Posted on 05/20/2004 2:26:00 AM PDT by billorites
THINK THE RACE between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is going to be close? Been hearing a lot about a 50-50 nation? Think the red and blue states are going to grapple and grunt and groan and give us another nail-biter on Election Night?
Nah. Not gonna happen. This race is going to be a blowout, a tsunami, a Krakatoa. At least that is the hottest new theory that has been occupying the chattering classes for weeks now.
“The most likely outcome of this race is a landslide victory for John Kerry,” says Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of the nonpartisan political briefing The Hotline. “The second most likely outcome is a landslide victory for George Bush. The least likely outcome is a close race.”
Doug Sosnik, Bill Clinton’s political director during his 1996 re-election campaign, says, “I don’t think this race will be close.” And while he is not yet “100 percent certain” who will win, he does say, “The numbers for President Bush show him in grave danger.”
Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan political publication, says that maybe the experts who have been telling us how divided the nation is “are all wrong, and this will be a blowout election that could go in either direction.”
And The Wall Street Journal reported last week that campaign operatives are bracing for “a race that breaks decisively one way or another.”
Wait, it gets better. We won’t even have to wait until November to find out which way things are breaking! According to Sosnik, “the next 90 days will determine the outcome of the election.” But how about all those stories you’ve been reading about how this election “is going down to the wire” and will be determined in the final days before Nov. 2? Nah, again. “The least important phase of this election,” Sosnik says, “will be the last 14 days.”
True, there are those who disagree, primarily Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush re-election campaign, who says, “I am not (expletive deleted) Jean Dixon and I don’t bend spoons, but given the nature of the country I don’t think there is going to be a landslide either in the popular vote or the Electoral College.”
But Todd bases his landslide theory on the history of recent elections: In the past 25 years, incumbent Presidents have either won or lost by large margins in the Electoral College. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan 49 to 489. In 1984, Reagan beat Walter Mondale 525 to 13. In 1992, George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton 168 to 370, and in 1996, Clinton beat Bob Dole 379 to 159.
In other words, when it comes to casting a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on their incumbent Presidents, Americans are usually not that divided.
“I don’t think whether you are re-hiring a President or re-hiring a plumber, your thought process is that much different,” says Sosnik. “You ask what kind of job did he do last time, and that decides whether he will be re-hired. When you are 3½ years into a President’s four-year term, people have pretty much made up their minds about what kind of job the President has done.”
Further, those who believe the election will be a blowout point not just to history, but to the special nature of this election. “In 2000, the electorate was erratic because it was not a nationalized election,” Todd says. “But this time the question is not about who invented the Internet, but who invented the Iraq war.”
Sosnik believes this will be a historic election in which voters will want to send a message. “The people have not spoken since Sept. 11 on the direction in which they want the country to go,” he says. “At times like this, people want a decisive course, they want to deliver a mandate. Besides, Bush’s actions are so aggressive, so muscular that the dynamic middle of the country will choose a course either for Bush or for his opponent.”
But what signs do we watch for (since waiting for Election Day itself is just too, too boring?) In this, Sosnik, a Democrat, and Dowd, a Republican, agree: The best indicator on how an incumbent President will do on Election Day is his approval rating.
Two weeks ago, Dowd told me, “The incumbent President usually gets a vote right at his approval rating. If we are at a 51-52 approval (on Election Day), we will win by 1 or 2 points.”
But when Dowd said that, Bush had a Gallup approval rating of 52 percent. Last week, that figure fell to 46 percent, the lowest of the Bush Presidency.
“For an incumbent to be at 46 percent job approval at this point in an election year has historically always spelled defeat” for Presidents since 1950, Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said.
And a Pew Research Center poll released last week showed even lower numbers for Bush, with his approval at just 44 percent.
Still, whether this election is going to be decided soon or not until November, whether it will be a runaway or a deadlock, Dowd has advice for everybody on how to handle it when the dust settles.
“Don’t dance in the end zone,” he says, “and don’t cry in your beer.”
Roger Simon can be e-mailed at WriteRoger@aol.com.
I would bet serious money against a Kerry landslide happening this election.
This quote, when read to them by their mommies, will have them peeing their pants in delight at DU. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Huh? What? Excuse me? Did this guy miss a little something called the "2002 Elections"?
If you look at an average in overall polls..all the bad news and Bush has lost only a point...If you look at battleground states Bush has gained slightly...this via Tony Snow who had an interview with the President and some of the advisors.
Says Bush will start talking to the nation on tough issues next week...He and O'Reilly agree people"like" Bush and trust him on national security..that's why he hasn't really tumbled. He needs to talk to the nation.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
If all the Democrats promise to keep their mouths shut for a year, I promise I'll vote for them.
why? this prediction is based on the last 4 encumbant election, which were pretty much blowouts. That is equivalent to saying since the last four super bowls were blowouts, so will the next one. What Reagan did against Jimmy Carter has absolutely no bearing on Bush v. Kerry. There are just so many different circumstances. If the elections tell us anything, it is a liberal has a hard time winning an election. But then again, the media pounding Bush on the war may take its toll.
Where's those stats on the huge number of chattering class beltway types that point out that 90% are Democrats. This is gearing up for another, "sometimes the people make mistakes" commentaries reminiscent of the '94 Gingrich revolution. If (R) leaning media types constitute only a 10% minority, of course they will retort with "no it's a Bush landslide."
No more discourse, all cheerleaders now. Welcome to the end of the major media's power on US elections. Everyone dutifully read Pravda, only the "mentally lesser abled" believed it.
The liberal media machine is all pervasive and is everywhere from CNN, ABC, and CBS on TV, your daily newspapers and weekly mags like Time or Newsweek and from the bully pulpuits of our Public Schools. It along with the Democrat political machine has set out to demoralize the voters and pummel the conservative turnout. Marganalizing and demonizing the President is the only way to make "Kerry the Man" look like a viable candidate. Kerry is dead-weight and appeals to less than 25% of the voters in the Country.
“Don’t dance in the end zone,” he says, “and don’t cry in your beer.”
Yeah. Don't be like Al Gore. I agree that this is too rough a campaign to end up close. There will be one big winner and one big loser. And I believe that Kerry is more vulnerable in a negative campaign atmosphere than Bush, by far. Just look at Kerry's state, for goodness sake. You have weddings of sodomy. You have Barney Frank upset about the glowstick sodomies, closely examining the photos. You have Ted Kennedy comparing Bush with Saddam Insane. You have the Boston Globe touting fake porno photos. And you have the Band aid Hero voting against body armor. This is the Month of Massa-pukus.
Somehow I interpret this information differently than he does... I see two people with a lot of charm and charisma winning by large margins, and candidates without that losing. Goes to show data can be used to support any theory that you want.
I don't see Kerry bringing a lot of marginal people to the polls. The democratic 527 groups may be able to fire up enough people with their disinformation campaign. Now that Republicans have decided to use approve of 527's too, maybe they'll raise enough money to provide information to counter the left. That could keep people home (the 'it's too hard to know what to believe' crowd).
It'll be an interesting election year either way...
"The "Mainstream" media will leverage all it's credibility"
That's the big question: how much credibility does the BS media have remaining? Can A-BS, See-BS, N-BS, Pee-BS, and PMS-MSN-BS combined defeat the New Media? [The Crescent News Network probably isn't even a factor anymore.] The problem is that people who trust the New Media are avid seekers of truth. The people who trust the BS media more don't trust it as much, have trouble paying attention, and spend less time getting informed. When people talk in the street, the BS media types are at a serious disadvantage. Any victory they get now is marginal, based on deception which will ultimately be uncovered, sometimes in fewer than 6 hours.
Bush didn't "invent" the Iraq war. The question should be, "Who do you think will FINISH the "War on Terrorism"? (A war that was NOT started over oil, or illegally, or even BY us!)
(I HATE that whole "war on terror" thing, we are fighting "terrorist", not "terror"!)
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
WE WILL NOT TIRE...WE WILL NOT FALTER...WE WILL NOT FAIL
I hope I'm wrong, but Bush is DONE.
You ARE wrong!
But what happened to the "October surprise."
Didn't Hillary promise us one, and doesn't Albright think the Republicans will pull one out of the hat (like producing OBL)?
I personally think the race will be won at the debates, and I have no doubt about who will appear stronger in the debates.
I hope the Bush handlers get him in a confortable situation for these speeches. Bush does so well on the campaign trail and when he is in a "friendly room". When he tries to speak in a more formal situation, however, he looks like a deer in the headlights. It sometimes hard to believe it is the same guy. Blink, crack a smile, something.
I agree. The last time Bush debated a Democrat, he was rubbing Algore's clown makeup face into the podium while eating Algore's sack lunch.
He does quite well even in formal settings, even when 95% of the audience in attendance absolutely hates him. Kerry loses his cool on camera when questioned by just one single Republican who happens to show up at a campaign stop. It hurt Howard Dean when he told that Iowa farmer to sit down and shut up, it will hurt Kerry.
Can you give me an example? The Whitehouse Press Conference are terrible, althought to be fair his SoTU addresses go quite well.
It will all be decided at the debates when the voters will have each of them in the same room at the same time. They'll finally get to see the John Kerry that the media has been coordinated to show less of. The smarminess and arrogance will be ever present in Kerry at the debates and the voters will take notice. Bush has been honest, down home, and not arrogant or condescending. Voters will see that too, and make up their minds. Elect someone who best resembles them, or elect some old arrogant, condescending Massachusetts patriarch who can't keep his cool or his voting record straight.
The evening press conference he had about a month and a half ago. He spoke over the media to the voters, not at the media.
It WILL be a landslide.
Bush will mop the floor with Kerry.
This election is Reagan/Mondale all over again.
"Every week the media digs up more bad news to report, and it always gets tied on to Bush and his Admin."
Just now noticing this? Where have you been for the past 3 years?
Welcome to FR.
I'm going to help this not to happen. I'm voting for President Bush.
My prediction for the coming few months is as follows, we will turn Iraq over at the end of June, Negroponte will give an Adlai Stevenson presentation at the United Nations demanding Weapons of Mass Destruction hidden in Syria be returned to Iraq, denial will of course be given by Syria, an intelligence dump of satellite photos, phone intercepts and other live intelligence will be provided.
President Bush will go before the nation on or about the 3rd week of July saying he is going to the United Nations to seek a Security Council Resolution compelling Syria to turn over weapons, followed by statement that Syria is on notice that any attacks occuring in the USA or Iraq and
originating from Syria will call for immediate military response. The President as far as I am concerned is not the actor Bill Clinton was, he wears his emotion on his sleeves as has been shown and there is no sign of worry nor fear on his face, he is holding the trump card.
BTW, I define a landslide as the Reagan/Carter 1980 race where Reagan won by 489 electoral votes against the Democrats' 49.
I was watching Brit Hume the other night. The panel consisted of Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, and that woman from the ComPost - Cici Connelly?? Anyway, Kondracke stated that many positive things are happening in Iraq but the mainstream media is not reporting it. At the end, Cici said what Fred Barnes means is such and such, and Fred Barnes exclaimed loudly that is not what he is saying at all, don't put words in my mouth. Really slammed her!
I have noticed that President Bush always tends to beat the odds. The running money in 2000, is that incumbant VP's running for the gold ring, usually win with a good economy. Gore lost. Then there was the mid-term elections, where the smart money pointed to the past and said that the Presidential party in power usually loses seats. President Bush won more seats in the House, Senate, and Governorships. In Texas, no governor served more than one term - something like that. Bush won. He has a way of beating the odds and going against the trends. He will win in November.
The vast majority of Americans aren't paying a bit of attention to any campaigns now, and wont until after Labor Day. If we see hundreds of thousands of Iraqis celebrating their new nation as a true Arab democracy, Kerry is 3 day old fish. Even the leftists will have trouble condemning that sight.
Are you kidding me?
I don't know too many plumbers who wake up every day with a "Plumbing Threat Matrix" being the first order of business.
Being a plumber is about fixing things, being a President is about Leadership.
Only a moron would use the same thought process to decide in this day and age who will protect and lead the country.
If Kerry wins, we are doomed.
Bush will win in a landslide.
Anyone who hasn't already figured out that Kerry is unfit to lead this nation is a moron or anti-American or both.
I think the lines are already drawn and people have chosen sides. Now we just have to wait until November to count votes. Are there enough decent people left in America to overcome the Left and its voter fraud?
I will not be discouraged in May!
The scary thing is that compared to Kerry, Clinton is a moderate.
Sorry, I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm just expressing my own discouragement, hoping people will talk me out of it.
I know we have taken hits lately....We will come out of this in time to save the day..
New? Albert Wang tell you long time Bush 45 State Blowout!
Bad news isn't helping Kerry. Tank Ride in October!
“Don’t dance in the end zone,” he says, “and don’t cry in your beer.”
If Kerry wins I won't be crying in my beer. I'll be crying in my Whiskey!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.