You lose. This time, Morris is right.

First, Bush goes into this election as incumbent president. Incumbents historically have won at least two out of three elections for the presidency.

Second, only two US senators have been elected president in the past 104 years, neither of whom ran against incumbent presidents. (No president since the 19th century was elected direct from the House of Representatives.)

Third, Kerry is a rather stiff and unloved liberal senator from Massachusetts. Hardly a personality type thatwins national elections of any type. And certainly not in the new Solid South and southwest.

Fourth, Kerry already has a reputation -- enforced by the Bush campaign advertising -- as a man whose voting record continually contradicts itself; a hazard of almost anyone who has served in a legislature.

Fifth, that same Bush advertising campaign -- long before election day -- will have Kerry solidly tagged as a disloyal officer who consorted with the Jane Fonda anti-Viet Nam war crowd in the early 1970s and who went so far as to throw away his campaign medals in an antiwar protest in the presence of numerous notable journalists with long memories.

Sixth, the US economy has been notably improving all this year, with unemployment at its lowest point in years, consumer consumption up, jobs being added in almost every employment sector, and other economic signs positive.

Seventh, even Kerry and the Democrats do not pretend they have a viable strategy for handling Iraq that differs markedly from what Bush and his administration are now doing.

Eighth, Nader is in the election to stay, and already is showing signs of pulling away some of the hardcore leftists from the Kerry ticket. There is nothing comparable to the Nader phenomenon on the Republican side. And there won't be.

Bush has been leading Kerry by a consistent 3-4 points in national polls for some time, with enough electoral vote -- which of course are the only ones that count to pull it off.

My own assumption is that Bush already has the votes to win re-election, and that those who say they will vote for him will do so regardless of any strategy the Democrats come up with Senator Kerry as their candidate. My further assumption is that no last-minute move to dump Kerry at the convention will succeed, and probably that no such effort will even get started.

My reasoning for this last assumption is that the Clinton interests in the Democrat party want Senator Clinton to have a clear shot at the presidency in 2008, more than they want some other candidate to beat Bush in 2004.

This campaign is Kerry's to win and Bush's to lose, because the political odds always go with the incumbent.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to place your bets". (Damon Runyon)

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

While my comment was meant more as a shot at Morris than a real prediction for Kerry victory, I will point out that much of your reasoning, Arnold, is of the "The Cubbies haven't lost a home game when the starting pitcher was a left-hander and the temperature was under 70 degrees since 1972" variety. While it all may be quite so, the winner of the game is usually the one to score the most runs by the end of the ninth inning last I looked.

Mind you, I seem to recall that one of the earliest arguments you and I ever got into was based on my statement that Senators make poor Presidential candidates, I think because you were speaking well of Bill Frist and I was noting that for Republicans to nominate him would likely be a strategic mistake.

Generally speaking my rule is that if I make a prediction I stick with it and don't wuss out, and I've been predicting for some time a very very close election in a squeaker for Kerry. That said, I must say things are looking better for the President these days. As you say the economy only improves. Despite the best efforts of the Bush-haters, it's also obvious that most people understand that even our supposed "record casualties" in the last month in Iraq are infinitessimally tiny compared to what's normal for past wars of comparable scale. And the latest hoo-ha over abuse of Iraqi prisoners, despite the Democrats' best efforts, is refusing to stick to either Rumsfeld or the President--probably because the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to believe that either America or her leaders are in the habit of torturing people, and because all the flutter over this only emphasizes that the government is addressing the problem.

Too, as you say, anything resembling a "plan" for Iraq or Afghanistan that comes out of Democrats has been "just what Bush is doing only better." Only what "better" consists of is either vague and unspecific or involves trying to work more with other nations, which may have merit but is hardly an issue to set your average voter's imagination on fire and appeals to many voters not at all. "I'm terribly excited at the prospect of getting France more intimately involved!" is not a sentence I expect to hear uttered out of anyone in America's heartland any time in the next six months.

Still, Democrats start with the huge electoral advantages of California and New York, and Bush stands a very good chance of losing Ohio, which he won by less than a whisker last time. Indeed my own gut tells me he will pick up New Mexico but lose Ohio and that this will likely be his undoing in November.

But we shall see what we see.

bottom line: Morris is selling a book.
Whatever he says is filterd through the sam crap he accuses.
They all deserve: "Feh!"

Dean,

Where was the Democrat electoral advantage in California when Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger -- with no political experience of any kind -- pulled politician Gray Davis out of office almost by his ears, just seven months ago? Do you imagine Governor Schwarzenegger is going to be touring his state and mobilizing voters with Senator John Kerry rather than with the president? I wouldn't take California as a Democrat state for granted anymore.

I don't wuss out on my own political predictions. Governors make better presidential candidates than do US senators. I just thought when Bill Frist was made majority leader that this gave him a leg up some day on a Republican presidential run. He's young, bright, articulate, and might be the Republicans' best choice against either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards. I think those two, if Kerry loses the 2004 presidential election as I presume he shall, will be the key Democrat contenders for the non-incumbent election of 2008. Who would be the Republicans' absolutely best choice in 2008? Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; but he is forever forbidden that choice by the United States Constitution.

But for now, back to 2004. Senator Kerry has little or nothing going for him. And any campaign in which a challenger hopes to take down an incumbent, he must have pulled ahead of the incumbent by this time in the campaign.

There is no evidence of that happening anywhere in the country. It is precisely for that reason that you have begun blogging undercurrents of dissatisfaction with Kerry's campaign from deep within Democrat ranks. The fact is, Democrats are beginning to perceive not only that Bush can win this election, but that Kerry is foredoomed to lose it and that it is too late for them to do anything about it. Moreover, like Limbaugh alluded to earlier this year, I think the Clinton branch of the Democrat family wishes to regain the mantle of national power. And that cannot happen without Kerry's defeat this year.

As for the baseball analogy concerning the Cubs, politics is fought out in a much nastier league. There is certainly some big money running against Bush. The deep pockets of George Soros. Some Hollywood millionaire Democrats. And so on. But the super-big money is on Bush all the way. And that money is making its presence felt in the incessant and successful TV ad campaign against Kerry. A campaign that will never cease until the very morning of the election in November. Actually, that part of the anti-Kerry campaign has hardly begun. Wait until organizations such as the National Rifle Association weigh in with their carefully-coached armies of voters.

Unlike you, I do not feel through my guts. I think through my brain, which analyzes the data available to me, through the sense experience of my years observing and studying political dramas. Perhaps the facts, my assumptions, and my brain shall all disappoint me. If so, I will admit an error in judgement. But as matters stand today, 9 May 2004, I do not think it will come to that.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I think Colorado's current sitting Governor--his name escapes me at the moment--is probably Republicans' best possible candidate in '08. But then that is some years away as yet.

As for thinking with the gut: it is my view that people who rely on intuition are merely responding to calculations done by the subconscious mind. For whatever that is worth.

My own gut is usually pretty good. I quite vividly recall in 1992 when the first Clinton floozy scandal hit during the primary elections early that year. The moment I saw Governor Clinton and his wife on television holding hands and discussing his marital infidelities, I thought, "this man is the next President of the United States." Just like that I saw clear as day that he would not just win the nomination but the Presidency.

My gut told me all along that Dole never had a chance in '96, and it told me all along that Bush was probably going to pull off that election in 2000 as unlikely as it seemed.

I confess that this time around my gut isn't telling me much. It may be due to emotional intensity; I am sore wroth with Democrats this year and as such am having to purely intellectualize my viewpoint without relying on whatever subconscious cues I normally rely upon.

In any case, I'll be pulling the lever for Bush. Let's see what comes of that.

Dean,

When I saw then-governor Clinton on C-Span in early 1991, I knew we GOPers had a problem...of course, I didn't actually expect Clinton to win in 1992, but who can count on a Ross Perot showing up? (you can never, ever get away from the fact that Clinton got less votes in 92 than Dukakis did in 88...ie, Clinton didn't win, he just failed to lose; ergo, anything from 1992 is immaterial in prognostications because unless there is a credible center-right challenger to a sitting GOP President, the tea leaves just ain't right). Still, I knew he'd be formidable; and he was - but it was 1996 and 1998 which showed how formidable he was, not 1992.

You're sorta right about Dick Morris - his predictions have been a bit odd over the past few years because he was trying to keep a foot in the Democratic camp...I think that now, in his new book, he's decided to jump ship altogether...in other words, he knows he's never gonna get a job advising a senior Democrat again, so he's got no need to sugar-coat it for Democrats anymore. His bread is henceforward to be buttered by Fox News and rightwing talk radio; his audience will delight in stories of Democratic doom...and this year is looking more and more like doom for the Democrats.

Like you, I stick to my predictions - and I'm still predicting President Bush by a landslide this year...Ohio? Sure, he's in a statistical dead heat with Kerry in Ohio, but thats the bottom for him and now that the job market in Ohio is improving, its only up for President Bush...meanwhile, President Bush has a very realistic chance of taking PA, NM and MI from the Democrats (supposing this does turn out to be a close race rather than my projected landslide)...and of the two States most likely to flip to the Democrats, NH and WV, President Bush's support is firming up in both places.

There's a war on, there's an incumbant President and the economy is improving...ie, President Bush wins. Kerry is a mind-numblingly stupid man in all respects and the worst candidate a major Party has ever fielded...ie, President Bush wins by a landslide.

What they said. I think it'll be Bush, and it won't even be that close.

Predictions are tough... I don't really see Morris as less astute than anyone else in the pontificating game but it seems that the consensus jof structural analysis favors Bush. No surprise that it should favor the incumbent in an expanding economic climate. The Iraq situation is far from a catastrophe, debacle, fiasco or even "failure". I continue to be confident about the long term there. Now, how it might look in six months is another story but even if Bush falls, it has been worth it. Worst case, the Iraqi's will be on their own for good or ill. Let's not forget, speaking of predictions, how far from reality the predictions of the anti-warriors have proved. Don't go wobbly.

Mega,

Thats also about it - I'll never, ever regret my support for the liberation of Iraq; it was the right thing to do at the right time. In the end, any good political leader has to do what he thinks right and take what comes of it...President Bush, in my mind, bravely staked his whole Presidency upon the issue of Iraq liberation because without such, the War on Terrorism cannot be actually won...he could have trimmed, gone wobbly after Afganistan and played it out hoping for no major terrorist attacks until after he left office, but as President he understands that his job is the people of the United States, not just holding on to office.

I basically do not care about what happens to Iraq or the Iraqis. Because I respect neither their culture nor the religion their religious practices that stem from that culture. In this, I think I mirror at least the private opinion of most Americans. (But if that is not so, then I can live with it.)

Candidly, I think we shall succeed neither in building democracy nor possibly even inter-ethnic stability in Iraq or in any other Arab islamic cultural complex. I think it will be sufficient for our purposes if we succeed in making Iraq into an American puppet state, or if that is not achievable in the long run, then at least to defang any government likely to come to power there. (I think you all know enough about me that you are not surprised by such an admission.)

In any case, I do believe that the destruction of the international terrorist gangs pre-empts the promotion of international democracy, even if the Bush administration imagines that Iraq and other Arab countries can be democratized. But I do not care about their good intentions, only about results. And I think the longterm result of using strong armed force against the Arabs in general will be the termination of their terror gangs.

So that you will not think me off-topic in these comments, I should like to mention that I think most Americans are less concerned about Iraq, torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners in jails that we administer, or even the continuing unrest in that country, than they are in the current shape of the US economy, including jobs, investments and related considerations.

If all this were otherwise, we would not have the sort of culture that would have produced ordinary small-town Americans capable of perpetrating such cruelties upon the Iraqi prisoners as the world is not seeing.

And who knows? Maybe for us this is all a good thing in the long run. Maybe we ought to want any enemy population to be so frightened of us that they will kill their own would-be terrorists before these become a menace to us. Having such a population fear you is at least as effective a tool of control as inducing them to love and respect you. And a lot less costly to put into effect. But no policy succeeds if carried out in weakness and self-contradiction.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI