Posted on 07/27/2003 5:36:15 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Bush campaign strategist says 'election will be tough'He believes divided electorate may make race as close as 2000
07/27/2003
NEW YORK One of President Bush's top campaign strategists warned fellow Republicans on Saturday that the 2004 race could be every bit as close as the overtime contest of 2000.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this next election will be tough," campaign manager Ken Mehlman told the summer meeting of the Republican National Committee. "It will be an incredible challenge. It will include difficult days."
Some of those days have already arrived, as Democrats pound Mr. Bush over unemployment, the rising death toll in Iraq, and the use of intelligence to justify the war on Saddam Hussein.
APMr. Mehlman and other campaign officials said they keys to a victory are defending Mr. Bush's successes in fighting terrorism and reviving the economy and building a strong organization down to the local level
As the RNC wrapped up the weekend meeting in the city that will host next year's convention, the Republicans face what many analysts see as a still-closely divided electorate, despite GOP successes in the 2002 congressional races and Mr. Bush's high-but-slipping approval ratings.
Democrats are seeking to dent that popularity by questioning whether Mr. Bush exaggerated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. They are challenging the administration's credibility on a variety of fronts, such as the higher-than-projected budget deficits and costs of occupying Iraq.
"When George W. Bush ran for president three years ago, he promised us an era of responsibility in Washington," said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a presidential candidate. "Instead, we've got an era of irresponsibility unparalleled in our history."
Mr. Mehlman said many of the Democratic critics supported military action against Mr. Hussein, calling their criticism a reversal designed "for short-term political gain among Democrat primary voters."
"If they're willing to sacrifice principle on this, just imagine what they'll say and do to try to get elected," Mr. Mehlman said.
Mr. Bush's job approval ratings remain well over 50 percent, normally a threshold for re-election. But Republican officials said they want to ward off any notion of complacency, especially as the Democratic field narrows to a single challenger early next year.
"Our numbers look good today," Mr. Mehlman said. "But as we've predicted for some time, those numbers will come down. We must prepare for an election every bit as close and every bit as hard fought as the 2000 election."
To an extent, the Republicans are going up against history. No president who lost the popular vote, as Mr. Bush did against Al Gore, has won a second term in the White House.
Mr. Mehlman pointed out the Republicans have not re-elected a president and kept a congressional majority in the same election since 1924.
"The last time that happened, Calvin Coolidge was sitting in the Oval Office," Mr. Mehlman said.
As for the divided nature of modern politics, Mr. Mehlman pointed to states that went for one party or the other in at least three of the last five presidential elections. The result: 273 electoral votes for Republicans, 265 for Democrats. A candidate needs 270 to win.
Mr. Mehlman said that next year's election presents both "an opportunity" and "a challenge" and that Republicans need to be in position to seize the moment.
RNC officials said a new get-out-the-vote effort keyed their successes in November, when Republicans re-captured the Senate and increased their majority in the U.S. House. They said they will need an even better effort to translate that into a full Republican realignment.
"2004 will show us if the incremental gains in 2002 are enduring," said Nicolle Devenish, communications director for Mr. Bush's campaign. "And anyone who says they know the answer to that doesn't know."
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/072703dnnatgop.a91f3.html
I'm thinkin' a WIN for Bush, and NOT a squeaker, either.
However, I think it is very HEALTHY for them to keep
aggressive and not take ANYTHING for granted.
I'd say it's a little late for that. Considering that Dubya doesn't appear to need little throw away issues like sunsetting the AWB, border control, smaller government and such.. After all he's got big vote getters, like his new deal on drugs.
He's made it very clear that my vote isn't valued what-so-ever.
That's upsetting to me, but I think he will win though..
The democrats simply haven't got anyone with the (oh, THE IRONY!) "Gravitas" to take him out.. They're a bunch of goofballs who's idea of a pivotal issue runs along the lines of honoring gay marriages from Canada.
In addition, they have proven that they cannot be trusted on defence matters. They were wrong categorically here and will continue to be, probably forever.. And everyone knows it.
Dubya is going to win, and that's good because he's better than the alternatives.. But he's still lacking in the Small government, 2A and indiviual liberties departments, imo.
When he wins, appoints our justices and then must step aside after his second term in 2008, I won't miss him.
Why, simply because she's black? Or a female? Or both?
I know virtually nothing about this woman.. And, unless they're somehow asexual... I don't want a single person as President.
You better keep your fingers crossed on that. So far he has been a huge disappointent in all areas except defence. So I can see him blowing appointments of judges too.
Oh, I agree. He's been a big letdown, imo..
But, what's the alternative? A certified nut-job like Dean?
If it's got to be done (and it looks like it does, soon) then I want Dubya to do it.
These are lifetime appointments and we just can't afford anything less than the best odds for our SC.
As I said.. After he does this and leaves office, I certainly won't miss him.
I may do it again for the reasons above, but I am none too happy about it.
In 2000, I raced to the polls.. even with my reservations, I was energized. Now if someone asked me to go fishing on election day, it would be damn hard to turn them down.
...and their puppet minions, the disgruntled Conservatives who want it their way or no way.
Well, if that is how you really feel...the door is bi-directional...don't let it cause a brain concussion on the way out!
AMF!
If Bush wins 1 million more votes nationally (which means the Dem loses 1 million more votes),
Only about 46% of eligible voters go to the polls. Bush could get millions of votes without the Dem losing even one (in fact, they could both gain a lot)
think of the incredible swing of states such as NM (335 total votes difference), Iowa (about 5,000), Wisconsin (about 11,000), Oregon, and even Pennsylvania and Michigan.
At least some of those states could have been contested in 2000. NM switched to Gore after an election official found a "misplaced" box of ballots. PA went for Gore mostly because of the big cities, where turnout was 125% in some districts. And I forget whether it was Wisconsin or Michigan where students were told how to vote both at home and at school.
The GOP finally got to work on poll watching operations in 2002. The effort wasn't perfect, but GOPers were elected in some places they wouldn't have been otherwise.
I think we're going to see some previously solidly Dem states in the GOP column.
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.