The 2004 Election is Over, Now

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 11 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[loudmouths]

Howard Dean (or "James Dean," as a reporterette for Fox News called him once) now owns the Democratic nomination.

Any bets that you are wrong. Dean will never get the nomination. He attracts white liberal angry white guys. That is it.

Gephardt or Kerry will get the nod from the DNC. If you want to draw an analogy, Dean is to the Democrats what Buchanan was to the Republican party.

If history is any indication of what can happen in an election, Dean like Buchanan will do well in the primaries, but when it came to crunch time ...... well you know the rest of the story.

The latest poll out of Iowa shows Gephardt inching ahead. If the economy holds on its pace Bush will win. If not, then it's up for grabs.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right that the Democrats will stay in for "the river card" and then hope for the (worst) best. At the political table, unlike the poker table, there is no option of throwing in the hand and waiting for the next deal.

And I thoroughly agree that the Democrats' strategy will be to attempt to manufacture an issue, where there is no real one. That's what the Rockefeller memo in the Senate Intelligence Committee is all about. I didn't neglect that. I assume that. But it was beyond the scope of this column.

John / Billybob

[alfa6]

Marker Bump For Billy Bob

Thanks

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[soundbits]

Election/vote fraud of all types in the DemoncRat controlled urban counties will be even more massive in 2004 than in 2003, imho.

[Principled]

It's a trap, BillyBob. Keep out.

[HateBill]

Dean's rats will vote for whoever the D is in the game. They will protest but they will vote for sure.

Dean always makes a point of saying how many new people he's brought into politics. The "new people" are not avid Democrats who will support anyone with a D after his/her name. These are people who will become disaffected from politics once again.

If Hillary pulls that parachuting-in stunt, and takes the nomination away from Dean, she will be dead meat. She may be leading all the other Dems. in national polls, but she is not leading by getting 60 or 70% (or more) support of Dem voters, she is getting 43%, 48%, etc. I think the great probability is that the other 50-60% of Dems. *hate* her (maybe not as much as we do, but hate her nonetheless). She has ticked off people like Susan Sarandon because she voted for the Iraq war, and her new-found "moderation" has certainly not won converts among Republicans!

Virtually everyone who's met Bill Clinton has said he's the most charming man they'd ever met, including *Brit Hume* who's hardly a Lewinsky wannabe. WHO HAS EVER SAID THIS ABOUT HILLARY?

Bill never won a majority of the vote. Even with his charm, and his devastating "come hither" good looks (ha!), he only got a plurality. What gives anyone the impression that Hillary could do better? And she would have to, as the Republican registration has risen mightily since 9/11, and the "red states" have more electoral votes since the census.

What Southern state could Hillary win? Tennessee? West Virginia? Arkansas?

(BTW, Congressman Billybob, loved your piece ...)

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with your analysis of Gephardt in Iowa. It's his backyard. If Dean buries Gephardt there, Gephardt is road kill for the duration. I think Dean's people see Iowa the same way that you do -- and that's a compelling reason why Dean has gone with the financial strategy, just announced.

John / Billybob

[Godebert]

Ya, but what about Dingle-Norwood? Your Analysis seems logical to me...but I never underestimate the stupidity of the American voting public. Just look at how many votes Gore received.

[Poohbah]

Election/vote fraud of all types in the DemoncRat controlled urban counties will be even more massive in 2004 than in 2003, imho.

Not that it did them much frickin' good.

The dream shot: the Dems still lose the election, and get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[TommyDale]

"It is unfortunately necessary to factor in the possibility that Hillary Clinton will "parachute in" and take the nomination away from Dean at the last minute."

I will volunteer to rig her 'chute!

[William McKinley]

It is a good piece, with one flaw in my eye:

The bottom line is that the Dean strategy is to front-load his spending on his campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. And in the Democratic primaries in those three states, his strategy will work perfectly, even in South Carolina (but keep in mind that the Democrat voters there are only a third of the electorate, and Dean will only take, say, 60% of those who vote in the primary).

Here is the problem. Dean is already 7 points behind Gephardt in Iowa-- and this is before the impact of his recent asinine comments and then damning pandering apology the next day. He was only up 12 in New Hampshire, again before the comments, and after months and months of huge (free) publicity and fawning press coverage. He should be up 30 with the media fellatio he has gotten. And he's not even in first or second in South Carolina.

You read it here first (and I have been predicting this for months now)- Dean won't be the nominee, and he won't win any of Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.

[a4drvr]

Well, I thank like yew.

My curiosity is wunderin why Clark was put in the race (by Clinton) in the first place. I do believe he is intended to be the "spoiler" and attack any frontrunner heading up to the convention. I think "Thunder Thighs" wants the dim party to be leaderless (at least among the dwarves+gore) going into the convention.

The dims will be massacred.

She will then be able to "demand" the 2008 nomination by acclamation thereby eliminating any primary competition, allowing her to raise record amounts of money (both foreign and domestic). She would be free to attack anyone she wants without accountability and then run by not disclosing any of her plans.

This, she hopes, will offset her negatives sufficiently (as she was able to do in NY) to get her elected.

[walden]

Excellent analysis-- and I hope and pray you're right!

[Congressman Billybob]

Legitimate question. Deserves a serious answer.

As soon as any would-be candidate either files the necessary papers, or merely announces in public that "I am a candidate," that person is immediately subject to all the reporting and other requirements of the Federal Election Commission. Someone who merely has an "Exploratory Committee" to decide whether to run (below the level of presidential candidates), remains free of the clutches of the FEC.

There is a second, solid reason for my present position. I've researched congressional elections all the way back to 1790, and written one book plus a heavily statistical article for the American Academy of Actuaries on that subject. Bottom line: I know better than most exactly how hard it is to win a seat in Congress. So, I've decided not to run unless I DO IT RIGHT with a real chance to win.

I don't have to declare until 27 February, which is the filing deadline in North Carolina for Congress. And I WON'T file and actually run unless I have in hand a reasonable start on the 2,000+ volunteers and the $600,000+ in contributions that I know are essential for a legitimate run with a legitimate chance of victory.

I've read, and analyzed, the histories of the thousands of "lightning strike" candidates for Congress since 1976. Those are people who file to run, raise less than $100,000, and hope for lightning to strike. Doing that involves both deceiving your supporters and yourself. Exactly ONE such candidate has won in the last thirty years (due to a huge, last-minute scandal involving his opponent). I will not play that hopeless game.

Does that answer your questions?

John / Billybob

[Imal]

Great analysis! But never underestimate the power of the Dark Side...

[x]

The problem with pundits is they start to believe their prophecies. Never say never. You may be wrong and the overconfident tend to be wrong more than the cautious. It does look like President Bush will be reelected, but think back to 1992. The last President Bush looked strong, and turned out not to be. Don't discount the possibility of some Perot-figure entering the race, or some bizarre turn of events. Dean may well falter in the primaries, opening up the way for another candidate. But it does look like he's shot himself in the foot for the general election. Once a candidate has written off half the country it's hard to recover.

[crabbie]

Makes me want to write a check for Dean...:)

[tvn]

Interesting analysis.

Re your Hillary observations, did you notice that yesterday morning, Madeline Albright, in responding to a question at a Miami book signing event on CSPAN, stated quite forcefully that, "She reserves a special place in Hell for all women who fail to support the political campaigns of other women." The heavily female audience responded enthusiastically with applause.

With this comment, the State Department Secretary Ever In Waiting artfully appears to have carried out her assignment by signaling a shift of Democratic Party policy from tax the rich class warfare, to all women for Hillary gender warfare.

It would also appear highly likely that following the event, the memory challenged former secretary raced over to Donna Shelala's University of Miami provided mansion , where the two, along with failed gubernatorial candidate, Janet Reno, could cheerfully report the morning's activities back to the top secret Hillary in '04 headquarters.