In 1992, President Bush lost his re-election bid due to economic problems, even though he had been wildly popular after a military victory over Iraq the previous year. Now, President Bush is wildly popular after a military victory in Iraq, but the economy is shaky. Will the current President Bush also fail to be re-elected?
Robert Reich sees a real possibility.
Reich makes a convincing case that the economy may still be bad in November, 2004. However, I think Bush will even in that case.
Nah, he’ll win. We’re at the crest of the right wing wave right now. Should continue for another decade or so. After that, the pendulum will begin to swing back to the left, but Junior will be long gone by then.
He’ll win, and he’ll have a Republican House & Senate behind him.
The situation is so similar, a fiction writer would have been laughed at if he had conjured it up a few years ago. But, history rarely plays itself out so nicely in the long run. I still think it’s ridiculously early to sepculate and there’s just as likely to be some totaly unforeseen circumstance that tips the election one way or the other.
Now, if a somewhat obscure governor from a small, southern state emerges as the Democratic candidate, and he has a string of ex-girlfriends popping up all over the place, watch out!!
There’s certainly no reason G.W. Bush couldn’t lose next year, but as I’ve said before, I think we’re looking at a virtual repeat of the 2000 elections, unless the Democrats nominate a ridiculously inappropriate candidate… and I don’t see that happening.
None of the Democratic hopefuls are inspiring, but that doesn’t matter- almost ALL of the states that went for Al Gore last time will go for any mainstream Democrat in 2004. And almost ALL the states that went for Bush last time will do so again.
Only a few states are really likely to be up for grabs- so expect Bush and his opponent to spend a LOT of time in Florida! And don’t be stunned if this one goes down to the wire again (or if the Electoral College conflicts with the popular vote again).
Astoria:
What do you base your assumtions on concerning states that will go for Dems again? Just this week, the San Jose paper published polling data that Bush would Win California if the election were held now. California is a pretty key state, no?
Of course, data that we have now doesn’t necessarily predict the future. But what else do we have to go on?
I don’t think 2004 will be like 1992. This particular war is a less isolated affair than the last Gulf war and foreign policy will still be important in 2004. Bush has the example of 1992 to learn from and he (or more accurately Rove) will do everything possible to avoid a repeat. He has the advantage of having the support of the Christian right to a much larger extent than Bush 41.
Having said that I still the Dems have a pretty good chance in 2004. The war spike in Bush’s ratings will largely have evaporated and what will be left will be a long, messy and expensive post-war reconstruction effort which will be much less popular. The Democrats will get good traction by attacking the diplomatic isolation of the US under the Bush administration something they have already started doing.
Furthermore the Dems have some fairly solid candidates. I think either Kerry-Clark or Kerry-Edwards would be a very strong ticket. Kerry with his military record and foreign policy experience in the Senate will have the gravitas to challenge Bush-Cheney on foreign policy. Clark would reinforce that. Edwards would bring a Southern face and possibly help carry one or more Southern states.
Finally I don’t think that either Bush or Cheney are particularly charismatic or persuasive leaders and there is little evidence that the nation at large is persuaded about their policies. Even in Iraq opinon polls only moved at the last minute with a “rally around the flag” Their year-long campaign to influence public opinon largely fell flat…
Of course a lot depends on how the economy does in the next year and a half and also whether there are any more terrorist attacks. But I would give the Dems a small edge assuming they nominate a strong ticket.
In my opinion, the 2002 election will be quite different. Althouth they share the same name, the two George Bush’s are quite different.[ul][]Jr. is fully supported by the Conservatives; Sr. was the “un-Reagan.”[]Jr. reduced taxes and is seeking further reductions. Sr. increased taxes (breaking his word.)[]Sr. was old in 1992, and he came across that way in the campaign. Jr. is vigorous.[]Sr. had few legislative accomplishments. Jr. has several major ones.[]Sr. had weaker appointees than Jr. E.g., compare Dan Quayle to Dick Cheney. []Sr.'s Iraq victory was a one-shot deal, and ended too hastily. Jr. finished Iraq and is continuing a broader war on terror.[]Sr. seemed to care about what the liberal media said about him. Jr. doesn’t care. As Reagan showed, liberal acceptance is counterproductive for a conservative. (OTOH Christy Whitman was lauded by the liberal media, but barely won re-election as NJ Governor.)[]Sr. appeared not to know what to do about the economy. Jr. is ostentatiously attempting to fix it.[/ul]
There does not look to be a “Perot Factor” in 2004 either.
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%
My opinion is Perot got anti-tax and constitutional conservatives worked up against Bush and split off a good number of votes. I don’t see this in 2004.
That 18.9% was rewarded with Clinton for their trouble, which to a conservative Perot follower had to be hard to swallow. Today’s republican unity is due in part to this.
Dec/Horowitz:
Good posts! I had forgotten how many votes Perot got. I’m starting to think W has a pretty good chance in '04. It will be a major realignment from '00 if he takes CA.
Keep in mind that the 2000 vote was split also. Gore received a greater portion of the popular vote than Bush despite Nader’s presence. (Admittedly, Buchanan was a factor as well, but his biggest impact was also in Bush’s favor, not to his detriment).
The patriotic-fervor bubble may pop before the 04 elections. Bush has made a thorough mess of foreign policy while irritating the starch out of both liberals and libertarians on the home front, and in the absence of 3rd (and 4th) party candidates with major followings will be up against an electorate that is far to the left of where his policies lie.
(I think he’s also going to get associated with some negatives he isn’t really responsible for which may be flying below his team’s radar so far. Anyone been asked to sign one of those damn HIPAA forms yet?)
Yeah, but even together Buchanan and Nader didn’t amount to half of what Perot got.
[slight hijack]
Will Cheney actually be the VP candidate (because of health problems)? And if not, who would probably be a replacement and what effect would that have?
[/slight hijack]
Bob
I could easily see someone like McCain if Cheney decided not to be the VP candidate and Bush (and the rest of the Republicans) decided they needed someone more center.
Then again, I’m biased in McCain’s favor. He is one of the few politicians I would vote for no matter what party he was running with.
The issue of VP is a key one, and not a hijack at all. I’m going to predict that Cheney’s out for a second run (yes, it’s a WAG). His replacement could be a key issue in the race.
If Bush selects someone like Powell or McCain (and they accept), than he’ll likely win handily. If he selects someone further to the right, he’s putting himself at risk.
You’re right, Avalonian, and I forgot Powell. Actually, I could see Powell running for VP before McCain, if only because he’s already in the administration.
I believe Powell said that he wouldn’t run for VP, and He actually has more power as Sec. of State. I doubt he’d accept VP.
woops! change that first VP to President! sorry!
If we had a black Vice President right now, I couldn’t wait to kill the President." - Chris Rock.