I only ask because all my friends and I assumed Bush would be getting the bum’s rush in 2004. Recently I saw Letterman and part of his monologue was along the lines of, “People ask what are the Democrat primaries for…to pick which Democrat will lose to Bush.” What surprised me was the big laugh he got. So what goes on - Bush will win, NY audience, studio audience will laugh at anything. I remember in 2000 I thought Bush was a joke until Dave, Jay and Conan proved Gore could be one too. Once those audiences start laughing look out.
Keep in mind that most political opinions expressed here are the result of merely superficial attention.
Polls I have seen have Bush beating Dean, or any other candidate in the bunch. But those “votes” are diluited among that bunch. I read a statement by Hillary recently that at this time in 1991, Bill had a tiny bit of support, like under 5%, and look who won that election in 1992. It is really not worth polling until one Democratic candidate has been selected, and there is a clear choice between the two major parties.
Although there’s a big grass roots support for ousting Bush, the Republicans are way ahead in the fundraising race. Generally, it’s wise to bet on the guy with the most money.
The Dems are in the thick of their primary. Bush has not bothered to start campaigning until he knows who his opponent will be. Plus, as has been mentioned, he has a huge war chest, while Dean et al. have spent much of their campaign money already.
And the economy is picking up, job growth is recovering, the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed, and the Democratic front-runner has staked almost his whole campaign on being anti-the war in Iraq.
A lot of the polls are based on the idea of Bush vs. anybody else. Thus supporters of Dean get lumped in with Kucinich, Sharpton, Kerry, Clark, Nader, etc. But it is not necessarily the case that a Clark supporter will vote for Dean if he gets nominated. He may vote for Nader, or another fringe candidate, or not vote at all. And, of course, not everyone who answers a pollster is going to take the trouble to vote.
Early days, but Bush is positioned for the start of the campaign agains whoever the Dems pick.
That’s very different to here. Most Australians just vote for the same party all their lives. Most of my friends are Labor voters and while over the last 6 years or so they would happily discuss the disarray the party was in and its total lack of policies they still felt it appropriate to vote for them.
Yeah, then there’s the problem of can the democrat “play” well in all parts of the country? If he can’t, you have to do the Clinton 92 strategy, and hope Bush doesn’t out-campaign you.
Oh, and picking Hillary for VP is a sure way to lose the South.
It’s going to depend on who they run, but moreso on the economy and Iraq and how those improve in the run up to the election. I wouldn’t bet against Bush just yet.
If the Democrats continue to avoid addressing the very real problems of the vast majority of people and continue to run as pale reflections of the Republican Party; they will fail.
Bush’s win is not certain. But even Dean has work ahead of him if he wants to beat Bush. Kucinich needs a miraculous amount of luck just to get the nomination.
I hadn’t considered the first part, and it gives me hope. I also agree about waiting until a candidate has been selected. I still don’t have a clear favorite among the democrats and so can’t begin to wonder what the chances would be. I hear about the enormous amounts of money, and (maybe naively) hope that can’t be all there is to winning an election.
Anybody that says Bush has anything like electoral trouble is kidding themselves. Whistling past the Democratic graveyard, as it were.
Dean is almost certainly the Democratic nominee, and that’s a beautifully wrapped gift to the President. Eveytime Dean does something good - like increase his commanding lead - Karl Rove gets wood. Seriously, the Republican machine types literally cheer everytime the Dean camp gets good news. They’re slavering over the chance to run against this hapless buffoon.
Which brings us to when Dean does stupid things. This is also good news to the Republicans. As has been mentioned, Dean is running through his war chest like a sailor on shore leave (or like Bush through the '04-and-later budgets:mad:) to try to get the nomination locked up in this bruising primary. He’s taken lots of serious hits from the selfish bastards he’s running against, and those sound bites from the other Democratic nominees that availed them not through the primaries will make a great little montage ad from the Republican National Committee before the general election. When Bush unlimbers the heavy artillery in earnest…lights out.
Bush landslide of 40+ states. Dean may fail to carry even five.
With a bullet. The ‘legitimacy’ of this administration will be ratified without the slightest shadow of any doubt, and will put paid to all the crap about Bush being an ‘appointed’ President, ‘stolen’ elections, etc.
And coattails. Look for up to six Republican gains in the Senate; there is almost NO possiblility of any losses, so continued Republican control is almost a lock. There is the possibility of ending up with 60 bipartisan votes to override filibuster attempts. The Senate will finally get back to their jobs and actually provide straight votes on judicial nominees.
There are very few House races that are competitive. And among those, Republicans are lookin’ good. Smart money says Republican gains here, also, ensuring continued Republican control, with the possibility of a greater margin.
And we’ve already seen the power of this President to get Republicans into governor’s offices. Likely gains here, too, in a category that Republicans already dominate.
Four more years, baby. And I’ll back it up, if anybody wants any action on it.
A.) The Economy. If it keeps getting better until election day, Bush will find it easier to win.
B.) Iraq. If the situation has stabalized somewhat by then, Bush will find it easier to win.
The Reverse is also true. If both get better, then Bush will win without a doubt. If both get worse, Bush is screwed. If one is better and one is worse, I’d say it’s a crap shoot as who will win.
Actually, there is a third factor as well.
C.) Who the democrats run. A lackluster candidate isn’t going to get a lot of independent votes, and may not turn out the democratic base.
Other things may affect his chances, but I’m assuming that these three variables will matter most.
As far as Iraq goes, Bush’s numbers are about to shoot up. I’m talkin’ near-term, here, not late next year. Whether it holds on high or not is a different question, but the situation has greater potential to improve than to erode.
You heard it here first.
As for the economy, the Dems have been saying, “Okay, YEAH, the economy is growing at a rate not seen since the last time a true conservative President was into his third year of tax cuts (and ‘stimulative government spending’, too, it must be admitted) twenty years ago. But what about the JOBS, huh? HUH?!”
Anybody that knows a dam’ thang about economic cycles knows that unemployment/job creation is the last indicator to shift positive during a recovery. And as the Dems’ luck would have it, we should see some truly spectacular numbers in Bush’s favor by the end of next fiscal year (aka, The Week Before the Election).
