Twenty-one Reasons Why Bush Will Win

Just four days before the election, muckrakers uncovered a dirty little secret on their GOP rival. Twenty-four years earlier, George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving. To make matters worse, he answered no when a reporter asked if he'd ever been arrested. It was the kind of bombshell that would have ruined his shot at the White House, except for the lead in the polls he had at the time. The effect of the report was evident later in exit polls. They indicated that a majority of people who made up their minds within three days of the election voted for Al Gore. Normally, undecideds break overwhelmingly to the candidate from the party out of the White House. In addition, an unknown number of voters who had been attracted to Bush's image of integrity were motivated to stay home. Without this perfectly-timed political hand grenade, Bush would have won the election with room to spare, and the blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court (of Florida, that is) would have remained local news. In all likelihood, Bush won't face a similar devastating revelation this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2000, Al Gore enjoyed a huge advantage going into the election season. He was the sitting vice president during a time when the country was enjoying an extended period of peace and prosperity. Even under those circumstances, the American people thought enough of George W. Bush to elect him anyway. All things being equal, Bush will benefit from being in the incumbent party this time around. (I can hear Democrats mumbling something about Gore's poor campaign strategy losing the election. Maybe that contributed, but, nevertheless, Bush did possess a certain degree of electability. Imagine John Kerry..er..or not.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special interests serving the Democratic party developed an intimidating get-out-the-vote machine during the 90's. That process culminated in an heroic effort in 2000. The result? Dubya took the best punch well-heeled civil rights activists and unions had to offer and still came out on top. Those Democratic special interests will be hard-pressed to match that performance and even less likely to exceed it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States of America was forever changed on that day in September when all of us were so violently ripped from of our mirage of security. Never again will peace be thought of as a given in American life. We are a nation at war. It is a war that will continue for a long time against a ruthless, unprincipled adversary bent on the merciless taking of civiflian life. They have stated their desire to kill us, each and every one, simply because we are Americans. In such times, we are instinctively drawn to leaders who show the determination to proactively confront and conquer the threats we face. Most of us understand that a co-existent relationship with these enemies cannot be negotiated; they must be subdued through absolute victory in the theater of war. Bush understands this, and Americans know it. I hesitate to bring politics into the War on Terror, but the facts are obvious. Our President and his party in general have shown themselves much more willing to implement the iron-fisted policies necessary to vanquish this insidious foe. Speaking loudly, while leaving the big stick in the closet, is not the trademark of this administration when it comes to terrorism. There can be no denying that George W. Bush is serious about actively protecting our people and our nation. The vast majority of voters, even those who may disagree with the path down which that action is taking us, take comfort, consiously or not, in the protection our military provides under the firm hand of our Commander-in-Chief. This sense of protection through vigilance will be a huge factor this November in polling booths across the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recession of 2000 started very early in Bush's presidency. So early, in fact, that it is absurd to suggest Bush's policies had anything to do with it. The downturn was compounded by the disastrous economic effects of September 11. Bush understood that America needed to pour on the fuel to keep our economic engine from stalling. His tax cuts and immediate tax rebates provided a boost that helped avert a deeper, longer recession. The economy has since turned the corner and is picking up steam. If the current trends continue, and they should, by November the economic outlook held by the electorate should be much improved. And Bush will benefit considerably at the ballot box.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an excellent point brought up by PoliPundit last November. Here's the meat of those thoughts (I paraphrase just a little): "The Democrats made a major blunder in the 2004 presidential race by choosing to hold their national convention on July 26 in Boston. The GOP will be holding its convention in the first week of September. I could go on endlessly about why this helps the GOP, but here are four concise reasons: 1. Bush will be able to continue spending his Primary money until September and use his general election money from September to November. The Democratic candidate, however, will be out of money by July, because of a tough Primary, and then have to make his general election funds last from July to November. This exaggerates Bush's already crushing money advantage. 2. 9/11 will be a few days after the GOP convention. 3. By holding the Democratic convention on July 26, the Democrats risk losing the post-convention bounce in the polls by election day. 4. The summer Olympics are between the two conventions and will suck the air out of the DNC message."

The two months between September's Republican National Convention and Election Day will be a great time to be Republican. I can't wait!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weakness of this crop of Democratic contenders has been well documented. Suffice it to say that whoever emerges with the opporunity to face Bush will be no Al Gore, as if that were a boast.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and a law in Ohio banning gay marriage, we are on a collision course with this issue that will force it into the political spotlight this year. The country is largely opposed to gay marriage, generally ambivalent toward civil unions, and mostly against a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a joining of one man with one woman. That is the national consensus. However, if we look deeper into the intensity of each group on these issues, we see a much different picture. A few supporters of gay marriage are adamant in their views. They will mostly vote against Bush regardless of his stance, notwithstanding log cabin Republicans. However, most people who support gay marriages and civil unions, and thus oppose an amendment, do not hold that position with a great degree of fervor. By and large, they will not be motivated to take their votes away from Bush or to make sure they get out and vote against him when they would otherwise stay home. It's simply not that big an issue with them. It is an entirely different thing for a large portion of those who support the amendment. Their opposition to changing the traditional definition of marriage runs deep and strong. It is a big deal to them. Bush's stand on this issue will directly create votes for him among those whose intense feelings on this issue will overwhelm their general indifference to the political process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly the most significant development in the American election process since 2000 is the unbelievable strides the GOP has made in terms of volunteerism and organization. Once a domain dominated by Democratic special interests, get-out-the-vote is now practically a wash, and GOP operatives are frenetically working to increase the breadth and depth of grass-roots support structures all over the country. This is an amazing turnaround from 2000. It, alone, will turn many a close state into a comfortable Bush victory, while moving some comfortable Gore states within striking distance for the President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A startling event took place in 2002. It was startling both in its circumstances and in the lack of focus it received. That event was the Florida gubernatorial election. What happened there, when taken in the context of the voting debacle two years earlier, was truly phenomenal. I'll recap it for you:

In 2002, Terry McAuliffe pledged that Jeb Bush, the president's own brother, would be defeated in his re-election bid. In fact, the DNC made the Florida governor's race their number one priority of the 2002 election cycle. Moreover, only two years removed from the spectacle of 2000, emotions and energy should have been be running extremely high among Democrats. Did we see massive Democratic turnout? Did Terry's threats come true, for once? Nope! What transpired was not a humiliating GOP defeat, but a Bush-brother victory by a count that exceeded Jeb's first election margin. He won by an amazing 13 points! It was a complete and utter repudiation of the revenge factor and clearly showed the strength of the GOP in that state. Without Florida as an obvious pickup target, the Democrats' options to gain ground shrink considerably.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush has gained a small yet concrete advantage heading into the elections this year. Red states in 2000 netted Bush 271 electoral votes. This year those same states would give him 278. In other words, he could lose a state like New Hampshire, Nevada or West Virginia and win anyway. Even losing a larger state such as Louisiana or Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite his forays into fiscal liberalism - Medicare, immigration, education - the President maintains phenomenal support among Republicans. A poll in late January by the American Research Group found only 10% of GOPers disapprove of the job he is doing. Eighty-six percent approve. In addition, the vocal displeasure at his aforementioned transgressions has apparently not fallen on deaf ears. Recently he has offered peace offerings to the GOP faithful, such as a spending freeze on non-defense spending. Finally, his rock-solid conservative stands on abortion, judicial appointments, taxes, gay marriage, and National Security are sure to bring out a sizeable elephant stampede in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can we trust a privileged businessman who has served but 6 years in elected office to handle the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth? In 2000, voters put their faith in an untested George W Bush. Four years later, his courageous, principled, and steadfast leadership have led this country through some of its most trying times. Even those who dislike and disagree with President Bush would be hard-pressed to deny the resolve of his leadership. He provided and continues to provide a steady hand when we need it most. Voters will feel eminently more confident to put their trust in him again this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida and New Hampshire were the two states that Ralph Nader's candidacy lost for Al Gore. I've already addressed the current situation in Florida. New Hampshires is not much different. Voters there have now elected two Republican senators, a Republican governor, and two Republican representatives. The GOP has a 3 to 1 advantage in the state senate and better than a 2 to 1 advantage in the state house. A Democratic victory here will be quite a feat, indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pew research conducted a nationwide poll last summer to measure changes in party affiliation since the tragedy of September 11. Minnesota and Iowa have been trending Republican of late, and these shifts were quantified in that poll. They present yet another headache for McAuliffe's bunch. Now they have to row against the current in states that Al Gore won.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California's fiscal health is the inevitable result of a steady diet of liberal policies. Last year, voters in this very blue state decided to switch chefs between meals. They settled on a Republican. In fact, over 60% of them voted for a GOP candidate. Does this mean 60% will vote for Bush? Not a chance. However, with this clear rejection of liberal economics and with the structural advantage that comes with control of the Governor's mansion, Republicans have a shot at competing for the biggest electoral prize in the nation. Regardless of the eventual winner, a competitive GOP in California would require Democrats to funnel precious resources to protect their most valuable bastion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Florida and New Hampshire are no longer the targets they once were for the DNC, Ohio becomes the challenge of choice. On the surface, Bush's narrow victory there in 2000 would give Democrats hope of taking it from the GOP in 2004. However, the political winds are blowing in the GOP's favor this year. Ohio's recent passage of a ban on gay marriage highlights their socially conservative lean. The impending battle in the gay marriage debate will solidify and motivate social conservatives in this crucial state, resulting in a more difficult obstacle for the Democrats to overcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been a veritable political highlight reel. Never before in my memory has a candidate followed a path similar to the one of this eccentric politician. In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has been thoroughly entertaining to see this man so flamboyantly hurtle himself to the front of the pack only to relegate himself to also-ran status through clumsy mis-steps and childish outbursts, all in a period of a few months. But, even though he's finished as a viable choice, his candidacy will have far-reaching effects on the election in November. What Dean did was to identify and add fuel to a smoldering fire within a segment of the Democratic party. These liberal Bush-haters haven't broken their engagement with him. They understand that he "feels their anger" - the same anger that will now compel them vote for a third party candidate rather than betray their man by voting for the victorious Democratic foe. This group won't be huge, but it will be enough to give Bush another advantage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had to add this one. Bush has made a career out of having his opponents "misunderestimate" him. They show no signs of realizing that they really aren't dealing with a moron. How many more times will the Democrats ponder, "How did he do that?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've mentioned above, national security will be paramount in voters' minds this election season. After Bush, no one personifies the triumph of American resolve in the aftermath of September 11 more than Rudy Giuliani. In the time since, he has shown himself to be a willing advocate for Bush and other Republicans on the campaign trail. His active presence can only help Bush's standing in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An issue that, if used wisely, can be very effective in wooing conservatives and moderates alike, is the heavy-handed, partisan tactics of Democratic senators. Never before have a president's judicial nominees been subjected to filibusters with the reckless abandon employed by this group of liberal lawmakers. Democrats have charted virgin territory in their quest to stall Bush's vision for a balanced, non-activist federal judiciary. The GOP has an opportunity to wield this obstructionist track record to attract more moderate voters and win a larger portion of the hispanic vote - read this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure there are more reasons for optimism. I'm also sure my counterparts on the left could come up with their own list of reasons for them to be hopeful. But the point has been made: President Bush is going to be one tough hombre to dislodge from that thar White House. When you Bushies out there are discouraged by the spin and disappointed by the polls, just read this list again and stop your fretting. But don't stop donating and volunteering. That will play a most critical part in making this view become a reality. He is certainly not assured of re-election, but, with our continued support and hard work, all signs point to a second term for George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States.

Number one reason he may lose - NAFTA and outsourcing of Jobs. This is the 47th straight month of losing jobs overseas. This is not a flesh wound, we are hemoraging at an increasing rate. If Bush doesn't stand up and do something about it, the Pubbies here are talking KERRY. I'm not talking about fence riders either - hard core conservative pubbies.

Wishful thinking.

Reasons why W will NOT be re-elected:

Roughly 40% of those who will vote are either Bush-haters or Democrat straight-line voters.
We are approaching a time when those who earn a salary dependent on government funding will outnumber pure private sector jobs.
W has so alienated his base with big-spending, Amnesty, CFR, AWB that many will be sitting this one out.

The out sourcing of jobs overseas is not a Presidential one to make. I have lost 4 jobs to outsourcing, starting back in the 90's under the Democrats. It is not a presidential issue. It is an economics issue dictated in Corporate Board Rooms, and CEO's concerned about lower labor costs, and the allmighty "bottom-line". THIS should be the discusssion, not whether the President can get the jobs back. It started with Clinton, continued under Bush, and will continue under the next President. If the Congress would pass tax incentives for Corporate America to allow investment and modernization, then maybe jobs would stay in America, and not move overseas.

All these reasons don't mean squat to people whose jobs have been outsourced overseas.

Not every person out of work is going to believe the first democrat that promises them a new job. I was unemployed once after becoming a Republican and I never even considered looked at the other party.

Bumper Sticker: "IF YOU LIKE TAXES, YOU'LL LOVE PRESIDENT KERRY"

Good. Another one: "It's not his money he wants to spend, it's yours."

How about: Taxes + Botox = Disaster

Sorry Iron Matron, now that I look over your reply #30, my reply #47 should be directed at 1stFreedom's reply #4.

No problem, Dane! My post did not clearly show that I was quoting 1st freedoms statement only, it was easily mis-read.

I don't see a Perot coming out of the woodwork in 2004.

Dems are hoping for Roy Moore to get momentum.

I don't see a Perot coming out of the woodwork in 2004.

Dems are hoping for Roy Moore to get momentum.

I still remember the Pubbie over-confidence in 1992 and they thought George Sr. was a sure thing. He lost. All Republicans have to get on board and pay close attention to # 9 in the article. If we don't pay attention, the RATs could win it. Look at Clinton's two wins, all in spite of the disaster of his presidency.

I still remember the Pubbie over-confidence in 1992 and they thought George Sr. was a sure thing

It was until perot decided to fulfill his personal vandetta againts Bush- Clinton only won by default. I dont think republicans will let some big-eared upstart do that again.

With all due respect to your opinion, most of those professionals (like myself) who will have their jobs outsourced are level-headed conservative voters who vote with their head, not their emotions like all the touchy-feely liberals. It is almost an insult to say that such people will vote like an idiot liberal.

I would far rather lose my job and have the discomfort of re-tooling than to put a liberal anti-American DemocRAT such as Kerry in the office of President (not to mention the fact that Kerry is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill).

Bush or his policies are not the blame for outsourcing. And I haven't seen anyone able yet to prove it.

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.