Despite much of the conventional wisdom claiming that '04 is going to be a squeaker, I'm going to stick to -- and reiterate -- my prediction that George Bush will win in a landslide. Stories already abound of disillusioned Democrats with little hope of a Kerry victory. Many insiders expect the Clintons to be working against him, paving the road for Hillary in 2008.
I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong, but all the Democrats have to run with is visceral anger with no real foundation; I don't think that's going to motivate the electorate for eight more months. The extreme leftists are mostly angry because they're out of power, but the moderate leftists don't have much to complain about -- President Bush has already enacted many of their pet policies.
I tend to agree...2004 may resemble 1984 more than 2000.
The 1984 election campaign revolved mostly around the issues of the deficit (cutting Medicare and welfare) and tariff barriers (jobs).
As you may recall, the traditional role of the Democratic and Republican party were reversed, with the Democrats attacking the Republicans for budget deficits, and the Democrats also calling for more tariff protection.
Reagan won the election with an 18 point margin.
Factor in an improving Iraq situation, the WoT, 9/11 and the liklihood of elevated security alerts during the NYC convention and the approaching holidays travel window and I don't see how Kerry pulls it off.
I'll spring for the fries if we have to eat crow...I hear it tastes like chicken. ;-)
Mike, I was thinking on this very topic today and I agree with you.
It is one thing for someone to get a phone call from a pollster and say, "Yeah, Kerry, whatever." Getting in the voting booth and deciding that America's interests lies in someone who cares more about French opinion over American lives is something else. I think opinon polls will be all over the map for the next nine months, but I think (hope?) that Americans in the end will realize we're at war and a vote for Kerry is a vote for surrender.
I hope you're right too Mike. I like to think of myself as an Independent who votes for the best man but I'm a registered Republican. I'm a little more wary of Bush winning in a landslide for two reasons: 1.) his father couldn't win a re-election and 2.) Bush narrowly won (or even lost?) the 2000 election. And that was against wooden Al Gore. Kerry "seems" to lie somewhere between Slick Willy's charm and Gore's woodeness (I know it's not a word, but work with me) so it remains to be seen whether or not he can get the votes. Of course, to Bush's credit, he can say "We captured Saddam" but without any WMD that might not help him as much as one would hope.
Oops1 Sorry. I posted the most recent post.
Reagan gave inspiring speeches; Bush doesn't. Mondale wasn't able to excite Democrats. Kerry may. I'd want to know specifically what margin constitutes a landslide to you before I would agree or diagree with your view.
JT: Well, that's a reasonable question. I'm not exactly sure at this moment, but... I wouldn't be surprised if Bush got 400ish electoral votes. That's more than a landslide, though. Let's say... over 350? Does that sound reasonable? It's negotiable though.
I think 325 electoral votes is the most Bush will get. Neither a squeaker nor a landslide.
I'd give 30% for Bush winning with more than 325 electoral votes, 40% for Bush winning with fewer than 325 votes, and 30% for losing to Kerry by any margin. More than 350 votes certainly would be a landslide.
My method for this assessment? I haven't a clue, as I'm not a political scientist.