I think the economy will be the determining factor in 2004. If it improves, Bush wins. If it continues to deteriorate, bye bye Bush. Whether Bush appears to be trying to fix the economy will not matter to any but committed Bush voters.
If the United States switches to nationwide electronic voting machines for the 2004 elections, Dubya will win with a 99% landslide even if everyone votes against him.
Cite. Though I’m sure december will be ready to tell us how this would be a good thing… :rolleyes:
I’d say Bush Jr looks clueless compared to Bush Sr when it comes to fixing the economy. He has been claiming since 2001 that the downturn is just temporary and it will shortly be fixing itself. Greenspan has been publicly criticising Bush’s policies of fixing the economy.
One other thing to remember is that Bush Sr. had a 90% approval rating after the war. Bush Jr. has something like a 70% approval rating after the war. So this time it wont look like an upset.
What I was getting at was the 1992 election really galvanized republican voters from that point forward. I image that something similar will happen with democrats due to Nader splitting of the 2000 vote.
Now this is just opinion, but I still think the far left is more likely to vote 3rd party than the right at this point in time.
I meant that the far left is more likely to go 3rd party over the FAR right.
You should take a peek at Howard Dean. He is pretty interesting, and may have a shot.
If Cheney drops off the 2004 ticket, there’s not a chance in hell that Bush will replace him with McCain. To say there’s no love lost between those two is the understatement of the year. Not to mention, McCain’s leftward evolution has continued to the point where he’s got more in common with the Dems than with Bush. In a Bush administration, he would be Not A Team Player in an administration that puts a heavy premium on just that.
Agreed. But we differ on what that ‘effect’ was.
Perot was a third-party candidate of the center, and had nothing, nothing in common with the anti-tax wing of the GOP (which incidentally hadn’t reached anything like its recent ascendancy). Perot in 1992 argued strongly that the rich - people like him - should shoulder more of the overall tax burden, not less.
Perot was an economic conservative in the old-fashioned sense, that of placing a high priority on balancing the budget.
For the reasons I’ve given above - plus the absolute antipathy between the religious right and Perot - I don’t see that there were many conservative Republicans who voted Perot.
One forgotten “Perot effect” - the most important one, IMHO -was that of providing a bridge for moderate Republicans to leave the party and vote Democrat in 1992. Pubbies who didn’t like either the Falwell-Robertson Brigade or the endless string of deficits could move comfortably into the Perot camp. then when Perot dropped out (remember that?) right before the Democratic convention, it seemed from the polls like Clinton picked up almost all of Perot’s support. Perot got much of it back when he rejoined the race, but given that there were 58 Democratic Senators in 1993, you gotta figure that most of them voted Dem below the top of the ticket.
Anyway, the only chance for a Perot-like phenomenon this time would be if McCain ran as an independent. The gap between the parties has never been wider, and as a result, it’s as wide open to a centrist independent as it was in 1992. But the scuttlebutt is that McCain isn’t really thinking about it. (Too bad, IMHO.)
BTW, I’m sure many of you remember that conservatives endlessly sniped that Clinton won less than legitimately because he’d never won the support of 50% of the voters. Funny how you don’t hear them raise that issue nowadays. 
Everybody seems to be wondering if 2004 will be like 2000. Isn’t a “mirror image” the opposite of a real image?
Ooops…make that 1992, not 2000
RTF:
Any cites about the relative breakdown of Perot supporters? I’m speaking strictly anectdotally, but I do remember asking my Perot voting friends whom they would have supported had Perot dropped out, and none of them said Clinton-- they all said Bush.
I’m not suggesting that Bush would’ve gotten all the Perot votes. Just wondering if anyone has a good cite on what the polls actually showed at the time. I’m amazed I don’t remember this whole thing better than I do. It was probably the most unusual presidential race in the last 20 or 30 yrs.
According to a “senior official” at the White House, Cheney will be the VP on the 2004 ticket “barring health or God” as the person said it. BTW, McCain and Bush close to hate each other.
The number crunchers at the White House also places Bush’s upper limit at 54% of the popular vote. That was earlier this spring.
What’s interesting is that noone knows how the Dem’s candidate will be portrayed in the media. Another interesting note is that it’s from the ranks of President, VP or Govenor that presidents has been elected (who believed Clinton could be president in 1990?) I don’t see such strong candidates among the Democrats yet, but time will tell.
I’m really puzzled at the way my fellow Dems and lefties repeatedly ignore the voting machine scandal when it comes up.
Really, what’s the point of voting if your vote doesn’t get counted?
If the Pubbies are up to funny biz with the voting machines – and they certainly proven themselves capable of being up to electoral funny biz of all kinds in 2000 – it doesn’t matter who the fuck the Dems run or what they do. Bush wins.
There is too much unemployment, and too many factories that are permanently closing for bush to win in 2004.
Iraq will not be a campaign issue in 2004, just as it was not an issue in 1992.
The main issue in 2004 will be the economy, and the millions who have lost their jobs to bush’s global economy.
Since bush is a supporter of the global economy, a supporter of cheap foreign labor, outsourcing, and a supporter of H-1B and L-1 visas, a supporter of NAFTA and GATT, and a supporter of increasing immigraton, he will lose in 2004.
“Since bush is a supporter of the global economy, a supporter of cheap foreign labor, outsourcing, and a supporter of H-1B and L-1 visas, a supporter of NAFTA and GATT, and a supporter of increasing immigraton, he will lose in 2004.”
Susanann: Didn’t he favor those things in 2000 and win? In addition, show me the Democrat contender who does not favor those things.
Perhaps you’ll be telling us the Buchanan will be the Dem’s choice in 2004-- sounds like he’s the only candidate who could win in your universe.
IIRC polls showed the Perot voters to be pretty evenly split between Bush and Clinton as their 2nd choice.
Nevertheless, ISTM Perot hurt Bush because he mostly attacked Bush, rather than Clinton. With two candidates echoing each other, the negative campaigning against the President was more effective. Don’t forget that Perot was in the debates along with the other two.
No minority president has ever been re-elected(Addams, Hayes, ).
The republicans have not won the popular vote since 1988.
If unemployment, immigration, and factory closings continue thru December, Hillary will run in 2004 instead of 2008, since she will not want to wait until 2012 to run if another democrat gets in.
Hillary will easily get the electoral votes of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticutt, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc without even campaigning - bush has no hopes of picking up any of these states.
If bush supports the assault weapons ban(like his father did), he will lose Tennesee and West virginia(which he won in 2000) this time.
States with high unemployment, states which have had factories close and move to India, china, mexico, or canada, will be easy states for bush to lose.
It is almost impossible for hillary to lose this election - unless bush does something fast on the economy and jobs(quite unlikely).
We did not have high umemployment in 2000.
Anyways, bush just barely got in by the narrowist of victories in December of 2000, it was a fluke, while still losing the popular vote. For bush to get elected again, while again losing the popular vote twice in a row, is just asking too much. It has never happened before.
In 2000, outsourcing to foreign lands, was not much of a factor back then. In 2000, the stock market was high, and thousands of factories had not yet closed and moved out of america.
A democrat will at least talk about creating more jobs, a democrat will at least talk about opening up some factories here in america. Roosevelt promised a lot, talked a lot, and got elected.
Bush is acting more like Herbet Hoover - not good.
Dont get me wrong, I would like bush to end the foreign work visas, and put 2 million americans back to work next week. I would like bush to propose some tarrifs and penalties to companies that move overseas, or who replace american workers with cheap foreign labor , but he is not doing it.
I would like the stock market to rise, I would like the criminals who commited fraud at enron and global crossing,etc to be prosecuted by bush. I would like the airlines to make money again. I would like the american people to once again have trust in buying stock in american companies. But he is not doing it.
People always vote their pocket books.
I think most Republicans would like nothing more than to have Hillary be the Democratic nominee. I know the guys on SNL would love it.
In 1992 the republicans also wanted an unknown governor from Arkansas to be nominated.
There are many differences here to consider:
The recession is different. This is a weird recession from what little I’ve read. But I could be wrong:
Our success now is much harder now than it was in 1991. Before it was to Get Saddam out of Kuwait. Now it is to establish a liberal democracy, human rights…etc. Meaning it could take longer than before.
The palestinian-israeli conflict. Bush’s success or failure could play a factor depending on his success considering his earlier commitment to it.
New terrorist attack possibility. Not there in 92.
different ideology. These are different times, and 911 changed presidential politics in a way we won’t know. Or maybe it didn’t. Its too early to tell.
Obviously in the past a bad economy was always an issue. But the different factors involved are basically new ones, and I think its would be strange to make judgements now.
What effect will SARS have on the economy? I heard that it will have an effect.
The big thing I see is the occupation of Iraq, and how that turns out. If it goes badly, then that would be a serious blow to GWB. If there is a terrorist attack, another huge blow, with possible good points if played correctly. if we loose more jobs, another huge blow. That would leave GWB wide open to the democrats. Conversely,
Iraq is the new Germany=huge success, No new attacks=success, economy gets better=success. So the republicans would then be in good position.
Plus there is the personal style of the debators. GWB won over the stiff unlikable “do anything to win” Al Gore. GHWB lost because he seemed like he was aloof and didn’t care while Bill “feels your pain” These factors DO matter, because I didn’t vote for Gore because of his untrustworthy appearance. Who will run agains GWB, and how will their respective personalities look?
So, I think simplifying it along those terms isn’t good. I would like to : ), but I know it won’t work. Times are far too different.