Posted on 07/14/2004 7:03:08 AM PDT by Valin
Time to make a fool of myself. On June 4, I posted my prediction for the Presidential election on my office wall. I have President Bush carrying 36 states and winning 348 electoral votes. It sounds kind of crazy, and I’ve felt rather lonely with it for about a month. But after more reading I see that I’m not the only person on Earth who doesn’t think it will be close.
Number-crunching economists such as Ray Fair and Nigel Gault agree with me. Their econometric models are predicting Bush will take 56% to 58% of the two-party vote. As of this writing, the Iowa futures-traders are slightly less optimistic, but they are valuing the Bush vote share at about 52% of the two-party vote—and that's just two days after John Kerry’s selection of John Edwards as his running-mate. Previously Bush futures have been selling at 60 cents for a $1 contract.
So why do I think will Bush win big? I may be wrong, but I have several reasons. Here are just three that are hitting the front pages right now.
1. The Running Mate: Vice presidential nominees rarely make a difference—probably Lyndon Johnson was the last one who did. Still, the choice of John Edwards was expected to give Kerry a momentary bounce in the polls.
Well, a handful of new polls came out at the end of last week, and it just hasn’t happened. If anything, Bush improved his standing, surging to a 49%-45% lead in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Thursday. That was a statistically significant 5% improvement for Bush over their previous poll.
This is not to say Edwards is actually bringing the ticket down, but his failure to help Kerry in the short run is curious. Perhaps the public doesn’t share the media’s enthusiasm for the young Democratic messiah?
For all his good looks, John Edwards is a political lightweight. He went straight from fooling jurors and swindling doctors as a trial lawyer, to buying himself a Senate seat in 1998 over the hapless Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R.-N.C.). And that's his whole career. If John Edwards were running for re-election this year in North Carolina, polls suggest that he would probably lose. That dims his regional appeal, which was always one of the main arguments for his selection.
It’s not just Republicans who are saying Edwards won’t help Kerry in the South, but Kerry himself, speaking in the universal language of “putting your money where your mouth is.” Despite recent public polls showing Kerry competitive with Bush in two must-win Red states—in a dead heat in Arkansas and six points back in Louisiana—Kerry decided to stop advertising in those states a week before making his veep choice.
Kerry did not make a major mistake choosing Edwards—he is probably the best of Kerry's realistic options, although an unexpected dark-horse candidate could have been more exciting. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.) has always been a dud on the stump, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D.), in many ways the safe choice, is not flashy enough to excite people outside of Iowa. Besides, John Kerry is a snooty, boring Massachusetts liberal, and John Edwards balances him out by bringing some “levitas” to the ticket.
Then again, he might bring a bit too much. President Bush found the right line when a reporter asked him last week the difference between Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney. His reply: “Dick Cheney can be President...Next?”
2. Same-Sex Marriage: This issue will directly affect the presidential contest in two important states: Michigan and Oregon. Voters there will be deciding on state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage. This will create a strong turnout on the social Right in two states where self-identified Republicans and Democrats are already near parity.
In Oregon, which Bush narrowly lost in 2000, this alone could be decisive. Michigan, on the other hand, hasn’t had a good Republican year since Geoffrey Feiger—Dr. Jack “Death” Kevorkian’s lawyer—ran for governor as a Democrat in 1998. But Michigan is by no means a Democratic state.
Missouri Secretary of State (and gubernatorial candidate) Matt Blunt (R.) failed in his attempt to put a marriage initiative on the November ballot; voters will instead take it up in the August primary. But same-sex marriage will indeed be important there and elsewhere, especially after this week when the U.S. Senate votes on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Kerry and Edwards—if they show up to vote this week—will almost certainly vote “no” on FMA. All rhetorical dodges aside, this places them firmly in favor of same-sex marriage, and you can bet Republicans won’t let anyone forget it.
There is another aspect of this, as Kerry and Edwards are already quietly selling themselves as “the gay ticket.” Last May, Edwards took a big risk by endorsing radical social experimentation on helpless children—or as he called it, “the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children.” The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute issued a statement last week calling Kerry/Edwards “the most gay-supportive national ticket in American history.” This definitely isn’t going to win them support from blue-collar voters in West Virginia or Ohio.
3. ‘Dude, Your Country’s Right Here’: If you watch a lot of CNN and read the New York Times, you might get the impression that many people actually heed the hard Left. You would also be surprised to hear that things are actually going pretty well in America right now. The average person who doesn’t read The Nation or belong to an anarchist commune realizes this.
Kerry can scream all he wants about the economy, but people are now finding jobs, and good economic numbers keep rolling in. Interest rates are still quite low, unemployment claims have fallen to a four-year nadir, hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being created by the month, self-employment has surged, and the stock market is back on the upswing. Kerry has even abandoned that line he used to drop all the time about “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover,” because he had to—it’s obviously silly and false.
And what of Iraq, that other huge crisis that will supposedly decide the election? As much as Michael Moore and others on the Left complain about that ill-considered invasion, the situation there has stabilized considerably of late and casualties are relatively few. This is not exactly Vietnam, where everyone knew someone who had died.
And oh, in case you’ve forgotten, the Democratic ticket now has two senators on it who voted to go to war in Iraq. Both Kerry and Edwards will complain about the war’s particulars, but Kerry has no right to do so. He’s the one who drew up the Bush War Plan, letter by letter, in a September 2002 op-ed in the New York Times—including the part about a unilateral invasion if the United Nations fails to act.
Next to Kerry, Edwards looks positively hawkish. While Kerry spent the entire presidential primary obfuscating his pro-war position on Iraq, Edwards was trumpeting his support for the war. In February 2002, just months after al Qaeda terrorists—not Iraqis—had destroyed the World Trade Center, Edwards declared on CNN, “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.” On MSNBC's Hardball in October 2003, he reiterated his support for the already-completed invasion, despite the lack of support from the United Nations: “I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage,” he said.
So both Democrats have endorsed the unilateral Bush foreign policy that has the hard Left in hysterics. I haven’t seen the news stories yet on how Edwards’ selection will generate extra support for Nader—I don’t expect Times reporters to write anything that could throw their candidate off-message—but you can bet it’s going to happen.
Most important of all, George W. Bush just isn’t Adolf Hitler, Dick Cheney is not the “spawn of Satan,” our civil liberties are still very much intact, and America is not being irretrievably destroyed or thrown into a new Great Depression.
It’s an awful challenge to remove a sitting president. It only happens when things are going terribly wrong, which they are not—Michael Moore notwithstanding.
David Freddoso, Assistant Editor for Human Events, writes for Brainwash
Sorry, four years of Bush letting Vicente Fox treat him like a red-headed step child and all the pandering to La Raza, LULAC and the rest those nation busting organizations has left a lot of folks totally disgusted and will cost Bush votes.
This issue may still hurt Dims in the fall, if voters remember. Most won't...
i think W wins 40-48 states.
booming economy
iraq gets better every day
kerry is a terrible campaigner
kerry has so many problems
a-wives taxes
b-military fitness reports
c-war record
d-flip flops
e-no reasonable plan
f-clueless
edwards has amazing negatives as well
a-trial lawyer stuff is not gong to fly
b-no experience
Finally- neither of those 2 fools has ever run anything besdies their mouths
I agree.
It is far worse IMO for the Administration to let the corrupt Mexican government treat our sovereignty with contempt by meddling in our internal affairs at all levels, government and private.
Karl Rove should pay attention and the Administration has an obligation to respond to the majority of us who do not like it -- and I don't mean the usual message, "Stuff it," by for example inviting the president of the corrupt government of Mexico to speak at the RNC convention. (It would not surprise me to see Fox featured at the convention.)
I'll vote for Bush to show appreciation for his letting the military take the war to the enemy and to keep traitor Kerry out of office. But I prefer to have an opportunity to vote for someone who puts America first here as well as "over there.".
"Now Quayle has been the administration's man in charge of the space program for four years: he's never set foot on NASA turf. He's never opened up a pamphlet with the word NASA on the front. But he's about to leave office because he's been voted out and this is his last chance to get a free trip to the light show: the spaceship launch. So here's this float of limos going by at five and here's Dan and Marilyn and 200 cars full of Americans loyal enough to have a pass to be on government land all give the vice president of the United States the finger. [He demonstrates with one long middle finger and a slow and satisfied smile] and he and Marilyn just froze -- turned to stone -- and didn't acknowledge it in any way. Kept smiling and waving slowly and went by and I thought: If you'd told me when I was a kid I'd get to see a damn spaceship take off, I'd have had trouble enough believing that. But if you'd told me the same day I'd watch hundreds of loyal Americans give the vice president of the United States the finger, to his face in the teeth of men with guns [Laughs] I simply would have refused to believe it. It was just a very memorable event."
[Spider Robinson Talks About Dan Quayle & Going Into Space]
Yeah, so you are all going to "send him a message" and sit on your duffs and let Kerry be elected...and then try and convince yourselves that it was really all Bush's fault!
Pathetic...just why the RATS are not voted into oblivion...useful fools!
Which states do you think he will sure lose?
One concern I have is that Kerry is going to do very well in the Northeast and those polls close earlier than the rest of the country...the undecides (or that group that is not so thrilled with Bush, but won't vote for Kerry) if the early reports show Kerry with strong support in the northeast, as CT, RI, MA, ME, VT, NH, NY, NJ, and MD close, the media will immediately calling Kerry the winner and I believe it will effect voter-turnout in the rest of the country.
I agree. I think Bush will carry 35 states period.
Don't worry about that. Kerry should sweep his home region and the Left Coast. I don't expect him to fare that well in the rest of the country.
hate to be negative .......but....you forgot .......the sheeple are stupid...and after years of liberal media lies they begin to see them as truth ... this could be problematic
Bush 35+ states and sworn in for his second term as President of the United States of America.
Listen to Rush 3 hours a day and shut off the liberal TV news and stop reading your liberal newspapers. There, you'll feel much better not missing all that negative press that's affecting your health and raising your blood pressure through the roof. All conservatives need an optimistic outlook.
I too predict a big win, but it is not that complicated
1) No matter how you say it, Kerry is a uppity liberal from New England. That ain't going to fly with most of America.
2) 9/11 changed the dynamics. Soccer moms who voted for Clinton aren't going to trust thier kids future to the the Dim's.
3) It's the economy stupid
4) Talk radio, the internet, and Fox News. The liberal media no longer has a monopoly and it is being exposed for what it is. The more they shill for the Democrats the more people move to the right.
November is going to be good folks; Bush re-elected in landslide, Senate and House gain Republican seats, and my favorite...little Tommie Daschle out on the street......Go Thune!
Bush won NH last time and he will win again,
Kerry is a lock in MA, VT and RI.
Don't count Bush out in NY, NJ and ME.
my two cents.....
What's pathetic is listening to the same old whine from another alleged conservative when anyone dares to call a spade a spade. Thanks to Bush's leadership (?) on Homeland Security we now get to witness the sight of gray haired old folks being shook down in airports while at the same time, any number of illegal rapists, murderers and drug dealers, etc. have entered this country almost at will over the last few years. Has the absurdity of such a system ever occurred to you?.....probably not.
Add in even more immigration resulting from his "regularization" proposals, the Iraq debacle (gee, would we even be there if Iraq had no oil?.....and where exactly is that almost $100 MILLION per day in Iraq oil revenues going anyway?....haven't heard much on that, have we?), the behind the scenes push for the 'FTAA' (do a keyword on that little scheme amigo and you might get a clue as to where all this free trade idiocy is sending us), increased fedgov control over education, continued white collar job losses due to outsourcing, etc. and what is probably going to happen is we'll witness a repeat of another Bush snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Hey, I had high hopes for Bush and he's done some good things during his tenure but on key issues he's failed miserably and most likely it will cost him mightily in November. Sorry to break the bad news to you that I'm sure your favorite talking head never gets around to discussing....most likely he's too busy with "real important" issues like Scott Peterson/Kobe/MJ/ et al.
Bump.
I agree with the author. I believe Bush will win handedly as well. Lets not forget, Bush has alot of bullets left to use against Kerry, one of which the author mentions about support for Iraq. There are many more left to go.
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.