About a week ago, Tom Paine opined that George W. is unbeatable by Democrats next year. This weekend, Sgt. Stryker opines that Wesley Clark is Democrats' only chance of beating Bush, even if he (Sgt. Stryker) despises the guy.
I am really rather bemused by people who are convinced that Bush is unbeatable. We're 14 months away from election day. Anything can happen between now and then that would sour most people on Bush.
I don't think Clark's a credible candidate--he simply lacks both the charisma and, more importantly, the rolodex and loyalty within the Democratic Party to pull off the nomination. I think he's angling for either the VP slot or for a cabinet position. I'd expect him to wind up being the eventual Democratic nominee's military and/or foreign policy advisor, with everyone understanding that he would be either Secretary of Defense or of State for the next Democratic President.
However, I continue to believe that Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt could be very powerful candidates to challenge Bush. I find John Kerry and the other candidates less likely winners. I plan on donating money to Lieberman's campaign, and will probably give him some other public support--although, since Michigan Democrats don't allow voters to take part in their primaries anymore, my support will be halfhearted. Nevertheless, I desperately hope that the Democrats nominate someone like this, because I'm openly afraid of people like Howard Dean, John Kerry evokes a visceral loathing in me, and John Edwards strikes me as far too much of a cipher to take seriously as CIC in a time of war.
I very much hope to see Democrats nominate someone sane, because the fact is that, just as any team in the NFL can beat any other team in the NFL on any given Sunday, any Presidential candidate can beat any other on election day.
Just remember: everyone considered Ronald Reagan a joke and Jimmy Carter bound for an easy re-election--and Reagan was nowhere near Carter in the polls until just one week before the election in 1980. At this time in 1991, everyone still considered George H.W. Bush unbeatable, and still thought of people like Bill Clinton as a joke. I can come up with other examples, too.
Mind you, people on the other side keep saying silly things, too. The economy is not the #1 driving factor in all Presidential elections, or even most of them. It it were, Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have been thrown out of office in 1936, since the depression only worsened during his first four years, and wasn't much better when he was re-elected in 1940 either. Harry Truman also would have been killed by Thomas Dewey in 1948. The conventional wisdom, that people vote primarily based on the economy, is wrong. It's one influence, one of the bigger ones, but it's not the be-all, end all of electoral politics.
Thus I say: People who are seriously concerned about national security, especially Bush supporters, should still be rooting for Democrats to nominate a sane, sensible, stable candidate who shows he takes the war seriously.
I'll tell you something else, too: the more confident Republicans are of re-election, the easier a time the Democratic nominee will have in pulling off an upset.
* Update 01:52 pm * Dowingba falls under my Sevengali-spell. Soon the rest of you will fall under my dark influence, and my plans for world domination will be complete! (Aww, seriously dude, don't swell my head too much. But nice comments do make my life more fun, so thanks.)
The clearest indicator that Bush is unbeatable at the moment is that Hillary's not running. If she thought she had a chance, she'd jump in the race without hesitation. Whatever else you can say about her, you have to admit she's one of the more politically savvy pols around.
I love your blog, man. But I can't believe you're a Democrat. I agree that Republicans should not get overconfident. This will be a close election. However, the best Democrats have stayed out of the race. If the Dems nominated Hillary, Gore, or Joe Biden, with a serious running mate, say, Evan Bayh, they would have a good chance. I see no presidential timber in the current field.
I think Dean is one of the few people who realise Republicans and Democrats are important to the country's well-being, so is not against giving his support (moral or otherwise) to both parties (in their own way). I think it's stupid how people seem to have a "good vs evil" view of politics and will only vote Republican --or Democrat-- until the day they die, no matter what the parties stand for on any given day.
I'm not so sure this election will be about the economy.
It's been a very long time since there was a national security-based election.
But history suggests people vote VERY differently when they think their own lives may be at stake.
I am registered as a Democrat, but I don't consider myself one. I'm generally more supportive of Republicans these days. What I am is an independent.
I am willing to vote at any time for any politician of either party who I agree enough with, and don't disagree strongly enough with.
Right now, much of the Democratic primary field scares me. On the other hand, I expect them to seem more scary right now since they're playing hard to the anti-Bush, anti-war base. I expect whichever candidate who wins the primaries to become more moderate later on, whoever he (or she) is. But I hope to see a sensible moderate win--thus I plan on backing Lieberman and/or Gephardt, for whatever that backing is worth.
Partisans want Democrats to field a weak candidate who'll alienate voters. I don't. I know perfectly well that Bush could lose the next election, and I want a Democrat I can live with to be that alternative if at all possible. And who knows? Bush may alienate me and I may change my mind--even though I do quite like him and his administration, that's not to say I'll feel exactly that way 14 months from now.
The American system is based on finding compromise candidates you can live with. I would prefer to have a candidate who does everything my way, but that would mean nominating my clone and, anyway, would also guarantee me to lose. If I can get a Republican I agree with 45%, and a Democrat I can agree with 55%, or vice versa, I'm much happier.
I'd really think that's how most sensible voters should feel. Compromise is the nature of all politics; people who find compromise intolerable are essentially saying that they find democracy itself intolerable.
We're 14 months away from election day. Anything can happen between now and then that would sour most people on Bush.
So many things can happen in 14 months that it is foolish to make projections that far away. This is why the Bush team is not laying back on the election. True, they haven't done anything to speak of for the past month, but they were on vacation.
Meanwhile, the Dems savaged the President at every opportunity. Despite thier blather, the Presidents approval rating is still at 59%.
the best Democrats have stayed out of the race.
There is a reason for that.
If the Dems nominated Hillary, Gore, or Joe Biden, with a serious running mate, say, Evan Bayh, they would have a good chance.
No, they wouldn't. Unless something goes SERIOUSLY wrong for Bush in the next 14 months, nobody stands a chance against him. Gore is not going to go through that again, and Hilary is not going to chance the loss. Meanwhile, Biden? He is more vulnerable on his record than several of the current candidates, and has the charisma of a vole.
As opposed to Bush, who has the charisma of a stoat? :-)
I mean, I like the guy, but come on. I could live with a Joe Biden.
...don't swell my head too much...
Okay, I take back my comments. Howard Dean forever!
Interesting reading the different posts. A very wise soul told me not to get so gul darn mad over politics. I would jump up and find myself raising my voice at the television. Why he said, "Just think of it like a game of a sport you love and just enjoy it". Seemed easy enough since I love horse racing. Oh man to see that horse I wanted to win come from behind- as in politics, and here comes my horse, running to the finish!!!! Yes!!!!
Well.....I'd like to know WHERE THE HELL IS MY WISE OLE SOUL NOW? YOU SAY---H I L A R Y ???
I will raise my feelings in caps, Geez-
GOOD GRIEF!!
Over a year ago or longer on the National Day Of Prayer, I passed through my living room with the television on and stopped and did a double take. Well, it was a nice pictue and truly humble I would say--(yeah, I know good public relations)- but still, it was humble. President George Bush and Joe Lieberman. A Christian and a Jew.
Catch ya later when I come buzzin into your world.
While we must ritualistically say that anything can happen in 14 months, we all know that one thing for sure will not happen in the next 14 months - the absolute and definitive victorious conclusion of the War on Terrorism.
That is the issue - in the end, the only issue of 2004 (just as it was the only real issue of 2002). The Democratic nominee can come up with the very best economic plan the world has ever seen and he'll still be beaten by President Bush in 2004 unless he can also come up with a much better plan for winning the war than President Bush has.
The President laid it out in very clear, stark terms this evening - and boiled down what he has said is the absolute truth of our times; that this is a war between civilization and barbarism and we dare not turn back.
Of course, even if the eventual Democrat has a good plan for the war, he still has to contend with the fact that President Bush is President and has proven himself a masterful politician.
Predictions this far our are foolhardy - but let me be foolhardy:
Bush vs Dean = Bush 65%, Dean 35%
Bush vs Lieberman = Bush 55%, Lieberman 40%, Green or other Freako Party, 5% (the hard left will tolerate nothing less than a Dean as the Democratic standard-bearer).