Indecision 2004- the Campaign for the White House-

I think at this point Kerry may be unstoppable on his way to the Demo nomination. The amount he won Virginia and Tennessee by is impressive. If he takes Wisconsin the rest of the race is a moot point. That's a lot of momentum to try and stall out.
 
I wonder, if Dean were out, would Edwards beat Kerry?

Here is some interesting stuff on the Vice Presidential nominee. Is Cheney bowing out?

From Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball-
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-02-18.htm

But First...Will Bush-Cheney Become Bush- ______?

History has a sense of humor, and it may be playing another trick. Reportedly in 1992, a concerned presidential son (George W. Bush) approached his father (President George H.W. Bush) and strongly suggested that the electoral albatross that Bush Sr. had chosen in 1988 for Vice President (Dan Quayle) be dropped from the reelection ticket in favor of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Bush Sr. refused, fearing the reaction among conservatives if he sent their favorite officeholder back to Indiana. (Having misread conservative lips by raising taxes, Bush Sr. was already in the doghouse with the right.) However, Bush Jr. may well have been correct. The nomination of the first African-American to a major-party national ticket might have scrambled the 1992 election. While President Bush would have lost some conservative votes, he likely would have gained many in the middle who were--and still are--mightily impressed with Powell. And it's easy to imagine that Bush's 11% in the black community from 1988 would at least have doubled with Powell on the ticket. The '92 election would have been closer; whether Powell would have added enough net votes is unknowable--yet Bush Sr. would at least have been back in the game, with a real chance for reelection.

Now come we to 2004. Dick Cheney's selection made some sense in 2000. While he added no electoral votes to Bush's column--and Bush needed every one he could get--Cheney did provide a sense of reassurance, experience, and maturity to the untested GOP presidential nominee. But in 2004, Bush has not only been president for a term, he has faced some of the greatest crises encountered by any modern President. Bush doesn't need Cheney for the same reasons--or, to the Crystal Ball's way of thinking, for any reasons at all. Bush most needs electoral votes; the President is struggling in the polls and he has made little real progress in expanding the Red States from his minimal victory of 2000. Now, President Bush potentially faces a Democratic nominee who, with a smart pick for Vice President, can take away a key Red State (Georgia? Indiana? Louisiana? Arizona?), and who, by pounding away at the Bush term's job losses, can capture another Red State or two (Ohio and West Virginia come immediately to mind). Where, oh where, is Bush going to make up for his lost electoral votes? The 2000 Census added only 7 to his column--278 if he carries all his 2000 states, a mere 8 more than the minimum for victory.

It is immediately clear that, once again, Dick Cheney adds not a single Electoral Vote. (Wyoming would vote GOP for a comatose nominee.) In addition (or is that subtraction?), Cheney has become a serious liability. Fair or unfair, his Halliburton connection is a major and unwelcome distraction for Bush. Cheney is seen by most Americans as a secretive corporate executive with no common touch--someone unlikely to help convince the voters that Bush cares about them and deserves a second term. Cheney's adamant pre-war insistence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and his possible pressure on CIA analysts to support this unproven belief, has helped to open up a yawning credibility gap for the Bush Administration. His surprisingly liberal views on gay marriage/civil unions, owing to his lesbian daughter, complicate Bush's plans to make Kerry pay for the sharply leftist direction of gay rights in the Bay State. His prime Cabinet selection, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, has deeply embarrassed Bush and raised legitimate questions about Cheney's advice on personnel selection. And then, there is the Vice President's health. Four heart attacks in a V.P. may not have seemed relevant in the misleadingly quiet America of 2000, but a strenuous campaign awaits the Bush ticket, and the need for a vigorous, steely, shock-absorbing second-in-command in this dangerous age of terrorism should be obvious to all.

Will Bush now heed the advice he once gave to his father? Powerful candidates from electoral-rich states are available: ex-Governor and current Cabinet Secretary Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania (21 Electoral Votes) and Bob Taft from Ohio (20 Votes) are the most prominent, and both these large states are still winnable for Bush. Only in a landslide would Bush carry New York or Michigan, so it's doubtful that Governor George Pataki or ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani or former Wolverine State Governor John Engler could help Bush all that much. A wild-card candidate might be Wisconsin's former Governor and current Secretary of Health and Human Resources Tommy Thompson (10 Votes); another would be Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota (10 Votes), not least because Coleman has cut quite a national figure over the past year and Minnesota is now a swing state. Or maybe Bush can finally take his own advice and put Secretary of State Colin Powell on the ticket, or if the conservatives raise too much of a ruckus about the moderate Powell, he can pick right-wing favorite National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. (WARNING: Rice has never truly been vetted by the press).

Okay, the Crystal Ball has had its fun. That loyalty gene in the Bush family will prevent "W" from dumping his V.P. just like it stopped Bush Sr. in 1992. But all it would take is a private realization by Vice President Cheney that the best thing he could do for his President and his party in 2004 is to step aside. He could announce that, for health reasons--those pesky heart palpitations--he has decided to retire at the end of the term. What a shocking way to "jump-start" the Bush campaign in mid-summer! (Apologies to all heart patients who use those marvelous, life-saving defibrillators.) Will Cheney make the sacrifice? We all THINK we know the answer ("no"), but...

Back to the Democrats: So Who Will Carry the Load with Kerry?

On January 5, 2004, the Crystal Ball shamelessly started the V.P. speculation before we even had a solid clue from the voters as to the winner of the Presidential nomination. Not one of our loyal readers objected, so we assume that you won't care if we continue this madness. Compared to the ancient list (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_veep-table.htm) that was constructed five weeks and several political eternities ago, we have a new frontrunner--former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who has campaigned by Kerry's side and shares the special bond of the band of Vietnam War brothers. Cleland, the longtime Peach State politician would make Kerry at least competitive in Georgia (though he lost his own seat in 2002); and as a Vietnam quadriplegic, Cleland has a matching story of heroism and sacrifice that would reinforce Kerry's own (pre-Jane Fonda, at least) and make this ticket potentially attractive to many veterans.

Also still at the top of the list, are Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. See our January release for the explanations.

Still hot on the Democratic V.P. trail are Senators Bill Nelson and Bob Graham of Florida. The Sunshine State may be a mighty tempting target for Kerry, not just because of 2000 but also because a real challenge to Bush there simply cannot be ignored by the skittish Bush team and will tie up millions in GOP resources.

Moving up on the list because of their shrewdly timed Kerry endorsements are former foe Dick Gephardt of the key swing state of Missouri, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (whose wife gave Kerry a big boost in the state that literally made the senator the 2004 Democratic nominee), and Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, whose strong pitch for Kerry just 48 hours before the Old Dominion's primary helped propel Kerry into a massive victory that severely damaged both Southern candidates, John Edwards and Wesley Clark. While Edwards remains in the hunt for Vice President, the Crystal Ball has downgraded Clark's chances. Yes, he dropped out and endorsed Kerry, but the general's propensity for damaging gaffes, his condescending attack on "Lieutenant Kerry" while still contesting the nomination, and his role in spreading unproven rumors about Kerry to the press will, in our view, make him an unlikely, even foolish, choice for Number Two.

Also moved down a notch or two were several senators, the most prominent of whom is Hillary Clinton. Even assuming she wanted the V.P. spot, which is doubtful, she and Kerry would comprise a ticket that is too liberal, too Northeast (She's not from Arkansas anymore), and too controversial.





WISCONSIN PRIMARY RESULTS: The One-and-a-Half Candidate Contest
The following results were as of 1:15 AM EDT. Percent of precincts reporting is listed in parenthesis. The top four candidates are listed followed by their percentage of the vote and the number of delegates assigned.

Wisconsin (100%)

Kerry
40%
30

Edwards
34%
24

Dean
18%
13

Kucinich
3%
0

With John Edwards' strong-though-losing showing in Wisconsin, the Democratic contest will clearly last at least until the Super-Primary on March 2. But, Kerry has still won 15 of 17 battles, with Edwards having captured just one state: his native South Carolina. Moreover, the ground is more fertile for Kerry than Edwards on March 2: the ten states voting are mainly Northern/Western and liberal, with the prominent exception of Georgia: CA, CT, GA, MD, MA, MN, NY, OH, RI, and VT. Yet even in the Peach State, Kerry has a powerful weapon: former U.S. Senator Max Cleland. Most Democrats are still furious about his defeat for reelection in November 2002, and they may be inclined to listen to him now.

With Dean sidelined and the other serious candidates now out, and Sharpton and Kucinich mere sideshows as always, the showdown for the Democratic nomination is between Kerry and Edwards. This is what Edwards has always wanted: a one-on-one, mano a mano fight. But, it cannot be the way Edwards had hoped it might be. This is not one-on-one, but a one-and-a-half candidate finale. And the whole almost always beats the half.

History tells us that Wisconsin has seen several close presidential elections--both primary and general--so this recent result should be viewed in perspective. To that end, the Crystal Ball reminds you of three of the closest contests: first, Bill Clinton's defeat of CA Gov. Jerry Brown in 1992 by 21,000 votes. Next up is Jimmy Carter's surprise primary win over Mo Udall in 1976 by 7,500 votes. Lastly--and closest--is Al Gore's 2000 defeat of George W. Bush in the general election, where the margin rested at a mere 5,700 votes.

For the moment, though, the Crystal Ball celebrates the extension of the campaign for two more weeks, not unlike students who welcome snow days. And that's the real reason John Edwards is getting what he wants. Every print reporter, TV newsman, political analyst, and electoral junkie--INCLUDING The Crystal Ball--wished hard for a longer primary season, Terry McAuliffe and his frontloading be damned! Hooray for the contrarian voters of the Badger State!
 
Apparently, the Economist thinks Cheney needs to be dumped too-

http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2447095

"The Bush campaign needs a jolt, not just to wake up the ideologues at the AEI but also to improve the president's standing among independent voters. And what bigger jolt could he give it than to start at the top—or rather second from the top—with the vice-president? In 1992, Mr Bush tried to persuade his father to ditch Dan Quayle. The idea that Mr Cheney might also be a “drag on the ticket” was unthinkable a year ago. Now it has begun to seep into the more hard-headed, vote-scrounging parts of the Republican Party, and become common chatter among political operatives from both parties. It is, indeed, the current cover story of the National Journal, the inside-the-Beltway bible.

This is partly Mr Cheney's own doing. Four years ago, he looked the perfect complement to young George, possessing everything the callow Texan lacked—gravitas, eloquence and experience. Nowadays, he is seen less as the sober pragmatist and more as the dangerously revolutionary zealot. Look at economic management, where he supposedly told Paul O'Neill, his former friend and the former treasury secretary, that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Or look at Iraq, where the vice-president went further than anybody else in exaggerating Saddam's “reconstituted” nuclear-weapons programme and the idea that he provided a “geographic base” for terrorism against America.

Another reason to ditch Mr Cheney is that he has come to epitomise the administration's darker side. Take corporate cronyism. The vice-president made $44m during his time as head of Halliburton, a company that has snaffled up a large number of lucrative contracts in Iraq and has been accused of overcharging the Pentagon into the bargain (see article). He also stuffed his energy task-force with friends from the energy industry. Or take bureaucratic secrecy: he has created a semi-official parallel administration within the White House and has fought like a tiger to keep his doings private. His recent decision (just after the Supreme Court had said it would review whether he could continue to keep secret the deliberations of his energy task-force) to use a government jet to take Justice Antonin Scalia and a bunch of Mr Cheney's oil-business buddies duck-shooting only reinforces the impression that he has a tin ear for politics."


If not Cheny than who?

"Who might that be? Rudy Giuliani might burnish Mr Bush's reputation for fighting terrorism, though he is not known for his ability to play second fiddle. Condoleezza Rice might do something to neutralise the Democrats' traditional advantage among blacks and women. But some Republicans would rather turn to Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado. There are signs that Mr Kerry is planning to write off the South in order to concentrate on loosening the Republicans' hold on the south-west. What better way to check this threat than to add the Republican Party's brightest western star to the ticket?

It hardly needs saying that replacing Mr Cheney would have to be done with the utmost finesse. Otherwise, it might seem that the Bush White House was falling apart. Mr Cheney would have to retire gracefully, blaming his dodgy heart (he has already had four heart attacks) and no doubt accepting a post as senior counsellor from a grief-stricken president. Persuading such a powerful vice-president to step aside will be no easy thing, of course. But the Bushes don't have a reputation as the Corleone family of the Republican Party for nothing. The next time Mr Cheney takes that jet to go duck-shooting, he may well find James Baker slipping into the seat behind him, with “a litl' proposal to discuss for the good of the party”.
 
And John Edwards-
The Wisconsin primary

And then there were two

Feb 19th 2004 | MADISON, WISCONSIN
From The Economist print edition

Could John Edwards still win the Democratic nomination?

So Mr Edwards has what he has long been yearning for: a two-horse race. He has a plausible argument to be a better general-election candidate than Mr Kerry. He has a strategy to keep himself in the contest. But does he have the time and the distinctive policies needed to overtake a front-runner who has now won the last eight contests and 15 out of 17 overall?

Mr Edwards's central argument is that he can win all the core Democrat votes Mr Kerry can and attract moderate votes that Mr Kerry cannot. In Wisconsin Mr Edwards won a plurality of independents. He won by a wide margin among self-identified Republicans and roughly tied with Mr Kerry among moderates. This challenges Mr Kerry's “electability”—the self-reinforcing view that he is best placed to beat Mr Bush because he wins the most primaries. In a new Gallup poll, Mr Edwards would beat George Bush by ten points, though admittedly Mr Kerry would do even better.

Mr Edwards also seems to grow on you. He won easily among those who made up their minds in the last three days, thanks partly to a good performance in an eve-of-polling debate and partly to the late endorsement of Wisconsin's largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. An unusually charismatic campaigner, Mr Edwards does best where voters have enough time to get to like him. Again, that would be an advantage in the long general election campaign.

On the face of it, it is a problem now. In the next big round of contests, on March 2nd, ten states vote at once: no time for Mr Edwards to weave his magic, especially in the two biggest states, California and New York, which are expensive to campaign in.

But the calendar is better than it looks. Mr Edwards will concentrate on the next biggest Super Tuesday states—Ohio and Georgia. They both use an “open primary” system like Wisconsin (ie, Republicans and independents can vote in the primary). If he can snatch one or two of these states, Mr Edwards would enter the next round of primaries on March 9th in good shape. They take place in Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, all southern states where he should do well.

But before getting carried away, remember that Mr Kerry now has 610 delegates to Mr Edwards's 192—a margin that will be hard to overcome unless the front-runner implodes because of a mistake or a scandal (he has already survived one false accusation of having had an affair). Moreover, the Wisconsin result does not suggest his core strengths are eroding.

Mr Kerry won a whopping 48% of self-identified Democrats (to Mr Edwards's 31%). If Wisconsin had used Democrat-only rules, Mr Kerry would now be celebrating yet another landslide. He won convincingly among blacks, Latinos, self-identified liberals, voters angry or disappointed about the economy and those for whom the most important issues are health care, education, Iraq and taxes—all the usual Democratic suspects.

If Mr Edwards is to change these voters' minds, he will have to give them a reason, which almost certainly means establishing policy differences with Mr Kerry. At the moment, this is hard. With one exception, the two senators' domestic proposals—on tax cuts, education, health care and education—are similar. The exception is trade and, in Wisconsin, Mr Edwards used anti-NAFTA rhetoric to establish differences with Mr Kerry.

Mr Edwards did well among those who think the economy is in good shape and among higher-income earners. Mr Kerry won among those who think the economy is bad and those on the lowest incomes. So Mr Edwards's decision to highlight trade differences weirdly helped him with those doing well—who could form a substantial block in the general election. But it did little to attract union members, populists or those to Mr Kerry's left—who are more important in the Democratic primary. This week, the umbrella trade union organisation, the AFL-CIO, was due to meet to endorse Mr Kerry.

In short, Mr Edwards has established himself as a serious rival and ensured the race will go on longer. It is less clear that he knows how to win it.
 
What do people here think about Nader throwing his hat in the ring as an Independent? Will he have an effect without Green party backing?
 
I think Nader is a spoiler for the Democrats.

Don't get me wrong, I think he has the right to run and that he has some things worth hearing. But last election he drew votes from Gore, and this election he will probably do the same for whoever gets the Democratic ticket.

But I doubt Nader will be as significant this time around as last.
 
I agree with Revolver. I think that it is imperative to get Bush out of office, but I wish American politics allowed candidates like Edwards to explain why outsourcing isn't a real threat. Alas, politics is about the sound bite, and outsourcing is too sexy of term to be outdone by intelligent reasoning. Kinda like social security.

Too bad there are no viable political parties for fiscally conservative social liberals like myself. :cry: Guess I'll have to keep tyriing to convince Ventura to run for office again! :)
 
While we're on this topic, I'd just like to post part of a Financial Times article I got secondhand from Brad DeLong's website. I would post the whole article but I don't have FT membership:
Suppose the politicians did succeed in halting offshoring. Would that save the jobs of programmers or call centre operators? In all probability, no. Both are vulnerable to technology in any case. All it would do is raise costs to users and slow economic advance.

What is depressing about the debate is not just the blaming of foreigners but also its irrelevance to the challenges confronting the US. The most immediate of these is to create sustained growth in demand. Equally, the US confronts significant structural challenges. If its people are to gain from the emerging division of labour, they need high-quality education, as Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, argued last Friday. In addition, a case can be made for subsidising the wages of the unskilled.

What must be avoided are policies that undermine increases in living standards, threaten the US commitment to liberal trade and, not least, attack the nascent exports of a poor and gigantic democracy that is, at last, trying to participate in the global economy. US legislators need to take a grip of themselves. Attacking cheap imports of services is no more logical than bewailing rising productivity. The US, they should remember, benefits hugely from both.
Click to expand...
 
Good link. Economist ran a similar argument last week.

Current news- the rumor is that Edwards is dropping out.

Bummer.

Looks like it will be Bush v. Kerry
 
Yep, John Kerry is going to go against Bush. Methinks the best strategy for him would be to take the reverend as a VP to get more black and religious voters over to his side...
 
Sharpton has way too much baggage... I think he'd be much better off with either Edwards or Clark as VP. I know Edward's name has been mentioned a lot, especially because he's from the South- but is it possible that he chooses Clark?
 
I like Rev. Al a lot, but he's more a show than a politician. A lot of folks won't go for it.

Better to pick Edwards, a guy with more name recognition and probably more public acceptance than Cheney.
 
I think Al Shaprton should be press secretary. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

The idea of Bob Graham is unfortunate. I don't think he'd make a good VP on his own merits, however being from Florda has many benefits.

Then again, I think Edwards' Southerness is a more encompassing advantage that will help in many more states than Graham could. That I ended up wanting Edwards as the nominee in the first place doens't hurt this view either.
 
I hate Al as a bigot and an idiot. I am surprised he did not say "the Republicans raped me to get me to step out of the race!" just for some attention, ass wipe.
 
more from the news- looks like this campaign might be tighter than we think. Could we be seeing the end of the Bush dynasty?

Sabato's Crystal Ball, Vol. II Issue 19
www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball

(This email is in HTML format. If you cannot read it, visit http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates.htm)

KERRY'S NADER AND BUSH'S NADIR

What a difference a letter makes: E or I. John Kerry has to contend with Ralph Nader in November, and even in his diminished political state, it is possible that the longtime consumer advocate will make a difference in the election. Still, the Crystal Ball guesses that Nader will receive less than 1% of the national vote when the 2004 ballots are cast--a far cry from the 2.7% Nader achieved in 2000. Thus, Kerry's '04 problem is perhaps a third of Al Gore's '00 problem, now that Democrats and liberal Independents understand that Nader could produce Dubya II as he arguably helped to produce Dubya I. (Should Nader get the Green Party endorsement this summer, his likely November vote proportion will increase, and we'll revisit the topic then.) From the perspective of March, Nader is probably manageable for John Kerry, as electoral difficulties go.

Not so for George W. Bush's nadir. Bush's ratings have come crashing down to earth, headed for basement level, in the first quarter of 2004. The President is at the nadir of his administration, viewed from the perspective of public popularity. Bush-bashing by all the Democrats and the press has taken a toll, as has the dismal jobs picture. Do you think the President ever daydreams about deriving a little pleasure from the pain of consistent mis-predictions by his team, perhaps by calling all his economic advisers into the Oval Office and firing them one by one? He could go to the Rose Garden and announce he had outsourced their jobs--say, to Ohio. His popularity would soar, at least briefly, and who could blame him for banishing these dismal scientists whose forecasting records are worse than the most inaccurate meteorologists?

Like father, like son, and the painfully slow recovery from the 2001 recession, similar to the 1991 recession, now seriously threatens to create yet another One-Term Bush. History is so rich with irony! Here's another: The Bush/Cheney Administration is supposedly in bed with Big Oil, yet the dramatic rise in gasoline prices at just the wrong time is adding to Bush's woes. Where are your friends when you need them? And wouldn't Bush be better off calling all the businesspeople showering his reelection committee with big donations, and asking them to keep the money and hire a few dozen extra Americans instead?

But we digress.

Here are George W. Bush's main weaknesses, the cause of his current dramatic slump in the polls which has him at best even with John Kerry and more likely a half-dozen percentage points behind:

The economy has been consistently weak for four years, and the public holds a President responsible (as ridiculous as that may be). In addition, Bush has yet to come up with a passably acceptable answer to the jobs outsourcing 'crisis'
Terrorists continue to plague the world scene and Americans believe that they are capable of pulling off attacks in the U.S., even after three years of effort and a trillion dollars spent. The Iraq War is now more of a burden than a source of achievement and pride for the Bush Administration, judging by public opinion polls.
Bush is hated by Democrats with a passion they previously reserved solely for President Nixon, a fact that guarantees Kerry the united support of his party under almost every circumstance and may produce a higher-than-usual November turnout among Democrats.
The national news media elite dislike Bush and disagree rather intensely with most of his economic, foreign policy, and social issue positions. Kerry is not personally liked by the media elites, but he has the 'right' positions on the issues and his upset of President Bush will provide the kind of 'big story' that makes careers and attracts readers and viewers in droves. Expect Kerry to get most of the media breaks throughout the year, while Bush-bashing will be a favorite media sport in 2004.
As the incumbent, Bush is the focus of the race, though he will try to put the spotlight on Kerry's main weaknesses:

The senator has 19 years of specific votes in Congress that will provide an inexhaustible supply of attacks for Bush ads and operatives. There's a good reason few members of Congress ever get elected President.
Kerry really does fit the classic stereotype of the 'Massachusetts liberal'. He has consistently been among the ten most liberal U.S. senators in National Journal's voting studies.
With some justification, Kerry is viewed even by supporters as aloof, wooden, and arrogant.
Massachusetts started the current gay marriage movement, and Kerry was one of only a handful of senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996. This issue still helps Bush and hurts Kerry, even allowing for overwhelming news media support of gay rights.
The Bush campaign is counting on (1) the economy picking up just in time; (2) memories of 9/11 and Bush's leadership in the war against terror; (3) a rock-solid Southern base (they hope); and the $100+ million they have to spend to define Kerry before the Democratic Convention in July. Maybe. But Bush had better get his groove back, and soon. Fortuna has deserted him, and he desperately needs some old-fashioned luck, especially on the economy. (There is little wrong with the Bush candidacy that cannot be cured by several months of consistently high employment reports for good-paying jobs.)

Moreover, Bush has little margin for error, even after three years of hard political work. If the President has expanded his base, the Crystal Ball can't see it on the Electoral College map. Just as in 2000, Bush isn't even in the ballgame in the giant states of California, New York, and Illinois. (Do people in the White House really believe what they are saying about the Golden State? Are they really going to waste $10-20 million again on a hopeless cause?) Kerry landslides are coming in all three states, and in New Jersey, too. Kerry is likely to carry Michigan and Pennsylvania as well, just as Gore did easily in 2000. Once again, only New Hampshire looks competitive in the entire Northeast--and Bush could lose it this time. The two largest states which are currently highly competitive are both Bush's states from 2000: Florida and Ohio. Should Bush lose either one, our bet is that he loses reelection. Are there any Gore 2000 states within reach for Bush thi s time around? Just three: New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin, with an outside shot at Iowa and Minnesota. Realistically, Bush will be very lucky to win even two of these five states--and they don't make up for the potential loss of an Ohio or a Florida. Then there are Nevada and West Virginia, Bush states in 2000 that are far from secure for 2004. And we haven't even mentioned possible Kerry vice-presidential choices that could take a Bush state such as Indiana, Louisiana, or Missouri and make it a toss-up or worse. Since Bush is stuck with Cheney, who gives the President nothing electorally, Kerry has a 'checkmate' move that Bush cannot even try to counter.

Yes, it's early, and the election is in November, not in March. And true enough, Bush may get lucky again and put the election beyond reach. But we've had enough of the talk about how "Kerry has to run the table to win." In the Crystal Ball's view, it is George W. Bush who has to run the table to win a second term. And even if he runs the table, it is possible that, given likely Kerry landslides in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and possibly all of New England, Bush could become the first President in American history to be elected twice without ever achieving a popular vote plurality.
 
At stake at the next election?
SIGNHERE.jpg
 
ANd it looks like Kerry is now in the lead-

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-06-17.htm

But note-

However, it's ESSENTIAL to note the following:

This is CLOSE. Anyone who believes that the election could not go either way is too partisan to be helped.

A June map is NOT predictive of the November results. The world will turn over several times between now and Election Day (137 times, to be exact).

While the electoral total is a squeaker today, we caution that the November results may not be nearly as tight. This election could break clearly in one direction come fall, or even (as in 1980) during the last week of the campaign because of late-unfolding events.

Notice how many big, important states are balanced on the fencepost. These include: Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Since every electoral vote might matter, please also note that there are more than a dozen smaller states which are reasonably competitive and could flip allegiances from the 2000 vote.

At least at the starting gate for the general election, the 2000 results have proven to be amazingly durable in drawing up today's likely Electoral College picture.

AS OF JUNE, three small states carried by George Bush four years ago appear to be leaning ever so slightly to John Kerry: Nevada, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. There is no Gore state from 2000 currently leaning to Bush, though Wisconsin seems to be the President's best bet. Bush is also unmistakably in the hunt for prizes such as Pennsylvania, and maybe Michigan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top