoing struggle. Not to mention, we’ll surely still be seriously involved in Iraq next summer. If Iraq in 2004 is peaceful, serene, and seemingly on its way to becoming a democracy, then the war will be a very strong plus for Bush. If OTOH many Iraqis hate our guts by this time next year, and our forces and aid workers are frequently getting ambushed and killed, or having to kill Iraqis, then the ‘Q’ word will come back to haunt Dubya, and it’ll be a negative.

Other possibilities: if North Korea has lots of nukes by this time next year, people will reasonably ask, “Why weren’t we focusing on them, rather than Iraq?” That would take the War on Terror from a big Bush plus to at best a small one, maybe even a wash.

If there’s bad news out of Afghanistan - for instance, if the warlords running the country act as warlords historically have, and the TV news starts featuring it - that could neutralize the WoT as a Bush positive.

IOW, as long as all goes well, or the things that aren’t going well don’t lead the news, Iraq and the WoT is a big Bush plus in '04. But if things start going wrong in nontrivial ways, and it gets serious TV play, it could be anywhere from a fairly small plus to a big negative.

Domestically, Bush has a record to run on, now. And on the whole, it’s going to hurt him. Domestically, he’s got to run on his tax cuts, because they suck the money from everything else; if he trumpets, say, No Child Left Behind, it’ll give his opponent a chance to remind people that it’s a seriously underfunded program. Blaming the economy on Clinton will remind people that Bush believed things were great, too, and sold us the big tax cut on that basis.

How much this helps the Dems in 2004 depends on who their man is, and how shrewd he is in choosing which differences between the parties to emphasize. Gephardt’s universal health care plan, which would be paid for by freezing the tax cuts, was a good start, I think.

I think Clinton won’t be much help to the Democratic nominee, even if he tries to be. Remember that Clinton’s presidency left the Democratic Party worse off than it was pre-Clinton. I think the nominee will quietly tell Bill, “Raise lots of money for me, mail me the checks, and stay the hell away.”

22

spoke: “No mention yet of the potential effect of a large-scale terrorist attack”. Actually, some of us have. I put it in my first post to this thread. The problem is that it’s such a wildcard, you might as well ignore it. There’s just no telling what would happen.

23

Missed that bit in your post, John Mace.

It is indeed a wild card, but one to be borne in mind. Both Republicans and Democrats must have a contingency plan for responding in terms of political strategy to such an attack. Presidential politics is a business for cynics.

24

Spoke: You can bet your bippy these guys have plans! From my perspective, though, it would depend so much on the type of attack, the timing (how close to the election) and what we did to respond. It could work either for or against Bush.

25

So, which states are safe in 2004, and which states are battlegrounds?

In a sense, very few states are safe: if both Iraq and the economy go to hell between now and next fall, Bush will get about 60 electoral votes - Texas and a few Deep South states, plus Alaska and Utah. And if the Dems nominate Al Sharpton, they’ll get 3 electoral votes. But assuming the election’s not a foregone conclusion with a week or two to go, here’s my list:

GOP Safe States - 180 Electoral Votes
Every state Dole won in 1996 (159 EV then, 162 now), plus Arizona (10) and Kentucky (8).

Dem Safe States - 179 Electoral Votes
The Northeast, except PA, NH, and Maine (88), plus California (55), Illinois (21), Washington (11), Hawaii (4).

These are the states that Bush or Gore took by comfortable margins in 2000 - see the link to the 2000 tallies, below.

Here’s the map of the 2000 Electoral Voting, the 1996 Electoral Voting, the states whose electoral vote counts will change in 2004, the 2000 state-by-state Presidential vote tallies, and the same for 1996, just to get a bunch of useful links in one place.

So, where are the battleground states?

Battleground states that went GOP in 2000:
New Hampshire (4), West Virginia (5), Ohio (20), Florida (27), Missouri (11), Tennessee (11), Arkansas (6), Louisiana (9), Nevada (4).

Battleground states that went Dem in 2000:
Maine (4), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Iowa (7), Oregon (7).

That’s my list, anyway. Feel free to come up with your own.

26

There are polls that state that Americans are already starting to forget about the significance for the war. Check out this
USAToday/CNN/Gallup Poll

Everyone knows that the American electorate has a short memory. They sure did forget about Osama pretty fast. Now nobody cares about Osama! Its truely amazing.

27

I wonder how our color-coded state of security will effect election time? If it’s raised or lowered it could make the country feel safer about keeping Bush in office.
If it’s raised, people could speculate that it’s because of the chance of a “weaker” president in office. Or if it’s lowered, people may worry about upseting that status with a new, unproven president.

Much to my dismay, my money’s on Bush winning next time.

28

This thread is full of great analysis. For the most part, the partisan side has stayed rather civil.

I have a question for the panel:

Do you think Bush will employ a tactic like this (even if the economy is sour)- Imply (and have the talking heads like Limbaugh or Novak EXPRESSLY state) that ousting Bush from office, who has been tough on terror, will show the world that America is no longer willing to prosecute the war on terror.
Basically, now that “Warmongerer Bush” is out of the big chair, the “anti-war” DEMS are ok to attack.

Now, I am not asking if you think that theory is true. I am asking how well it would work as a strategy. Playing on fear is NOT a new political tactic!

29

You’re forgetting one factor.

30

Never underestimate the heart of a champion!

31

Anybody but Lieberman. Carrot Top. Pee Wee Herman. Mr. T. I mean, anybody but Lieberman.

32

Sorry, bit off track, there.

Clearly, Mr. Rove has already outlined the strategy, as demonstrated by the Gloat on the Boat. Got two bits says GeeDubya gives a “victory” speech for every group of returning soldiers.

As for the effect of terror attacks, that’s rather a puzzlement. Where the heck did Al Queda go? Its not like we haven’t done our level best to improve thier recruiting. Why are they so quiet?

Bottom line: its way too early for conjecture.

33

The whole dean factor could shake things up too. When looking at the dems, most seem to be taking few risks. Dean is a high risk but high rewards guy, Kerry is a little riskier, but nothing like Dean. So dean has the potential to get a lot of support, but then he also has the potential to loose big.

34

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, unless the economy tanks, Bush wins in '04.

35

By which you mean to say the economy hasn’t already tanked? For some 6% of the population, it has. Even the most optimistic estimate sees little prospect of an early turnaround.

36

I think they’re already planning such a beast – the 2004 Bush Reelection Campaign is going to be one big anti-terrorism crescendo. Consider these news reports from the last week alone:

Bush to Officially Start Campaign On Week of 9/11 Anniversary

Bush White House Supressing Congressional Report on 9/11 Intelligence Failures

And this is all 18 months before the next election – imagine how much more fearmongering they’ll squeeze in in the months ahead…

37

rjung, why do you hate America so much?

38

I’d reply, but this isn’t the BBQ Pit, and the language I’d use is unsuitable for tender young ears or simple-minded posters. :wink:

39

By all reports, Lieberman did a particularly good job in the pseudo-debate in SC over the weekend, and Kerry and Dean looked petty and vindictive. Curiouser and curiouser.
<Please don’t let Gephardt get the nomination. The man has the charisma of dry, white toast.>

40

According to columnist Robert Novak

Since Novak is conservative, I’m unsure how he know what the thinking is in Democratic circles. But, here’s his column FWIW.