Posted on 08/09/2004 8:25:06 AM PDT by Liz
Business Council gathering is told Bush will `need a miracle'
POINT CLEAR - Democratic nominee John Kerry easily would beat Republican President George W. Bush if the presidential election was held now, political analyst Larry Sabato told members of the Business Council of Alabama Saturday.
" Kerry would win very handily," said Sabato, 52, a frequent guest of network television news shows and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Sabato, speaking at the BCA's governmental affairs conference at the Grand Hotel Marriott Resort here, said the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war is the biggest factor hurting Bush's re-election chances.
"He really will need a miracle to win, and the last miracle was for Harry S. Truman," Sabato said in an interview after his speech. Truman pulled his upset presidential victory in 1948.
He said that if Bush hadn't ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, he likely would be leading in 45 states and heading toward a landslide victory.
" He bet his presidency on Iraq. But he's this close to losing the bet," said Sabato, holding a finger and thumb about an inch apart.
He said polls show support for the Iraq war has dropped from about 70 percent of Americans to about 45 percent or less.
Sabato said Bush also must deal with a mediocre economy and a sour mood among voters that sees the economic glass as half empty, not half full.
Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, who joined dozens of legislators listening to Sabato's speech, said his national perspective offered an interesting contrast to the view from Alabama, which tends to vote heavily Republican for president.
"Apparently, Kerry is doing a lot better in a lot of areas in the country," Baxley said.
BCA President Billy Canary said he invited Sabato to speak because of his reputation for impartial and informed opinions. "He's the best in the country to give a national overview politically," Canary said.
Sabato said Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, is a liberal in the spirit of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. But Sabato said that likely will matter little before Nov. 2, since this election will mainly be a referendum on Bush and whether he deserves another four years in office.
Sabato called Kerry a cross between a funeral director and Lurch, the stiff butler on the old TV comedy "The Addams Family."
"Only in a year like this could John Kerry be elected. He can't connect with people. He's way to the left of the American mainstream," Sabato said.
"We're right on the verge of electing someone who I believe will be the most liberal president in American history, at least on social and cultural issues."
Sabato said Bush's best chance to win is to focus on "hot-button social issues" and try to paint Kerry as too liberal on issues such as gay marriage, gun control, abortion and the death penalty.
Sabato said Bush's father used such "wedge issues" to beat Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. But that was a time of peace and prosperity, Sabato said. "Now you've got war and an economy that is rocky."
Bush in 2000 won 271 electoral votes to Democrat Al Gore's 267. The 2000 census, reflecting population shifts, raised the number of electoral votes in the states Bush won to 278. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Bush's problem, Sabato said, is that there are fewer states he can hope to take from the Democrats' win column from 2000 than states Kerry can hope to take from Bush's win column that year.
Bush's best chances may be in Iowa, with seven electoral votes, and Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes. Gore won both states by less than 1 percent over Bush. But Kerry now leads polls in both states by about 3 to 5 percentage points.
Sabato said Bush, despite early hopes, has little chance now of taking Minnesota, Michigan or Pennsylvania from the Democrats' side.
Sabato said Kerry's best chance of raiding Bush's 2000 win column is in New Hampshire, which has four electoral votes. Bush won by 7,000 votes over Gore in 2000, but Kerry leads handily in the polls now.
Sabato also said:
West Virginia, with its five electoral votes, is leaning for Kerry. Bush won West Virginia by a margin of 6.3 percent over Gore.
Florida, with its 27 electoral votes, is leaning for Kerry. Bush won the state by a margin of 537 votes over Gore.
Kerry has about a 50-50 chance of winning either Ohio, with 20 electoral votes, or Missouri, with 11 electoral votes. Bush won both states by margins of more than 3 percent in 2000.
Kerry might win Arkansas, with its six electoral votes. Bush won the state by 5.45 percent in 2000, but Sabato said former President Bill Clinton, an Arkansas native, likely will stump there for Kerry. Gore didn't seek Clinton's help there in 2000.
Gore and Liberman were much better candidates than Kerry Edwards; Bush trounced them as an unkown. How are the two weak candidates going to beat Bush? Gore followed steps, he stuck to his leftist guns, so did Liberman; Bush made Gore look like a fool during the debates. How is a flip flopping joke like Kerry going to do better than Bush?
Because they wish it was because Kerry would win right now. Kerry will be found out and Bush will unleash everything on this guy that will make Kerry look like the biggest liberal in the world.
The analyst know this is not over and they want the Republican base to put up the white flag. Kerry will lose and he will lose "BIG TIME."
He teaches @ UVA and while I don't agree w/ everything that he wrote, he makes a reasonable argument. Also, he's very evenhanded and doesn't mind taking some jabs at the Dems (see his comments about Kerry). He's not someone who can be dismissed as a left-wing partisan b/c he isn't one. Agree or disagree w/ him, but he does his homework and provides some good analysis.
Isn't Larry Sabato the guy who said the Republicans would lose the Senate in 2002 by a 52-48 margin?
BTW..how was the weekend? Iw as away..just catching up?..I missed the Russert interview with Krugman and O'Reilly, hope they rurun it this week..
Yeah right! Dream on. LOL
Media attempt to show Skerry as a winner.
Middle American wont buy.
>Never believe Larry Sabato.
Sabato predicted a Gore win in 2000.
IIRC Sabato was saying the exact opposite about a month ago.
If the election were held today Sabato would write jimmy carter would win.
I agree with your comments. Reading between the lines, I think Sabato is saying that the Bush campaign must portray sKerry for what he is: A tax and spend liberal who wants bigger government, more social programs and less defense spending. Rove needs to go medeival on the guy.
I don't know what his track record is. Every time I hear him I get the impression he lives in the NY/Washington Press echo chamber. He make those general statements, "The American people feel/think.....", and they NEVER describe me.
The DEMOCRATS would still LIE!!!!
what you say is true - he's thoughtful, he seems analytical and all - but what the others are saying here is correct, he's wrong very often.
right now, on the stump, the best thing Bush has going for him - is Kerry. The soundbites of him that make the news are awful - this criticism of Bush reading to the classroom on 9-11, and this latest blurb about how he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terrorism - both played badly for him in my opinion.
still, its going to be a very close race.
Simple answer: The Left is programming The Sheep for the vote in November.
The Sheep need constant feeding, given their short-term memories Ask a Sheep about what they watch and listen to: they can quote chapter-and-verse about their fave stars, but can't remember September 11th.
I don't know what Sabato's track record is, though I must say that when I've heard him speak on television he does seem to be impartial, unlike Zogby and that guy for CNN who seems to take delight in Democratic chances for gains.
I mean the fact that Sabato admits that Kerry is out of the mainstream on social and cultural issues is a credit to him in my opinion. Many refuse to admit this obvious truth.
While I don't agree that w/o the Iraq war Bush would be leading in 45 states -- Calif, Vermont, Rhode Island, Conn, Mass, Illinois, Hawaii = at least 7 states -- I do think that Bush would be headed for a rather easy 6-8 point, 35-40 state landslide victory. I think people will be willing to hold back on blaming Bush (rightly so) for the slow-recovering economy because of things like 9-11, and that combined with Bush being closer to most people on social and cultural issues would have been enough to reelect him over the far left Kerry/Edwards ticket. But with growing discontent over Iraq; I don't know.
It would be a shame if Kerry is elected because of Iraq. It would be a shame if Kerry wins in spite of his far-left social views instead of because of them. And it will really be a shame if Kerry wins and disapproval of Bush results in the GOP losing the Senate races in Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, and Alaska thus giving the Dems control of the Senate.
Bush and the GOP had better convince the people that Iraq was worth it, that it was necessary, and that is was a legitimate front to open in the war on terror.
Why are so many analysts saying that this race is already over?
They are trying to "create facts on the ground," psychologically. They want the mood to be so weighted to this "conventional wisdom" that it will happen, simply because everyone knew it was going to happen. Kerry voters will turn out to be part of the happy herd and Bushies (I actually heard a reporter use this term in this context) will be so discouraged that they won't show up.
And on November 3rd Peter Jennings will complain that the American voters had a temper tantrum when it DOESN'T happen their way.
Sabato might be wrong and I hope he is but he has always come across as a pretty straight shooter.
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.