Lets talk the 2004 election......

Great Debates
41

I don’t expect Georgia to lose its “Democratic” seat. (Zell Miller, nominally Democratic, has slowly become Republican in all but name.) I imagine the Democrats will probably run Cathy Cox (currently Secretary of State), or possibly Shirley Franklin (Mayor of Atlanta). Both poll very well statewide (Franklin somewhat surprisingly so, at least to those who assume racism will necessarily be a factor in Southern politics). (Cox may have her eye on the governorship, though. Hard to say.)

Who will the Republicans run? Bob Barr? Newt Gingrich? (Maybe that’s why he’s making noise lately…) Both have very high negatives. Other Republicans are either bumblers (State Insurance Commissioner Oxendine, recently in the news for his pricey, spare-no-options state automobile), or relatively obscure.

Novak is engaged in wishful thinking, as he is wont to do.

Even if Georgia’s available seat were to go Republcan, it wouldn’t make an appreciable difference in the Senate, given Miller’s Republican-friendly voting record.

42

I think it comes down to a Kerry vs. Edwards race for the Democratic nomination, with a distinct edge to Kerry due to funding, experience, and stature. Dean is an entertaining media story because he’s running like he has nothing to lose, but that is a luxury afforded only to those who have no prayer of winning.

The inherent advantage of incumbency gives Bush a head start, and the advantages of the Republican fundraising base go even further. Nevertheless, the economy is dreadfully anemic and shows no signs of turning around, and the budget defict is ballooning at an astounding rate. Ordinarily, any president caught in such times would be dead on arrival.

Obviously, these are not ordinary times. But for all his carrier-deck photo ops and regular baths in the blood of 9-11, there are plenty of reasons to believe that Bush is vulnerable–indeed, that he has bungled the job quite badly–on national security. [ul][li]Where’s bin Laden, and what are his buddies up to? I would be astounded if al Qaeda didn’t try something big between now and the election, though it’s more likely to be overseas than here. []Where are the WMD’s, George? You said there’d be WMD’s. I’m still waiting, and so’s the rest of the world. []Without the WMD’s, all you’ve got for your war is turning Iraq into a model state for the Middle East. Good luck with all that, Mr. Bush. []Our intelligence sucks ass. Oh sure, we can tell where the Republican Guard has parked its tanks, but it was an unmitigated disaster on WMD’s, the intentions and loyalties of the Iraqi regime, etc. And that’s in a big country that wasn’t even trying to keep much of anything secret. Our intelligence cannot afford to suck ass when it comes to real terrorist threats. []North Korea has nukes. Let me repeat: North Korea has nookyaler weapons. I’m not filled with warm fuzzies at the prospect, Mr. President. It happened on your watch, and you haven’t done a damned thing about it. We’ve got a brand new Department of Homeland Security, but what the heck has Dubya actually done to make the country more secure? That stupid color-coded terrorist alert thing? The borders leak like a sieve, and the state and local agencies (police, fire, disaster response, etc.) that actually have to do the bulk of the work in preventing terrorism need billions of dollars to even think about being prepared. If you were serious about homeland security, you’d be doing something about that.[/ul][/li]The Democrats would be smart to start heading off Bush’s exploitation of 9-11 now. Don’t just respond to it after he’s already done it. Decry it for the cynical manipulation that it is. The story of the 2004 GOP convention in NYC should not be “Bush promises to protect nation on anniversary of attacks.” It should be “Bush uses the victims of 9-11 to promote his re-election campaign.”

And finally, remember that You Can’t Beat Something With Nothing.

[sub]*McCain-Feingold allows individuals to donate twice as much money to a presidential campaign (formerly $1K, now $2K). But thanks to the D.C. Court of Appeals, McCain-Feingold’s ban on unlimited “soft money” contrinutions–general contributions to a party instead of a single candidate, though both parties use them to promote the issues identified with their candidate and to attack the other side–is now dead. Thus, Bush will be able to raise twice as much money from his fat cat contributors, and the Republican Party will still be able to rake in all the soft money they can get. Hooray for campaign finance reform, huh?[/sub]

43

Minty:

“Nevertheless, the economy is dreadfully anemic”

“North Korea has nukes. It happened on your watch”

On point #1, don’t get complacent. In 1991, a gallop poll showed 81% of Americans described the country as “mired in recession” compared to 45% today. Not great, but nowhere near as what Dad had to face.

On point #2, are you serriously going to say that W is responsible for NK nukes? That NK was kept cowering, with no nuclear program during Clinton (or anyone else for that matter) and suddenly developed nukes starting in Nov 2000? That might work on an underinformed electorate, but I don’t think it’ll fly on this board.

As for not letting Bush use 9/11 for political purposed, good luck. The Dems are just as eager to use it themselves. Remember, they don’t have to sell their message to the left. They have to sell it to the center. And the center right now still has 9/11 in mind.

44

Why do you count Lieberman out?

I agree. In fact, there’s no reason why a one-term Senator should be a serious candidate.

[quote]
there are plenty of reasons to believe that Bush is vulnerable:

I think the public cares more about their own security than about bin Laden personally.

The problem for Democrats is that Bush appears more serious against terror than the Democrats do. If national security is a big issue, Bush will win.

I don’t think most people care as much as you do. Most of us have gone on to acknowledge that Saddam needed overthrowing and we’ve moved on to new issues. There are some who criticize Bush for having done the right thing for the wrong reason, but that’s not much of a campaign issue.

This could be a useful issue, provided that the Democrats convince the public that this problem is pressing AND the they would do a better job. That latter point is an uphill battle, since Dems typically show less support for defence and security agencies.

Another winning issue for Bush. He supports the idiotic ABM system, which allegedly can protect us from NK nukes, and the Dems oppose it.

This issue might work. Fairly or not, Homeland Security doesn’t have a good reputation.

Focusing on this issue would get the Democrats the enthusiastic support of 1/3 of the voters – and alienate the other 2/3.

Anyhow, that’s my 2 cents worth.

45

What’s so absurd about that? After all, Bush is responsible for this weekend’s collapse of the Old Man on the Mountain. And he’s also responsible the fact that BtVS is being cancelled, and the reason Harry Potter 5 has been delayed, and he got those fat kids to sue McDonalds, and he brought Smart home, and he made the sun rise this morning …wait, just because something happens during a person’s presidency they’re not necessarily responsible? Nah. Who believes that?:rolleyes:

He gets too much credit, good and bad, for things he has little control over. The sad truth is though, if not for 9/11 we’d have a better shot at getting someone a little…less mediocre to nominate for the next election. I’m not looking forward to the next election at all.

46

I concur with most of Minty’s opinions, which display the intelligence and grace for which Texans are widely celebrated.

That said, I find myself in agreement with december as to the WMD issue. When it comes to a cooly cynical examination of the American electorate, the Pubbies have the edge. They have already largely succeeded in burying the WMD issue in bunting and ticker tape. “Victory” does not need to be justified, only failure needs explanation.

Case in point: 60 Minutes ran a story just last night, underlining a fact we lefties have been expounding for months: Afghanistan is only marginally better off than before, the same thugs and warlords we paid off as our hired mercenary army is still in charge. A decent enough fellow is Mayor of Kabul, beyond that, we could give a shit. And we don’t. Hear any cries of outrage? Hear any WH response?

All the Pubbies have to do with the WMD issue is keep saying, “Well, we’re looking for them, Iraq is a big place, could be anywhere…” and the issue will simply die of neglect. You can’t keep the publics attention on something like this without news. And there will be no news.

America does not want to believe that we went to war for bullshit and lies. Against that adamantine faith, facts are useless.

47

Elfkin:

“someone a little…less mediocre”

Unfortanately, I have the same “lofty” ambition, based on past experience:)

48

If everything goes swimmingly with the reconstruction of Iraq–please, try to contain that unseemly laughter–then the complete absence of WMD’s will not matter to anyone who wasn’t already going to vote Democratic. But if, as is far more likely, the occupation turns into a boondoggle with no end in sight, people will start to ask why it is they got stuck with this thankless crap in the first place. If that happens, and there are still no WMD’s, then it will matter that the Bushistas were either liars or incompetents on the WMD evidence.

Ah, remember the days of yesteryear, when the 'Pubbies blathered on endlessly about “exit strategy” and such? What happened to those fabled giants of yesteryear?

49

The one or two nukes that North Korea has were, according to them, built before 1994. Pretty tough to blame that one on Bush.

50

Concerning the 2004 Senate elections, the Robert Novak column that december linked has a few holes. Admittedly, I’m not as up on this stuff as I’d like to be, so there might be a few I’m missing. spoke- pointed out that the Democrats don’t look so bad in Georgia, but apart from the fact that Miller isn’t running for another term, I’ll admit I know little about that race right now. That was interesting analysis from a native, I’ll say.

First off, I agree with Novak about Alaska. Former Senator Frank Murkowski decided to run for governor in 2002 and won. Since that left his Senate seat empty, the governor (Mr. Murkowski) had to appoint someone to finish the last two years of his term. He picked a Republican from the state legislature, which isn’t so unusual in itself, but the problem that Alaskans had with his choice was that he picked Lisa Murkowski, who happens to be their new governor’s daughter. Insensed by what’s apparently nepotism, Lisa is out of favor with many Alaskans, and is widely thought to be very vulnerable to a Democratic challenger.

Novak is wrong about Illinois. The Republican Party has recently melted down there, and even if they can draft former Governor Edgar to take over outgoing Senator Fitzgerald’s job, I don’t think their chances are that great. The Illinois Democrats are already lining up for the job. I’m not sure who looks good yet, but Illinois is not favorable to Republicans in general these days.

Democratic Governor Patton was thought to be a strong candidate in the Kentucky Senatoral election, but a sex scandal has pretty much fried him. Bunning is weak there, but it doesn’t look like there’s a strong Democrat who can step forth soon.

Campbell is vulnerable in Colorado. My pick? Gary Hart. Yep, the phoenix will return. Just a hunch. He could beat the vulnerable Campbell.

On the whole, though, 2004 doesn’t appear to be a very promising year for the Democrats in the Senate. Fritz Hollings’ South Carolina seat is vulnerable, whether he runs for reëlection or not. Whether he runs for president or not, John Edwards’ North Carolina seat is said to be vulnerable. Democratic incumbents in Nevada and Washington could be in trouble, particularly if the Republicans get someone good to run against Patty Murray. Tom Daschle’s in for a fight in South Dakota; if the Republicans get Thune as a candidate, it’s going to be a rough scrap for him. He could win, but it’s going to be ugly. The Republicans want his ass. And in Florida… Graham probably would do well if he ran for reëlection, I figure. If he finds himself on the presidential ticket (he’s more likely a vice president, I think,) someone will have to run for his seat. At this time, I’m not sure who the Democrats or the Republicans have in Florida. A lot can happen there.

Unless the Democrats can inspire an atmosphere of revolution next year, it’s unreasonable to talk about their retaking the Senate. Really, I think the Democrats would do better to concentrated on minimizing their losses in the Senate. After all, if John Kerry is elected president, the last four years of his Senate term will have to be filled by the governor of Massachusetts—who’s a Republican.
As to the Electoral College: still too close to call. The Democrats are solid in the Northeast. Pennsylvania and Ohio are still tossups, but it seems they’re leaning Democratic. They usually do, but Bush’s parading around Ohio in his attempts to shame Senator Voinovich into towing the line with the tax cuts is hurting his chances with those 20 electoral votes. Bush took Ohio in 2000, but the way he’s pissed off the steelworkers in the northeast of the state, I have a feeling he’s going to have to work pretty hard if he expects to have a chance there again. Minnesota and Wisconsin are reliably Democratic states, but this time they’re more up in the air. Indiana is reliably Republican, but with a Democratic senator and a Democratic governor up for reëlection, plus with the Democrats in control of one of the state houses, I think Indiana might land in the Democratic column next year.

The Democrats will do well in California, Washington and Hawaii, and Oregon and New Mexico lean Democratic. Arizona could go Democratic. It’s been trending that way, and John McCain is running for reëlection that year. McCain is no friend to Bush, and with New Mexico having a Democratic governor, the Bush campaign really doesn’t have much in the way of built-in friends in this state.

Much of the South will go for Bush, but with the Democrats dominating the Northeast and the West coast, all they have to do is pry a couple of Southern states from the Republicans and Bush is scrambling to keep his head above water. Florida has a Democratic advantage to it, and I’d call North Carolina a swing state, even at this point.

I’ve called the last three elections, state by state, and have missed by no more than six. I don’t finalize anything until the month before the election, but my track record is pretty good. As to 2004: as others have pointed out, it’s too early to safely predict the next election. There are just too many variables. If the economy stays crummy, that’s not going to help Bush. But since I believe that George W. Bush, like Al Gore, is a fundamentally weak candidate, a strong economy wouldn’t guarantee him another term, either. If Bill Clinton were the Titanic, that iceberg would have sunk. Bush isn’t quite so resiliant. Is there a similarly resiliant Democrat in the pack? I think so. Kerry and Dean are resiliant. We’ll see if they can translate that to victory.

Basically, the Democratic nominee’s willingness to engage the public will help. Bush isn’t a big fan of campaigning, and famously doesn’t care for working long hours. A relentless Democrat, willing to work the campaign trail and talk to the press, could really put Bush on the run. Right now, I’m betting Kerry or Dean will get the nomination, with likely running mates including (but not limited to) Bob Graham, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards. A friend of mine suggested tonight that maybe Kerry and Dean could patch things up and a Kerry/Dean ticket might be possible. Intriguing, but I kinda doubt it. It’s rare that a candidate in a hotly contested primary would be willing to take the vice presidential spot on a ticket. On the other hand, George Bush did it…
Futurewatch: Dennis Kucinich has his eye on 2006. In 2004 he’ll be reëlected to his House seat easily, and will ride his new prominence to the Ohio senatorial contest or the Ohio gubernatorial contest, both in 2006. I’d bet he’d have a good shot at one of those, too. A definite 2006 Senate candidate: Joe Lieberman.

51

He’s already a Senator. Did you mean he’d be a candidate for Governor of CT?

52

What’s the buzz on Dean? I like him, but I’ve heard a lot of people write him off as the 2004 version of Nader. Does he have a realistic shot of even winning the nomination, if not the presidency?

I did vote for Gore in 2000, but I think if a Bush win looks inevitable, I’d go 3rd party in 04 because the Democrats did a lot of caving to Bush lately, especially on the Iraq war.

53

What I mean about Lieberman, Marley23, is that Lieberman’s term is up in 2006 and that he’ll be running for reëlection because he’s not going to become president, so he’ll continue being a senator.

54

This is the kind of nonsense that will result in the Democrats losing elections. OK, so I’m willing to believe that ‘you lefties’ have been expounding that Afghanistan is only a little better off, not a lot better off (whatever ‘marginally better off’ means exactly). What relevance does it have to anything? If you’ll recall, the US went to war with Afghanistan for sheltering OBL, not for the betterment of the residents of Afghanistan. Why would one expect there to be cries of outrage or a WH response? Sure, you can use it for a shrill denunciation of Bush, but it’s not going to do you any good outside of people who aren’t going to vote for Bush anyway because you haven’t shown that the situation is some sort of failure, much less that doing better is realistically possible. How many troops would it take to depose all of the warlords in Afghanistan and why wouldn’t we expect ‘you lefites’ to whip out the war protest signs if GWB sent in the troops to do so?

And here’s another place you’re going to have trouble in 2004 - you can wail, gnash your teeth, and rend your clothes while insisting that the war with Iraq was based on ‘bullshit and lies’, but having ‘some lefties’ repeat that the war was not justified will just lead to you being ignored even more. You can claim that you have ‘facts’, but maybe you and your pals should get around to presenting them - “France whined a bunch” and “No blood for oil” don’t constitute facts supporting the conclusion that the Iraq war was unjustified.

55

Well, as far as I know there is nothing wrong with bumping old threads. So I now present to you predictions from last April of our current presedential elections. Everyone please name the most prophetic poster in your humbile opinion.
In My opinion, minty green had most things nailed so far. The Kerry Edwards prediction wasn’t so far off at the time, but it is still cool that he/she got it right.

As always december gets the award for being the biggest hack. I posted this back then with my other account futureman which for some reason doesn’t work anymore…