Posted on 12/13/2003 7:26:02 AM PST by dixie sass
With the 2004 presidential election coming up one year from this week, let's use information and analyses from prior editions of this column to predict who might win.
President Bush will be the Republican nominee, of course, so let's focus on the Democratic field of candidates. We were ahead of the curve months ago when we revealed a survey showing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was the surprise leader of the pack. Many thought Dean's quick rise would be brief, but clearly, he is the real thing.
In another column, we noted the sudden emergence of Wesley Clark mania and questioned whether his political inexperience and lack of a clear, well-articulated message might make him more a flash in the pan than an enduring, middle-of-the-road alternative for Democratic voters. To date, that assessment has proven more or less on the mark.
Absent a major misstep -- or a sudden manifestation of charisma by one of his Democratic opponents -- Dean's early momentum makes him the odds-on favorite to face Bush. Remember that the nature of the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process heavily favors the selection of more left-leaning delegates to the national convention. Advantage, Dean.
So assuming that Dean will be the nominee, let's move on to another recent column. Even before conservative Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia revealed to talk-TV superstar Sean Hannity that Miller would be supporting Republican Bush for president, we alerted readers to be on the lookout for loud repercussions to the release of Miller's new book, "A National Party No More." In it, he argues that the Democratic Party is held hostage by liberal special interest groups that force the party to take positions and nominate candidates out of the political mainstream. Miller makes no bones about his belief that Dean is Exhibit A in illustrating the point.
So Bush's re-election is inevitable, right? After all, the economy is clearly on an upswing that even the most virulent naysayers now admit is at least partly the result of the Bush tax cuts. This newfound optimism may even bolster the Christmas retail season and sustain the bullish stock market.
As for Iraq: Yes, the situation is deteriorating, but even prior to the initial invasion, we reported that most Americans expected the conflict to last a year or longer. Hence, the public's unwillingness -- so far -- to let bad news from Baghdad cast a shadow on renewed good times at home.
Still, a wrinkle remains in this upbeat forecast for the president, and it's less about the content of his political stands than their presentation. In short, the wrinkle is the news media. Look at the measurements they often use to measure the nation's progress and well-being.
On the economy, newsrooms across the nation report largely on the number of jobs lost in the past three years. That won't change. No matter how high the stock market climbs or consumer optimism grows, the economic measuring stick the average reader or viewer of mass media will be subjected to over the coming year will be the number of unemployed workers. And as we have noted before in this column space, the export of service-sector jobs to Asia and other foreign lands will be drummed up by Dean and many in the media as a crack in America's economic armor.
The story of Iraq, too, will be framed by those reporting it. When the cover of Newsweek magazine suggests the war has become "Bush's $87 Billion Mess" -- as if Saddam Hussein's genocidal mania had nothing to do with it -- it is plain enough the war will dog the president through next November and probably beyond. Less likely to make headlines will be stories like the one that aired last weekend on MSNBC-TV. It showed a large group of young Iraqis using broken English to unanimously endorse Bush over Hussein.
By November 2004, political and economic reality may win out for the president. The economy likely will be at its strongest in several years. And Bush's forceful and sustained response to Sept. 11 has possibly discouraged other rogue nations and terrorist groups from pursuing their murderous ways -- or at least tied them down far from U.S. shores.
But in politics, reality and perception don't always overlap exactly. Dean or another Democratic nominee might be able to parlay economic and foreign policy discontent into enough support to make it a close election next year. My own best guess is that Bush will win in a bitter and potentially tighter-than-expected race. And that he will return to office with the respect, if not always the gratitude, of the American people.
This I agree with. I believe the democreeps are still angry and bitter about the 2000 election and will make it increasingly harder in 2004 for us but I think they and the media have also forgotten while "feeling sorry for themselves" that Republican who get riled up like we did in 2000 can be a formidible force to deal with.
How many more actions can he take that fly in the face of the once traditional conservative Republican base before enough of them decide to "sit it out"? If the election will be as close as this author suggests I am glad I am not in charge of the Ouija board when recommending which bed rock conservative values to trash for votes from the moderate (lack of core principles) middle.
As a result, I expect 2005-6 to be even more divisive, and the Democrats even more obstructionist than they are now.
Yea, I agree.
GWB is the "great satan".
Right after Christmas, I'm gonna kill myself.
Well ...... maybe I'll wait until I'm sure Hitlary isn't nominated.
There's a "turd" "third" party I could vote for.
2) From the get-go, if he only won what he won in 2000, Bush would gain an additional 7 EVs and the Dem would automatically lose 7 EVs purely from redistricting. That starts Bush at 278.
2) Bush lost four states, if I'm not mistaken, by fewer than 30,000 total votes (NM, IO, WI, and OR). He lost NM by fewer than 5,000 votes---enough to demand a recount, which he did not do. Given a (even if slightly) growing economy, and the Dem alternative, I think Bush easily wins these four, giving him about 30 additional EVs, bringin his total to 308.
3) He has now nearly buried the Dem and not had to win one single truly contested state, such as PA, MI, or MN. Many observers think he will win two of those three. Add 40 more EVs to his total.
4) Now you come to the states where Bush can win, but where it would take a great deal of work and a little luck---NJ or MD, for example. These are not out of reach, and should one or two of these fall Bush's way, he is in the 350-370 range.
This is blowout territory. Note I'm still handing over to the Dems CA and NY, neither of which is a sure lock. And I'm throwing into the Dean column WA and VT.
In short, the math says that no matter who the Dem is, Bush destroys him or her. But wait!
Dean is a kook. When the American public starts to really listen to him, he will come off more like Pat Buchanan did on our side than a Dukakis, who didn't excite anyone. I think Dean will scare a number of people who aren't in love with Bush, and give him the 30 additional EVs Bush needs to cross the 400 "landslide" barrier.
GWB is the "great satan".
Ah yes, it's starting already. Anyone who expresses the mildest criticism of President Bush is immediately lumped with those who see him as "the great satan." If you bothered to read the posts to which you were responding, you'd see praise for President Bush on some issues where he's done well, and you'd see criticism for things he's done that are clearly wrong. Most of us are admitting that he's in a tough spot and see how he may feel that he must make these wrong decisions, but that empathy doesn't change the fact that they are wrong decisions. No one has said anything that suggests that they will do something to keep him from being re-elected.
I was in Maceman's position in 2000. I lived in Texas and knew that then-Governor Bush would win his home state by a huge margin. I had a friend in Tennessee, a swing state, who asked me how he should vote because he knew that I was educated about politics. I told him that he should probably vote for Mr. Bush in order to keep Gore from being elected. However, in my own state, I voted for Pat Buchanan. When all was said and done, Pat Buchanan better represented my values.
In voting for Mr. Buchanan, I think I did the most good that I could do. His poor showing made it meaningless, but if things had gone another way, it could have been very important. As it was, the liberals could make some claim to having a mandate for liberal policies. About 51 or 52 percent of the popular vote went to liberal candidates (Gore and Nader). If another 15 million people had voted and spread their votes evenly between Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Philips, the message of the election would have been very different. President Bush would still have won, but there would be a strong small-government and conservative mandate. In that case, there would have been a strong majority of the vote for real conservative change.
It probably won't happen in 2004, but I support Maceman's decision to go with a conservative 3rd party. His vote won't change the outcome of the election, and it could be part of sending a message that we really want a government that is smaller, more conservative, and more Constitutional than the one President Bush has been forced to give us.
Is it "the mildest criticism" to say Bush is no different to the Democrats, a party that Ann Coulter makes a strong case as being treasonous? is it "the mildest criticism" to liken voting Bush to driving off a cliff?
Is it saying "Republicans can do no wrong" to point out that some of the rhetoric used to criticize Bush is just plain nuts? (that last one is not aimed at you, or the person who started this, but at someone else who is likely to make his way to this thread- hey there RJ!)
There is plenty or reason to criticize Bush. CFR was a complete farce, for example. But frankly, if someone tries to say there is no difference between him and a Democrat or tries to say that the Patriot Act formed a Gestapo and we live in a police state, they really should expect people to call them on it.
Actually, unemployment is and will always be the most important economic measuring stick for most people. I had two engineering degrees from two very prestigious major public universities (and had high grades). I worked hard and had great performance evaluations from my employer. I even went back to school and earned a third engineering degree. In spite of these things, I spent a year of the 90's unemployed and 17 months in a worthless, unsafe, dead-end job. "Consumer confidence" is just fluff. A strong stock market is nice. However, neither of these things has value if I can't find a good job in my field. Technical people are typically not good in sales or retail management. If I can't work as an engineer, I'll never be good enough at something else to live much above the poverty level. I can survive a bad stock market. It just means that I'll have to work longer before I retire. I can't survive a complete breakdown of jobs in my field.
I don't think that the jobs issue should work to the advantage of the Democrats, but the Republicans must make this argument effectively. One of the biggest threats to our jobs is over-regulation by the government. The Democrats are the party of over-regulation. Another huge threat to our jobs is lawsuit abuse. The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers. Neither party is willing to endorse protective tariffs in principle right now, but President Bush protected the steel industry for the past couple of years. He's lifted the tariff now, but I think that action speaks well of his willingness to take steps that must be taken sometimes.
The Democrats are not the party of better jobs or more jobs. The "rich didn't get richer" while the "poor got poorer" during the 80's. However, the "rich did get richer" while the "poor got poorer" during the 90's. Americans need to understand that voting against Democrats is the best way to protect their jobs.
In this statement, I think you sum up much of the problem here. You seem to recognize that Maceman's comments were not "just plain nuts" as you put it. You have a problem with his "cliff" analogy, and I'd like to answer that issue shortly. However, the first point is who started the demagoguery.
I don't think Maceman's comments represent demogoguery. He expressed praise for what President Bush has done well. He expressed criticism for what the president has not done well. I think you're taking his analogy a little more strongly than it was intended. Maceman said that he would vote for the president if he thought failing to vote for the president could allow a Democrat to be elected. His criticism of President Bush didn't start the demagoguery.
On the other hand, I think Mason was clearly engaging in demagoguery when he tried to reduce the original criticism to a claim that President Bush is a "great satan." He was being untruthful when he tried to portray those criticisms as a willingness to elect a Democrat. I'm not sure who "RJ" is, but I think Mason engaged in the same tactics that you criticise from RJ.
Regarding the cliff analogy, I share the feeling that the country is going in the wrong direction and that President Bush is only slowing us down and not really turning us around. I understand the situation he faces. He was not elected with a mandate for true conservative reform. He didn't really campaign for that mandate, and while he won the election fairly, the margins didn't give him a mandate. Maybe he doesn't yet have the political capital to do what must be done. Furthermore, a president doesn't have complete control. What we need is a change in the people's hearts and minds and for that change to be communicated upward. There's only so much that a president can do from his "bully pulpit."
Still, when the president signs campaign finance reform, we're going towards the cliff. When he signs a bill to create a prescription drug entitlement, we're going towards the cliff. When he supports extending the "assault weapons" ban, we're going towards the cliff. When we allow people to enter our country illegally and then give them all kinds of benefits, we're going towards the cliff. These are not the actions of a healthy society. I recognize that there's only so much that the president can do, and the terrorist attack changed many priorities. In many ways, I think President Bush may be trying to "steer into the slide" so that he can gain control to turn us in the right direction. However, I can't pretend that he's taking us in that direction right now. To a small extent, that's a criticism of the president, but it's a bigger criticism of the country as a whole. The president simply represents the country by the nature of his position.
If the original posts had really equated President Bush to the Democrats, I wouldn't have responded as I did. If they said he just wanted to sell us out to the trilateral commission or whomever, I would agree that those posts deserved criticism. The "Bush is satan" sarcasm would have been justified. However, that sarcasm is not justified when good people express honest, thoughtful concerns about the direction the country is going.
WFTR
Bill
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.