All of this with a slow-growing economy, battle deaths in Iraq, harping on WMDs, and no Saddam. What is the economy starts to add jobs by January, battle deaths start to slow, several reports on WMDs appear---which will never convince Dems, but will likely justify the war easily in the mind of the public---and Saddam is caught? You go from blowout to landslide.
On the other hand, to be fair, if none of these things change, indeed Bush is in for a tough election, because the whining right will stay home due to CFR and health care (which still has not become a reality), the middle will have forgotten 9/11, and the left will have increased in its viciousness and desperation.
So I could see it go either way, from a total landslide to a narrow defeat.
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.