Bush Aide Predicts Close '04 Race Economy, Terrorism, Security Will Be Top Issues, Rove Says

Associated Press ^ | April 12, 2003 | ELECTIONS 2004 SPECIAL REPORT

[Noddegamra]

I think what did Bush Sr. in was his NEW WORLD ORDER mantra and the fact that the RATS suckered him into raising taxes (they were behind him 100%) and ran like hell for the hills screaming Helter Skelter from the roof tops claiming that Bush sold out and backed away from his campaign slogan which was "READ MY LIPS..NO NEW TAXES"

[mombonn]

The nightmare of 92 was thanks to Ross Perot.

Another difference is that we were also coming off 12 years of Republican Presidents.

President Bush 41 was no Reagan. I voted for him, but confess to have considered Perot. Ultimately, I voted Bush only to vote against clintbilly.

Bush was apathetic about his reelection, so was I. He ran a terrible campaign.

[ArneFufkin]

The guys who are smart and have options in that group: Edwards, Gore, Graham and Gebhardt are going to go through the motions for a while so they can make the contacts they'll need to mount a Moderate Primary Nomination campaign in 2008. Lieberman will fall away, he's without sponsors in that party. The lefty adults - Kerry and Dean have to go to the wall, because they are running against Hillary for 2008 as much as they are running against Bush in 2004. This primary has the large shadow of Hillary Clinton all over it. The lefties are trying to please her lesbo NOW gang, Hollywood, trial lawyers, AFL-CIO and NEA base, and the guys like Edwards are looking for inroads to the unions, seniors, farmers and Suburban women they need to win to both win their primary AND beat Bush's successor (Frist, Owens, Jeb, Ridge or Rice)in 2008.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is responsible for the "Economy" is too stupid to be a Republican.

Very true Arne. But perception in politics will play into the chain of events that culminate in the 2004 election. The economy has been very slow in repairing itself from the years of "irrational exuburance", that saw the quick rise and fall of so-called financial wizkids. But you're right. As of now, the Democrats have no alternative plan to offer up that can even begin to compete with President Bushes agenda and overall political strategy.

And as usual, its the independent voters who will ultimately determine the winner. If you couple expected business cycle adjustments, with an economy that starts expanding with some consistancy, that will probably lead to sustained monthly growth rates of 3%-5%. With six to nine months of such positive growth figures, its easy to see such a scenario leading to a Bush victory, with a 55% majority. The liberals don't have a chance in hell of unseating a popular and respected president, who successfully commanded the US military campaign to a victory and who is sitting atop solid period of economic expansion.

It's along time between now and November 2004, and "we" all know anything is possible, but I don't think Bush/Rove and Company will allow a total meltdown to take place as happened to GHW Bush back in 1992.

[ArneFufkin]

Electoral strategy is independent of total vote. The old 80s Reagan and earlier Nixon landslides are no longer possible, because New England, New York, Maryland, California and Illinois have become so Democrat in demographics. The Bush win will be crafted around the Rust Belt States. If you win Texas, Florida and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Georgia by one vote each as a Republican ... 6 votes ... you've won the Election handily. Even if the vote in Massachussetts, New York and California is 18,000,000 for the Dem and 0 for Bush.

[Noddegamra]

"Bush was apathetic about his reelection, so was I. He ran a terrible campaign".


Tell me about it.

He was so damn confident coming off of a Desert Storm victory and here was Clintoon getting the vote out on MTV and shaking hands with anyone that moved.

I was like..Bush you better get your butt in gear here or Clinton is going to kick it and sure enough he did.

I agree Ross Perot didn't help matters any.

No TIN-FOIL ALERT here but I think the RATS paid him to run to siphon votes from us.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Don't be a short-sighted goof. Learn from the Perot debacle. Perhaps a review of the crimes of the Clinton years would bring back some perspective.

[David Noles]

Rove is simply doing what they do best , setting expectations very low. Just like last fall when they talked about a tight race but won a landslide in an election year that was suppose to be about the economy. The simple fact is , the economy is not that bad and since 9/11 and way into the future the number one item on the agenda of voters will be security and they just don't trust the democrats to do the job. Not only that , the democrats are moving far left and most American will not be able to identify with what will come out of the democratic convention in 04. States like New York are looking pretty safe for Bush and California is in play already.

BUSH WILL WIN BIG IN 04 & WILL PICK UP INCREASES IN THE CONGRESS AND STATES.

[babylucas]

It is clear that the President is going to pay much more attention to the economy than his father did. This is a good thing. I just hope he uses some of his political capital from the war to push a tax cut that is much more than the Senate seems willing to give him.

[latina4dubya]

The nightmare of 92 was thanks to Ross Perot. Another difference is that we were also coming off 12 years of Republican Presidents. President Bush 41 was no Reagan. I voted for him, but confess to have considered Perot. Ultimately, I voted Bush only to vote against clintbilly. Bush was apathetic about his reelection, so was I. He ran a terrible campaign.

this is exactly what i wanted to say... when Bush 41 ran for reelection, it had been a long 12 years since Carter... people were ready for something different (Ross Perot)... it will only be 4 years since Clinton at the next election... not too many people will have forgotten what that was like... not yet...

[Diddle E. Squat]

Last year was no landslide, at least not in individual races. At the Senate level Missouri, Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, and New Hampshire were all tight races, we lost close ones in Louisiana and South Dakota, and had a self-inflicted defeat in Arkansas.

[Defiant]

Agree. Unless Bush really, really screws up, he will win a Reagan-esque victory in '04--only California, Minnesota, Mass. and DC are in play for the Dims. The economy is secondary; it will be nice if he gets his plan, and if the economy picks up, but so long as there isn't a depression, the economy will not be the issue. Protecting our lives will be the issue.

Clinton won on a post-Cold War model--it was safe again to vote Democrat. (Even so, Clinton got 43 percent of the vote in 92 and 49 percent in 96.) It no longer is safe to vote Democrat, the vast majority of Americans realize this, and they will vote for Bush. He will get anywhere from 52-59 percent of the overall vote, depending on events, but he will win handily. As I recall, Reagan in 1984 got 55 percent of the vote.

[ArneFufkin]

The "Economy" gambit is only useful against an incumbent whose judgement, motives and competence is not trusted by the citizenry. People aren't blaming Bush if they are unemployed, they want Congress to work HIS plan to create the jobs they lost. Bush has demonstrated his courage and wisdom and skill in the War abroad and in our successful defense against terrorist attacks at home. Most people go ... "You got a plan, let's get busy!" They don't know that Daschele is obstructing the President's initiatives, those Filibusters are poorly reported back to local constituents. It'll be demonstrated sooner than later.

Most Americans have jobs, have assets and are optimistic about their prospects. This is NOT 1979, with a prime at 21% and a negative GNP movement and REAL unemployment in steel mills, mining towns, home and commercial construction, textile plants, clothing manufacturers and oil related businesses. THAT WAS BAD! We're not going to make underwear, assemble DVD players or make Lego blocks here anymore. Anyone who is waiting for the flashlight manufacturing business, textile mills or even the high volume, hand drawn animation studios to start up again is going to have some economic turmoil. America doesn't do tube socks, footwear and cell phones anymore. We don't, as a group, want to pay that large premium with no benefit just for a Made in USA label

[mombonn]

BUSH WILL WIN BIG IN 04 & WILL PICK UP INCREASES IN THE CONGRESS AND STATES.

Shhh, we don't want to raise expectations!

;-)

[Defiant]

Last year was no landslide

To do what was done last year in an off-year election was historic and the equivalent of a landslide. It portends big things in '04. 60 Senate seats is possible. Gains in the house, although the number will be limited due to gerrymandering.

Tommy Daschle knows this--that's why he's antiwar. He knows it will carry Bush to a blowout.

[lawgirl]

I'd like to know who Rove predicts is going to be the DNC nominee in 04.

[mombonn]

it will only be 4 years since Clinton at the next election

May his tenure NEVER be forgotten . . . nor duplicated.

[LS]

Yah, I think you are right. Certainly the Iraq thing has helped Bush big in Mich., which has the largest Arab community in the U.S. and where the response was highly positive to the war.

[Defiant]

To be sure, Rove is correct to predict a close election, and we would be well advised not to act like this will be easy, even if we predict it will be. Bush 41 saw his 91 percent approval ratings, and decided the election was over, and when he realized he was in a race in summer of 92, it was too late. He also had a model he was not prepared for, a 3rd party that siphoned off support from the people who would not vote for Clinton, but who were pissed off at him. He thought Perot's support would collapse to less than 5 percent, as John Anderson's had in 1980, and it never did.

[JoeSchem]

). I hope this is sandbagging and not some internal polling stuff that he is reflecting.

Last time, their internal polling must have shown the same consistent nine point lead that the public polls were showing. Yet Rove declared it was going to be a 'close race.' I am concerned that he is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. One must neither underestimate nor overestimate one's opponent.