Replies

Dear Rooster,

The death rate for Americans in Iraq (population 22 million) is less, even now, than in the District of Columbia (population .9 million). All deaths of American soldiers are tragic. But in the context of the history of wars, this is the least bloody war we have ever fought.

The Democrat tactic is, obviously, to wave the bloody shirt. It is historically dishonest, but it's all they've got. Read the history of American occupation of Germany, as I have. The sabotage, attacks on soldiers, and assassinations of local officials trying to rebuild Germany after the war all tapered to nearly zero in the second year of occupation. I expect much the same in Iraq.

So, the war will disappear as a Rat issue next year, just as the economy has disappeared as a Rat issue today. History provides a lot of answers. Democrats and their allies in the press are repeatedly being surprised when things play out as history predicts, because they are so blindly ignorant of such matters.

John / Billybob

While your comments are accurate I don't think that matters from the electoral point of view as most voters neither know nor care to know such information. It is, after all, about perception for most voters and if things are not going well in Iraq...'going well' to voters basically means if Americans are dying....then I still think GWB has an electoral potential problem.

Which lessons of history?

In 1945, we won WWII. In 1946, The Republicans took Congress. In 1948, they were poised for victory but let the big city machines take it away.

In 1990, we won the Cold War. In 1992, x42 won the Presidency. In 1994, the National Socialst medical bill was on the verge of passing. But Newt Gingrich, minority leader of the House, and Rush Limbaugh spoke up. And the Republicans have run the House ever since.

The lessons of history teach us that the voters of these United States are fickle. The swing voters can be swayed. The thing to remember that the election is in November 2004.

The recent Senate misadventure says that we need anywhere from three to 11 more Senate seats to get judges confirmed. Three more may give Bush the nuclear option. 11 more should get cloture passed. We may get the three, but not the 11. Why 11 and not 9? Because who knows how McCain, Snowe, Collins and Chafee will vote.

If you go to www.scottpolls.com you see D leading R by 46% to 37%. It is good that it is not November 2004. I think that the Democrats are peaking too soon. My odds are:

Bush wins: 80-85%
Dean wins: 0-5%
Gephardt wins: 5-10%
Kerry wins: 0-5%
Hitlery wins: 0-0%

For the Senate, the Republicans should pick up 3-8 seats. In the House, it could go anywhere. The Ds could win the House back or the Republicans could pick up 15 seats.

What the Democrats have miscalulated badly is that Bush will pick up many more Christian votes than he did in 2000. Conservative Christian churches are growing, while leftist churches are in decline. And many who stayed home in 2000 will be reenergized in 2004.

In the South, Bush has locked up the vote, unless Gephardt wins. Even there, Gephardt takes Missouri and Arkansas, but what else? In the Northeast, Bush is gaining among Catholics. In California, Bush is gaining among Hispanics, who I see as a future core Republican voting bloc, if we treat Hispanics with respect. This could move New Mexico and California into the Republican zone.

I also am listening to the swing voters. The media is hurting us here, badly. They believe the crap the media is saying about Iraq. That is why it is important to make it clear that Iraq is a success. In addition, a drop in oil prices into the summer of 2004 would help the economy and Bush popularity.

Just remember that American political history is filled with zigs and zags.