History's Tea Leaves Point to Bush's Reelection

Washington Post ^ | 11-18-03 | Dana Milbank

[Always Right]

More than 2,500 casualties in Iraq. Some 2.5 million jobs lost. Nearly half a trillion dollars in federal budget deficits.

And George W. Bush could still be a solidbet to win reelection next year.

The day-to-day news about violence in Iraq and lingering economic worries at home obscure a fundamental reality about next year's election: Historically speaking, it should belong to President Bush. Since the presidential primary system became influential in 1952, an incumbent president has never lost a reelection bid if he did not face significant opposition in the primaries.

Excerp....

[Always Right]

Interesting fact. Basically with no serious challenge in primary, it is a good indication of a very solid support of the base and fairly good support from the middle.

[dead]

Oh man, I love that opening statement! So perfectly Washington Post.

I'll bet the NY Times is kicking themselves for not writing it first. (oh wait, they probably did)

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

You heard it hear first. The media and RATS darling over the next couple of months is going to be John McLame. They are going to pile the bouquets at his feet as they shower him with praise, all in the hope that he'll jump into the Presidential race, either against Dubya in the primaries, or as an independant.

[deport]

Milbank speaking...........

[ErnBatavia]

History's Tea Leaves Point to Bush's Reelection

I thought fershure by the title of this thread that Registered was kickin' in again...

[zencat]

Eyup. The media likes to portay it as a close race because for their need to generate sensationalism for ratings.

The real story is that Bush will VERY LIKELY be re-elected regardless of the Democratic nominee. But that's not much of a story to keep their speculating flappy heads busy for the next year.

[Old Sarge]

Note to Ms. Milbank (Gender ID intentional):

Your casualty figures are innacurate. You are forgetting to count the 3000 who died on 11 SEP 2001.

Then again, effeminate Socialists like yourself, are always attempting to force the proles to forget.

[Cicero]

Humm. Interesting idea. McCain in the primaries, with all the media in his corner, and then Hillary popping up at the Democratic convention to save her party from the dwarves.

I'd be extremely surprised if hillary doesn't have blackmail materials on McCain. For one thing, the clintons got his wife off a Drug Enforcement rap for stealing drugs. And some pretty fishy stuff went on while McCain was chair of the POW-MIA committee. I'm sure hillary has the files on it.

[Always Right]

Oh man, I love that opening statement! So perfectly Washington Post.

It is impossible for liberals to talk about Bush without the obligatory shots. The article actually isn't bad analysis once he gets past that. But where did he get the 2,500 figure from?

[BobS]

""That was one of Karl's primary things: Avoid a primary challenge at all cost," said Charlie Cook, a political handicapper."

Who would challenge Bush, Charlie?

Charlie has been on the east coast too long and his record shows it. Bush is going in for the kill after being insulted for 3 months. 4 or 5 of the bases are covered. There are 2 or 3 more. Can anyone figure out what they are? Think, folks, think! That's what brought us to FR!

[JonathansDaddie]

Ping.

[rs79bm]

Some 2.5 million jobs lost.

Yes, but how many jobs have been created in this same time period? Jobs are being created every day. So, if 2.5 million were lost, and 2 million were created, is that such a bad number? Probably not- but the Dems would like to believe so.

[woodyinscc]

The capture or death of OBL and SH.

[hobson]

From Zell Miller's book:

In 2004, if we have the exact same popular-vote split between the Democratic and Republican candidates, and if these candidates win the same states, the Electorial College margin for the Republican will get bigger. How much bigger? The Republican candidate would have a majority in the Electoral College not by four electors, as George W. Bush did in 2000, but by eighteen.

[Walkingfeather]

Okay but you have to realize the joy that the media found in making bush 1 lose was equal to them electing Clinton. They love nothing more than to elevate someone and then watch them fall. So understand they are priming the electorate with stories like this and will do whatever it takes... ( the intellegence memo) to pour blood in the water. So lets not find comfort in these stories but use them as a sign posts of what the media will be doing. ( remember they have no good feelings for Bush and these stories should be looked at with suspicion.)

[Timesink]

Interesting fact. Basically with no serious challenge in primary, it is a good indication of a very solid support of the base and fairly good support from the middle.

I believe Bush is a near-lock to win reelection next year, but that's because of his own popularity, an economy that's starting to rebound, a lack of a single potential Democratic nominee that presents any real threat of gaining traction, and the Democratic Party's overall turn to the hard left. "Past election trends" have nothing to do with it.

Remember, history always repeats itself, until it doesn't. Practically every four years, at least one of these dozens of "always-accurate" historical statistical trends has ended up being broken. If we held presidential elections every month or so, then we could extrapolate some meaningful data from hundreds upon hundreds of elections. But since we only vote for president once every four years, we only have a data from 10 to 15 elections to look at in the whole of "modern American political history", depending on at what point you consider the "modern" era to have begun. You can't make much out of that little data.

[BobS]

Good, but no.

I told someone here the action starts after October. This is that time. A wise man waits until the enemy shows his cards. This is W. And he plays for keeps.

Good move. NEXT!

[Always Right]

Yes, but how many jobs have been created in this same time period? Jobs are being created every day. So, if 2.5 million were lost, and 2 million were created, is that such a bad number? Probably not- but the Dems would like to believe so.

I haven't seen the numbers, but it was projected by the end of this year, the number of jobs created during Bush's term will have past the number of jobs lost. Certainly not great, but considering the economic downfall that Bush faced coming into office and then 911, it is certainly not as bad as it would have been under Gore with tax increases instead of cuts and a weak response to terrorism.

[Timesink]

You heard it hear first. The media and RATS darling over the next couple of months is going to be John McLame. They are going to pile the bouquets at his feet as they shower him with praise, all in the hope that he'll jump into the Presidential race, either against Dubya in the primaries, or as an independant.

They can hope all they want, but McCain won't do it. He has to run for reelection to his Senate seat next year, and he's not giving that sweet gig up just to play a spoiler role in the presidential race and then end up stuck on the sidelines for the rest of his life.

[BobS]

You forgot the very visual experience of people jumping out of the WTC towers because their skin was on fire.