Posted on 01/08/2004 11:05:26 AM PST by Theodore R.
How Bush can lose
Posted: January 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
There's a kind of smug self-confidence emerging in the Bush White House based largely on incompetence in the Democratic Party, an improving economy and better news on the Iraqi war front.
Polls are showing President Bush handily beating Howard Dean or any other potential Democratic nominee in the November election.
That may happen.
But let me offer another scenario.
Whether it's Howard Dean or Daffy Duck who is nominated by the Democrats this summer, Bush's major opponent is going to have a lock on anywhere from 37 percent to 46 percent of the vote, according to recent polls. That's the hard-core Democratic vote that would go to anyone who gets the nomination of the party – even Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich.
Right now, in the best of times, Bush's re-election is attractive to a high of only 55 percent of voters.
So, in a head-to-head race, with no major third-party candidates to draw votes away from either of the major-party candidates, Bush indeed looks to win going away.
But situations do change in politics. Another major terrorist attack could change the political dynamic. A major setback in Iraq or Afghanistan could change the equation. A major stumble in the economic recovery could shift some votes from Bush to the Democrats. And, least likely perhaps, Howard Dean could actually start making sense rather than shooting himself in the foot every other day.
Any or all of these possibilities could change a 55-45 race to a much closer vote.
But there's one more factor not being considered by the Republicans and their overconfident cheerleaders: The possibility of a major third-party candidate who could draw more votes away from Bush than from the Democratic nominee.
As I predicted long ago, Ralph Nader, whose candidacy played a decisive role in 2000, is not going to run in 2004. Officially, he has rejected running on the Green Party ticket, but unofficially, I'm telling you, he will not run at all. No other significant left-wing candidate will run in 2004 either, because the hard left has decided to form a "united front" to beat Bush at all costs.
But there's nothing preventing the candidacy of someone who might take away a significant percentage of votes from Bush.
Like who?
Jesse Ventura.
Why would he run? Because he loves the spotlight and he no longer has it.
His TV show at MSNBC, "Jesse Ventura's America," is floundering as badly as the rest of the cable network's programming.
The former governor of Minnesota has openly discussed the possibility of a run for the presidency. He has never ruled it out.
What would a Ventura candidacy mean?
I don't think he would get much more than 5 percent of the vote. But that is a critical 5 percent because almost all of it would come from Bush's base.
Factor a Ventura candidacy into a race and just one or two other Bush policy setbacks and you have a horserace equivalent to 2000, when Bush lost the popular vote and the official results of the election were not determined for months.
Ventura may not even be the only candidate in the race taking away votes primarily from Bush. There will certainly be a Libertarian Party candidate. There will be one from the Constitution Party. While Bush squeaked out an electoral college victory in 2000 because of a third-party candidate, he could easily lose the race in 2004 because of one or more minor party candidacies drawing small but significant numbers of voters away from the Republican.
Bush has left himself wide open to such a strategy by governing like a Democrat in every way except three – his tax cut, his support of a partial-birth abortion ban and his execution of the terror war.
We'll see if that's enough for him to squeak by with another election victory next November.
Nope!!
Minnesota was very close in 2000, and after that 2002 Senate election, I consider MN a slam dunk for the Pres.
Democrats not enamored or enthused by a less-than-stellar Democratic candidate would do the same.
You can't just say that the entire voting base is going to get out and vote, just because there's some candidate out there.
True, however we have elected a Republican Governor and Senator in the last election...1 Senator to go!
That's three BIG differences, pal.
Ergo, I can't bring myself to vote for him either, even though I like him on a personal level. The guy knows his stuff when it comes to Constitutional matters. He just can't see past his ideology. When your neighbors house is on fire, you apologize later for trespassing on his property to douse the flames. You do NOT let your house burn down because of "ideology".
McClintock. Tancredo. Paul. Those men I could vote for. They come across as REAL conservatives and their actions appear to mirror their speeches.
Too bad there isn't a "None of the Above is Acceptable" spot on the ballot.
It ain't just about "Iraq." It's about the war on terror, and there's not a single Democrat who has any kind of plan, AT ALL, on the war on terror, except to chase bin Laden as if he were Pancho Villa.
And this "illegal immigration" plan will get buried, if it even makes it out of the House. What it allows Bush to do is to look compassionate, which will play well with New Mexico and Arizona, two states Al Gore carried.
It's called strategery.
Agreed. I was reacting to percentages, not gross numbers. It's one of those interesting things that poll data trail events. That 55% for the President may be lower today than it was on Tuesday before the speech. I'm also just listening to a very, very small sample on the radio calling in and complaining, claiming the President has lost their vote.
Just an observation.
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.