The 2004 Election, for Non-Americans

Great Debates
21

I heard that all presidents end up winning or losing their second term based on the domestic economy. It seems that the domestic economy is kind of in the shits these days - is he expecting that support for his overseas actions will outweigh this?

Or are these arguments (like “Most of the presidents in the past have had XX% support under these circumstances”) along the same lines as Cliff Claven’s assertion, based on the numerology of past president’s names, that the next president must be named Yelnick McWaWa?

22

Mehitabel said:

I think this is very, very true. I know that I will be switching my vote from the Libertarian party in 2004 to support whomever the Democrats put forward. Unfortunately.

23

Presidents tend to be blamed for a bad economy, and credited for a good economy, despite the lack of control the president has over the business cycle.

Yes, the economy is doing poorly–today. Will it be doing poorly a year from now? The likelyhood is that it will be recovering. I don’t think it would be wise for the democrats to base their campaign on a bet that the economy will still be in recession in November 2004.

I think the Democratic primary comes down to a contest between Howard Dean and John Kerry. Kucinich, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton are comedy relief, not serious. Lieberman is a solid candidate, but…why would the Democrats nominate Bush Lite? If people like Bush, they’ll vote for Bush. Edwards is a long shot, too unexperienced. Watch for him in 2008. Graham is too weird, too unexciting. Gephart has solid union support, but he is really a party apparatchik. His time has come and gone. People don’t want warmed over protectionism and so-called “industrial policy”. Gephart represents brain-dead knee-jerk union populism that went out with Walter Mondale.

So we are down to Dean vs. Kerry. I gotta say, Dean is looking more and more likely every day. Kerry is a generic acceptable Democratic candidate. No big pluses, no big minuses. But Dean is something different, more interesting. He is a natural politician, he doesn’t have that stunned, confused, hit upside the head by a two-by-four look some of the other candidates have. He’s smart, articulate, likeable. His only downside is his current reputation as some sort of left-wing nut. But in my opinion this is undeserved, although Dean certainly doesn’t go out of his way to correct the notion. Right now, as a libertarian conservative, Dean is the only Democratic candidate that I could see myself voting for over Bush.

The big risk is that Dean will implode over some gaffe or ill-considered statement or position. But…for all his reputation as a tell it like it is speaker, I believe that Dean is actually a very careful person, much like Clinton was. He is relentlessly on message. Somehow…I just don’t see him self-destructing like Gary Hart.

So finally, guessing he’s got at least a 51% chance, I’ve got to predict Howard Dean as the democratic nominee.

The we match Dean vs. Bush. Hard to say. Dean is obviously a better speaker and debater, but will he be able to overcome his (cynical, in my opinion) leftist image from the primaries? Will the electorate choose someone who supports gay civil unions and opposed Iraq? As others have pointed out, the election is Bush’s to lose. If Bush flubs between now and next November, Dean has a very good shot. If Bush muddles through, Dean is in trouble. How likely is a Bush implosion? Some might think it is very likely, but it seems to me that they are really HOPING it is likely. Hoping it will happen, and thinking it is likely to happen are two different things.

In a year, the WMDgate issue will be settled. Those who already hate Bush will still hate him, but it won’t change the electoral map substantially. If the occupation of Iraq is doing well, people will forgive him. If it isn’t going well, how he got us into the quagmire will be irrellevant.

So bottom line 3:2 odds for Bush if he faces Dean, 2:1 odds if he faces any other candidate. Bush is likely to win, but Dean is the best chance the Democrats have.

24

Political Oddsmaker is giving Bush 7 to 5 odds of winning reelection (58.3%), but it’s early yet, of course.

http://www.campaignline.com/odds/odds.cfm

25

Well, it’s about time George W. Bush served as a uniter, and not a divider! :wink:

26

For you, the offer is still open. Want the bet?

27

Let’s review the general process:

The presidential primaries that will occur in early 2004 are where the parties whittle their contenders down to a single candidate who will receive the party’s full backing for the general election in November. With respect to the Democratic party, there are currently nine candidates vying for the privilege of competing against the incumbent president.

While primary season technically lasts from January to September, the majority of the nation will have cast its vote by the middle of March. The Democratic presidential candidate will then be formally appointed at the party’s convention in Boston the week of July 26. From August through the general election in November it’s a dog-eat-dog world of debates, handshaking, baby-kissing, sound bites, overpromising and wooing what both major parties recognize to be a centrist but disenfranchised majority of eligible voters.

For historical and situational reasons, I pick Anybody But Bush by a landslide over Bush in 2004.

You bet. The incumbents are overconfident and the opposition much stronger than they think.

First, Republicans are economically libertarian, but they’re not very good at managing the economy which is the soft underbelly to their morally totalitarian exterior. As Bush Sr. demonstrated, high approval ratings don’t mean much when you’re 16 months away from a general election in an economy that has no hope of rebounding to the level of prosperity you started with.

Second, the war is starting to blow up in the President’s face. During a Senate hearing today, the Secretary of Defense explained that the decision to go to war with Iraq wasn’t based on fresh intelligence, but on a “reinterpretation” of existing intelligence in the aftermath of September 11. That puts the administration in the uncomfortable position of having to “reinterpret” exactly what it is our troops are over there dying for, since the intelligence the war was based on has proven to be unreliable.

Meanwhile, the Internet seems to have a crush on Howard Dean. He’s economically conservative, socially progressive, articulate, personable and untainted by the scandal unfolding in Washington. He also has a reputation for candor, a quality I find irresistable in a political candidate.

Look at the list of sites on the left-hand margin of the campaign’s official blog – Dean for Deaf America? DeanPix? Hack4Dean? Christians for Dean? This man’s appeal is astonishingly diverse considering he was unheard of a few months ago, and it bodes very well that six months ahead of the earliest primary a consensus Democratic candidate is emerging.

28

There’s an election next November?

:slight_smile:

29

I read a website on Mr. Dean begin this year, and I’ve send immediately a mail to say that if I was a US citizen, he could count on my vote and my support of his campaign.

I found him refreshing, and realistic. And when reading his comments on the Palestine/Israel issue I discovered a politician who is very well aware of the sensitivities about that issue in the USA yet at the same time not blinded by this at all.

I think he could repare what the current government has ruined: the credibility of the US presidency and US government worldwide.
Aldebaran.

30

Not me. Not easily anyway.

I’ll probably vote Libertarian and watch Bush win a 200 vote landslide. The litigation was interesting. Which reminds me, I have a trunk full of Gore ballots. What should I do with those?

If the election were to be held today I’d be really surprised.

31

As can I. I’m not a voter, but I can pull a few hundred :wink:

Right now I’m sending them all Dean’s way.

32

Every time I hear predictions like this, it sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Republicans; what they are really thinking is, “If only the election were held today, Bush could win”. His poll numbers are crashing, the economy is stagnant, war news is turning dismal; the only good news is that his election warchest runneth over. No wonder the Republicans wish the election was being held today; in sixteen months, Bush will be poised to spend more money per vote of any candidate to ever lose a Presidential election.

33

OK… hypothetical question here…

Assuming…

(1) that no campaign funding issues existed and that all potential candidates were on a level playing field…

(2) that no internecine political deals were taking place in either the Reupublican or Democratic parties…

(3) that TV did NOT play a role in the electoral process and that non-aesthetically pleasing candidates had just as much chance as anyone else…

(4) that the Electoral Primary system was scrapped and every existing congressman and senator and stage governor potentially could rise to the top of the totem pole…

Who would be the best candidates of all? And why?

34

Let’s hope Aldebaran at least let the Deanie Babies know what country he was writing from, something he hasn’t bothered to do here.

And that word doesn’t get out that Dean has his support. :smiley: How embarassing would that be?

Rjung, that was hilarious! But I really do think that, if the election doesn’t prove to be the Repub juggernaut some are prediciting, people who would have voted for a thiird-party candidate will hold their noses and pull the lever (or whatever they have to do–in MA I drew a line with a pencil to complete an arrow) for the Dem.

35

Anybody predicting “landslide” for either party is engaging in wishful thinking.

Look, I’m a card-carrying spokesman for the far Right, and I plan to vote for President Bush next year. I think he’ll PROBABLY win, but I don’t expect it to be easy, and I don’t think it’s a lock by any means. He’s definitely vulnerable, on several fronts.

But while Howard Dean certainly CAN win the Democratic nomination and the 2004 election, he’s definitely got his work cut out for him. Dean is an impressive candidate in many ways, but he has serious weaknesses, too. Among them:

  1. Unlike Bill Clinton, Dean is utterly lacking in humor and charm. He comes across as a scold (trust me, I recognize the type: we have plenty of charmless scolds on the Right, too!). That sort of thing plays well with True Believers, and Dean can certainly inspire people who already agree with him on all the major issues. But to win an election by a landslide, a candidate needs a lot MORE than the people who share his ideology. He has to attract people who have NO strong ideology, who simply want to vote for a man who gives them a positive, warm feeling. FDR had that quality. Kennedy had that quality. Reagan had it. Bill Clinton definitely had it. But Howard Dean doesn’t. MANY people may agree with him, but VERY few will like him.

  2. Unlike Bill Clinton, Howard Dean has no chance of carrying any Southern states.

  3. Unlike Bill Clinton, Dean will find it nearly impossible to pose as a moderate. He’s far too liberal on the social issues, and he’s been too quickly/completely embraced by the far left.

Now, are these weaknesses necessarily fatal? No. Insurmountable? No. Dean definintely CAN win. Depending on the circumstances in November of 2004, he can DEFINITELY pull together enough electoral votes to win.

But he CAN’T win by a landslide.

36

One great thng I dislike about USA elections is that most states have a closed primary system. For the presidency, I would prefer an open primary, wherein the top two, three, or four total popular vote candidates, regardless of party, would then run off in the general election, run according to our “Winner Take All” electoral college rules. Yes, even if the top primary candidate gets a majority in the primary. In essence, this would allow for smaller states to still have some say in the presidential election instead of just becoming landfills for New Puke and Kalipornia.

37

Huh? Iowa and NH always winnowing out the field before we lotsa-people states get a crack at them isn’t enough?

Other than that, intriguing idea, except that the parties themselves would scream at having to back up and allocate funds to more than one guy at once, especially if they had varying messages.

38

Can I have a quick rehash of the rules and prize?

39

Eh, no. Dean has plenty of humor and charm. Many people like him, but very few people agree with him on everything. Where do you get the idea that he doesn’t have this?

I dissagree there. Though I think to make that likely he will need Wesley Clark or Edwards.

Most of the Democratic candidates and Dick Cheney support civil unions. Dean is to the left on this issue, but not by very much.
Besides the far left embraced Kucinich.

40

If you think Howard Dean is charming and likeable, I’m not going to be able to convince you other wise… but you’re still wrong. Dean has shown a bit more warmth and humor than Ralph Nader, but that’s not saying much.

I know, I know, in an ideal world, that wouldn’t matter! The issues would be everything! But they’re not.

Look, you wanna pretend that Dean is a charmer, go right ahead. But you sound a lot like the people who insisted that Bob Dole and Al Gore were “really” personable guys once you got to know them.

Lest you think I’m just bashing a liberal I dislike, I hasten to add that Dean DOES have strengths: he comes across as smart, confident, decisive and principled. That’s the good news for his supporters. The bad news (and they ignore it at their peril) is that those same qualities can make him seem smug and dogmatic.

If you don’t think that matters, you’re ignoring history. Millions of people who didn’t agree with Ronald Reagan on the issues voted for him anyway because they LIKED him (that drove Tip O’Neill nuts!). Similarly, even people who are basically conservative voted for Bill Clinton because they LIKED him (that drove right-wing talk radio hosts nuts!).

But Howard Dean lacks that quality completely. Every fiber of Dean’s being sends the message that “if you don’t agree with me, you’re an idiot.” And while ideologues in the Democratic Party will find that attitude bracing, it will NOT play with the electorate at large.

Lastly, you give John Edwards and Wesley Clark WAAAAY too much credit if you think either man can put a single Southern state in the Democratic column. Frankly, I don’t think there’s ANYBODY in EITHER party who’s popular enough to swing/deliver ANY state from the #2 spot on the ticket.