Bush has his campaign funds rolling along pretty well… and the democrats are bumbling along. Still no one mentions the possibility of another Republican trying to go for president as well…
What are the chances of someone trying to get Bush’s place as the Republican Nominee ?
If someone does try... what are the chances of taking down Bush as the Republican candidate? (I know it depends on what happens until then... assume current trends continue.)
Who might that brave contender be ? Would it split the Republicans ? What effect would it have on the elections if Bush does remain the GOP candidate afterall ?
Might a good GOP alternative to Bush actually make Democracts support that possible Republican candidate ? (Democrats unfortunately are doing a bad job of giving alternatives to Bush... )
If things do get worse in Iraq and in the Economy from now until election time... is there a real possibility of Bush stepping down from being a candidate in order to give the Republicans a better chance ? Especially if the WMD, economics and other "little" details of the Bush Government turn out ugly ? Or is Bush the best bet of the GOP no matter what ?
To answer your thread title: As close to zero as you can get.
Perhaps if a bloody civil war errupted in Iraq with 10s of thousands killed that spilled over into Turkey and Iran, Bush might be forced to not run in '04.
Extremely unlikely, but keep wising if it makes you feel better.
No other republican candidate can get the money to run against him.
Buchannan and Perot(who dont depend so much on campaing money) will not run again, and even if they did, they cant get enough votes.
Therefore, the next president in 2004 will most certainly be a democrat, unless she/he heavily emphasizes VERY anti-american unpopular stances on traditional American traditions/values, e.g. pro-gun control, heavy taxation, anti-family, weak military, etc .
There are always the Buchanan type nuts out there, but they’d have to run as Independents. The Republican nomination is 100% Bush’s right now. Barring the scenario I outlined above, that isn’t going to change.
No. From a political standpoint, this is a net plus for Bush right now. You, my friend, are projecting your own point of view onto the American electorate. Of course there are many who won’t vote for Bush because of the Iraq war, but that view is the minority view in the US at the present time.
I think there is a possible scenario where the economy stays sluggish, Iraq deteriorates and Bush’s poll numbers go down and Bush decides not to run. LBJ in 1968 offers a precedent.
Bush’s poll numbers are already in the mediocre territory with some polls showing less than 50% wanting to re-elect him. Another bad month and he would be in serious danger. In such a situation I think the GOP will be better off with someone else. Bush would be damaged goods and there wouldn’t really be any major policy initiative that Bush could propose so a new face on the ticket would be the best option.
It’s very rare but not unheard of for another candidate to challenge an incumbent president of his own party who is eligible for reelection, and usually occurs when his popularity and acceptance of his policies are in decline. LBJ in 1968 furnishes the most obvious recent example. Between 1840 and 1860 no president was reelected, and most were not renominated by their own parties.
I think that one problem with replacing Bush is that right now the Republican party leaders are very unified. Anybody who replaces Bush would probably have the same baggage that Bush does.
Also Bush has the ability to fundraise quite a lot due to the way the Republican primary is set up. Republicans are going to rely a lot on having a big money advantage this election and a challenger would negate most of that advantage.
So, basically they are putting all their eggs in one basket.
The possibility exists of the WMD lies, and others, blowing up in his face to the extent that he has to withdraw for his party’s good, like Johnson in 1968. But that’s a long shot, and only McCain would be able to take advantage of it anyway in the remaining time, the other GOP leadership being so compromised for the same reasons.
Or Bush could try to eat another pretzel. Then, Cheney has at least as much baggage as Bush with no popular political base, then it’s wide open for a governor, or, less likely, a Senate backbencher, to come in.
Polycarp, you omitted Reagan’s challenge to Ford in 1976, and Kennedy’s to Carter in 1980. Both succeeded only in fatally damaging their party’s incumbent’s chances of winning later on, not least because both ungraciously refused to seriously endorse or support them after their own failures.
But you’re right in general, ever since the party organizations have prevented serious intraparty challenges to their own incumbents. I don’t even know of a Senate or Governor’s race lately where that’s happened. Democracy in action? Who knows?
Bush seems to have it locked up. If any other Republican were planning on challenging him, they would have had to start putting themself forward before now. While it’s certainly possible Bush’s popularity may decline in the next year, it’s all but impossible it will do so so dramatically that the Republican party as a whole will ask him to step down. In American politics, an incumbent President is virtually always nominated by his party for a second term.
In answer to the OP…you can’t beat something with nothing. Which Republican of national stature do you think might challenge Bush? McCain tried once and failed. Who else is there?
I can’t remember the politician to whom this is credited, but the quote applies here: He’d have to be caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl not to win the nomination.
Lets say Bush is either caught lying, in bed with boy or for any other reason wont be a candidate or is asked to step down. Do those funds raised until now “belong” to the Republican party ? Or are they part of the Re-election committee of Bush Jr. ? What are the specifics for this occurence…
IMHO Colin Powell would be a good republican candidate… but he is too moderate for the Bushites and too republican for the democrats…
He was under “orders” of Bush thou… I do agree that the case presented was ridiculous… and even then Powell went ahead. Very loyal indeed… thou it smelled like a setup.
Bush would have to “give control” to the party… or he could use it as leverage to chose possible future candidate ?
If for some reason Bush drops out, it would depend on the timing. He’s not officially the 2004 candidate until the Republican party nominates him at its convention. Up until then, the party could simply nominate another candidate. If Bush is chosen as the candidate and then dropped out, presumedly his vice-presidential candidate would step into the front spot. In either event, Cheney is the most likely candidate to replace Bush if he chose to withdraw.
I think with Cheney’s health problems, the Republican leadership would be hesitant to nominate him. And I don’t think Powell will run for the presidency. Personal reasons, or whatever. If for some reason Bush were to disappear, I’d expect McCain to jump at the chance to run. For those who dislike the current administration’s Iraq policy, McCain seems to be one of Bush’s most ardent supporters in that particular area.
IMO, Bush and the powers behind his throne will do what is necessary to secure the nomination and the presidency in 2004, whether it be starting a war to boost his polls, letting a few thousand people be killed to invoke patriotic hysteria, reprogramming the computer voting system to skew the results, or merely having some arcane appointed body hand it over again (IMO).
