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.
As a conservative (NOT a Republican), I have considered voting for the Dem nominee on the theory that when clinton was Prez, the Holuse and Senate knee-jerked to the right. I also considered voting for every other office on the ballot EXCEPT president to show that I can't be taken for granted and I may still do that. But currently, I'm voting for him.
We are in the middle of a war. A very real, very serious war. No matter how screwed up the domestic side of things becomes in the next 5 years under this President, I'm pretty much convinced that putting Dean or any Dem PLUS the U.N. in charge of this war would be a grave, potentially disasterous mistake. If you want a second opinion, just ask the pro-democracy rebels fighting in the Sudan who are BEGGING the U.N. for intercession.
Bush probably has the election if it were held now. But if he signs the extension of the "assault weapons" ban, I could see enough pro 2nd amendment voters staying home on election day to cause him to lose. And they are a group of people who will not buy "Dean/Clark/Kerry will be worse" argument. How many people would have had to have stayed home in 2000 to throw the election to the other party? I don't think Bush can afford to piss off very much of the base this time around.
Wrong, Joe. Only an ultra-conseravtive candidate would be able to siphon votes from GWB's base, and Jesse is far from that.
This is an inaccurate assessment. There is smugness in places like FR (I myself oscillate between confidant smugness and high anxiety, concerning the 2004 election all the time), but in articles about and mailings from the RNC, I detect no smugness. I detect cold realism. Karl Rove himself has said that this election will be close.
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.
If the DemocRats nominate Gephardt or Lieberman, the Greens will have a candidate, possibly even Nader. Heck, thay may have one in ANY case.
His TV show at MSNBC, "Jesse Ventura's America," is floundering as badly as the rest of the cable network's programming.
Might this be attributable to MSNBC's lefty tone and juvenile production values? Or that Ventura's floundering may be due to his intellectual bankruptcy, religious bigotry, inept language skills, and record as a one-time governor in a state which hasn't produced a viable political figure since Humbert Humphery spiraled into oblivion?
The former governor of Minnesota has openly discussed the possibility of a run for the presidency. He has never ruled it out.
Ventura discusses everything only because he can't stop his flopping mandible. If he didn't form words, we'd only hear digestive noises.
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.
Wacko pinky voters of Minnesota elected this clown wrestler governor. Bush voters won't vote for him, unless they live in Florida, in which case it probably would be by accident and so uncounted, anyway.
We'll see if that's enough for him to squeak by with another election victory next November.
If the Bush strategy works, there will many independents voting for GWB that voted for Gore last time. The indies don't hate GWB as core DemocRat and may find GWB's policies and strong, proactive national defense stand attractive.
Gore by 9.95% or more - 168 votes
In order from biggest to smallest win - DC, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Connecticutt(Lieberman inflates slightly), Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, California, Illinois, Vermont.
Gore by 3-6% - 53 votes
In order - Washington, Maine(although 1 vote is closer), Michigan, Pennsylvania.
Bush by 10% or more - 148 votes
Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia.
Bush by 3-9% - 90 votes
Colorado, Louisiana, Virginia, West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio, Tennesee(Gore inflated his numbers), Nevada, Missouri.
Within 3% either way - 70 votes.
Gore won - Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa, Wiscosin, New Mexico.
Bush won - New Hampshire, Florida.
If they all kept the same states, it would be 278-260 Bush.
If dem won Florida, Bush would need to win Wisconsin and Minnesota, or either one of those, Iowa, and New Mexico to make it up, Michigan and one other state, or Pennsylvania.
I fully expect all those 10%+ states either way to stay where they are.
Of the 3-9% Bush states, I expect Ohio, Arkansas, West VA, Nevada, and Missouri to be the toughest to keep, but fights in all of them.
Of the 3-6% Gore states, I expect dogfights in all of them with Michigan and Washingston St tougher than Maine and Penn.
Of those under 3%, all of them are up for grabs.
-----------------------
Dean's going to get a certain percentage no matter what. Geoff Fieger(probably the worst candidate in the last 15 years) got 34% Dukakis lost by about 300,000 here in Michigan if I remember right(45%?).
Unless they are stupid(Fieger losing Ann Arbor), the dems are going to win in their base areas and the GOP will win theirs. The question here is how much. A 53% GOP win in Livingston County is a bad loss, as is a 60% win in Ottawa. A 53% Dem win in Washtenaw County is a bad loss, as is a 60% win in Wayne County.
Who will win the Reagan Democrat areas that are so disrespected by the media, but still swing the elections. These are the populists and social conservatives. Who will win the soccer moms? Who can win one without losing the other, or losing their base.
I have Illinois, Connecticutt, Maryland, and Delaware as likely or solid Blue.
Where on earth does the author get the idea that Jesse Ventura would draw almost all of his support from Bush's base? Ventura is a social liberal - that's not going to get the vote of conservative Republicans. And looking at the 1998 exit polls from the three-way governor's race in Minnesota, Ventura got 33% of his support from Democrats and 29% from Republicans. That seems to blow Farah's theory out of the water, as far as I'm concerned.
The democrats are praying for this.
What the polls can't measure until election is 'who cares more'.
And I don't think many legal immigrants will care for this.
I do believe that Minnesota will be very competitive in 2004, but also think the closeness of the 2000 results was somewhat deceiving. It's true that Bush finished only 2.4% behind Gore. But it's also true that Ralph Nader got 5.2% of the state's vote. Most of those people will be voting for Dean (or whomever is on the Dem ticket), so Bush probably has more like a 5-6% margin to make up in MN, rather than just 2-3%.
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.