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.
Or go dem. As in slighly over 50% of union member gun owners who voted for Bush last time. (West VA, Yoopers)
To illustrate my point, consider the following. In 2000, I was involved in the Buchanan campaign. While I'm indifferent to the abortion issue, I assumed we could count on the support of the Pro-Life community for grass roots support. Wrong. Buchanan received a tiny fraction of the Pro-Life community's support. Bush had it all locked up. Buchanan was virtually shut out. In '04, it'll be even more obvious than it was in '00.
If we were to lose this election - well, worse things have happened
I'm not so sure about that. In fact what has been bothering me reading some of these threads is this: The Democrats are very angry, they hate "right-wingers" in general and George Bush in particular, right?
Now what do you think their guy is going to do when he gets into office? Invite Rep. Tancredo over to the oval office to hear his concerns (the way GWB does with Ted Kennedy, et. al.)? No, Dean (or whoever gets in) and his blank-eyed followers are going to rip into the "right-wing conspiracy" with everything they've got.
We're not talking "compassionate liberalism" here. This is about core left-wingers with an agenda. An agenda that doesn't include you.
Losing the war on terror? - that's just a side effect.
I can see the appeal of "well, the President sold out his principles so why not teach the party a lesson."
Unfortuately, the price tag last time was eight years of Bill Clinton. I don't know if this Nation is going to be able to afford even one term of the next guy.
Also, every President (with the exception of Bush pere) going back to Eisenhower has done better in his campaign for his second term than in his first run.
My guess: CA, WA, OR, HI, MN, MD, DC, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH, and ME to Dean; the rest to Bush.
People said the same thing last time about Al Gore, comparing his ability to draw black voters to Clinton's. In the end, Gore ended up doing better than Clinton with black voters. If the Dems rev up their turnout machine (recorded phone calls from Clinton et. al.), and if they can generate the requisite anger (Bush the lyncher ads, etc.), Dean (or anyone else on the ticket) will do just fine with black voters.
Oh, I forgot about the creature from the black lagoon!
Well, if Bush can win MN he will get 44 states.
2. As for black voters, Posthumus(although Blacks hated his predecessor Engler as much as Bush) did as poorly as Bush did among them. I expect to see massive 'waving of the bloody shirt' and many fliers about the war sending their black brothers to die, election 2000, Death Penalty, James Byrd, and more confederate crap.
Of course. But the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. All of them said the Bush plan doesn't go far enough. If they were smart they'd oppose it all together.
(Donning thin layer of tin foil) God forbid, take two or three well-exploited mass shootings this spring - ah heck, let's make the shooters illegals in some border state having arrived recently (to get in line) - throw in a couple of black rifles, a school, or a couple of dead BP for good measure - and you'll have so many nanny bills on Bush's desk by August you couldn't count 'em. Rove goes into overdrive. We'd have new Departments and spending out the yazoo. The BATF would be ordering enough dumptrucks to keep the Detriot unions busy for years. He'll sign 'em all not knowing which way is up. (As if he'd veto.)
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.