<< Last Entry - Main Page - Next Entry >>

[05.04.03] The Process This hasn't been extensively written up anywhere except for — you guessed it! — Mullings, so I'll shamelessly crib:

Another odd think ABC did was release a poll on Saturday prior to the debate which they had done in conjunction with the Washington Post. Here are some of the findings:

President George W. Bush beats the top three Democrats in the debate - Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt - by margins of 61-34; 60-34; and 60-35 respectively. Even Michael Dukakis - the last man to be photographed in a military helmet prior to this past week - got about 46 percent of the popular vote against George H.W. Bush.

Alot can change in the next 18 months, though that said, I think a strong re election would to match the same 53% Bush' father had in 88. Even with 53% nationally, the Coat Tails will be strong enough to get 2-3 extra senators and up to 10 additional house members.

Posted by: John B at May 5, 2003 03:18:14 AM

Alot can change in the next 18 months, though that said, I think a strong re election would to match the same 53% Bush' father had in 88. Even with 53% nationally, the Coat Tails will be strong enough to get 2-3 extra senators and up to 10 additional house members.

Posted by: John B at May 5, 2003 03:18:41 AM

John B is correct, a lot can happen in the next 18 months but short of the mothership coming down to rally the faithful nothing is going to save the Dems next fall. Even then they'll have to abandon some of their most beloved talking points like "Dubya is dumb", or "Dubya, selected not elected" if they want to attract the independent vote. BTW - if you've had a chance to actually talk to a primary voting Democrat, the odds of getting them to get drop that rhetoric are slim and none, and slim just left town.

I will now predict that GWB will get in the high 50's (58.2% to be exact) of the vote while Kerry struggles to break 40% (36.9%). This may be the election Nader takes the Greens beyond 5% when it becomes apparent that Kerry is going down to a stunning defeat. As for coattails, Look for a pickup of 4 senators and between 10 and 12 congressmen.

Also I predict that GWB will take Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Washington state but not California.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Posted by: Robert Modean at May 5, 2003 03:37:04 PM

I hate to ask this, but what were Poppy's numbers at this point in '91?

IIRC, Bill Clinton was pretty much the only guy willing to run against Bush, b/c he looked so formidable. Won the war, no-name opponents, etc.

Now, there's no Perot on the horizon, but I don't remember if he was on the horizon at that point, either. And the economy's not doing great.

'Course, the Dems hadn't been drubbed in Congressional off-years, like they were in '02, either, and people were coming off 12 years of GOP candidates, not 8 years of Bubba and 4 of Dubya.

Just saying, though, that lots could change, and that I, for one, would not get too confident just yet.

Posted by: Dean at May 5, 2003 05:53:45 PM

It would be hard to imagine a Nader campaign flourishing with Kerry on the Democratic ticket. Third party campaigns almost always come from the "other" wing of the party, and Kerry is liberal enough.

58-42 seems a likely outcome judging from similar models in the past.

The number of House seats gained should be greater than the 2002 pickups (6 seats), but potential seats will eventually "max out" due to current districting. A 15 pt Bush victory should max out the GOP in the House, probably somewhere in the 240s.

Republican chances in the Senate are the most underestimated numbers by most pundits these days. With Edgar's probable entrance into the IL Senate race, the GOP has one vulnerable seat, Alaska. The Dems, on the other hand, have 11 vulnerable seats. Using the unscientific law of averages, that's a gain of 5 seats. Factor in the Bush coattails and we get 6 or 7.

Also keep in mind that the last few Senate elections in this cycle (1998, 1992, 1986) have been good years for the Dems. If 2004 is a great year for the Republicans, the gains could be massive.

Just for the record, I think Thune and Gibbons take down the Dem Senate leadership (remember Foley in 1994?) and 2005 sees an embittered Chris Dodd as Senate Minority Leader.

Posted by: Dave at May 6, 2003 09:52:46 AM

Unless its a landslide of 55%+, Bush has no chance to take MASS, NY, MD, CA, VT and RI and IL would be a long shot. As for the AK seat being vulnerable, former Gov Knowles, as popular as he may be, will still ahve a hard time knocking off a GOP incumbent with Bush cracking close to 65% on the top of the ticket.

As for the house,m it has different dynamics. One x factor is redistricting, TX redistricting may give the GOP a additional 4 to 5 seats, while redistricting in NM(and possibly OK) may cost the GOP a seat or so(OK will be difficult to draw any map that would cause problems for a GOP incumbent). Also it depends if the GOP can get any traction against Rep Pelosi, and target Democrats in conservative districts, say a vote for X is a vote for San Francisco values.

If it is a 58% win for Bush(and I think it is unlikely but who knows), then it will be a gain of at least 4, possibly 6 senate seats, and a gain of 15 house seats. Sunch a landslide will take out what is left of most of the Democrats in conservative swing districts, such as Holden in PA and Hill and IN.

As for the a max in the house, it depends, if the GOP gets to 240 and above, then it will be increaseingly difficult for Democrats to raise funds, and the GOP can get more agressive in districts they target, much like the Democrats did in the 80s when at one point the hekld a 8-2 majority in thge Indiana congressional delegation.

Posted by: John B at May 7, 2003 05:33:46 AM

Unless its a landslide of 55%+, Bush has no chance to take MASS, NY, MD, CA, VT and RI and IL would be a long shot. As for the AK seat being vulnerable, former Gov Knowles, as popular as he may be, will still ahve a hard time knocking off a GOP incumbent with Bush cracking close to 65% on the top of the ticket.

As for the house,m it has different dynamics. One x factor is redistricting, TX redistricting may give the GOP a additional 4 to 5 seats, while redistricting in NM(and possibly OK) may cost the GOP a seat or so(OK will be difficult to draw any map that would cause problems for a GOP incumbent). Also it depends if the GOP can get any traction against Rep Pelosi, and target Democrats in conservative districts, say a vote for X is a vote for San Francisco values.

If it is a 58% win for Bush(and I think it is unlikely but who knows), then it will be a gain of at least 4, possibly 6 senate seats, and a gain of 15 house seats. Sunch a landslide will take out what is left of most of the Democrats in conservative swing districts, such as Holden in PA and Hill and IN.

As for the a max in the house, it depends, if the GOP gets to 240 and above, then it will be increaseingly difficult for Democrats to raise funds, and the GOP can get more agressive in districts they target, much like the Democrats did in the 80s when at one point the hekld a 8-2 majority in thge Indiana congressional delegation.

Posted by: John B at May 7, 2003 05:34:45 AM

Some of you might recall that Gore was 10-15 points behind Bush in the summer of 2000 and the election was still a virtual tie. I would not depend on a poll conducted less than a month after the fall of Baghdad to predict the outcome of an election a year and a half away. A 60-40 result in 2004 is highly unlikely. First of all, states like New York, California, Illinois, and Maryland are much more Democratic than they were in the eighties. Second, the Democratic candidate will be more moderate than Mcgovern, Mondale, or Dukakis. Third, the Dems will run a much more competent campaign than they ran in the 72, 84, and 88 elections. The Democratic candidate will not be anti-war, will not say he will raise taxes, and will fight back when the Republicans run negative ads.

Posted by: Bob at May 8, 2003 01:14:03 AM

Some of you might recall that Gore was 10-15 points behind Bush in the summer of 2000 and the election was still a virtual tie. I would not depend on a poll conducted less than a month after the fall of Baghdad to predict the outcome of an election a year and a half away. A 60-40 result in 2004 is highly unlikely. First of all, states like New York, California, Illinois, and Maryland are much more Democratic than they were in the eighties. Second, the Democratic candidate will be more moderate than Mcgovern, Mondale, or Dukakis. Third, the Dems will run a much more competent campaign than they ran in the 72, 84, and 88 elections. The Democratic candidate will not be anti-war, will not say he will raise taxes, and will fight back when the Republicans run negative ads.

Posted by: Bob at May 8, 2003 01:15:19 AM

You might also recall that before Bush beat Gore it was almost unheard of for a challenger to defeat a sitting VP who was running for the Presidency in a time of peace and prosperity. Gore had all the advantages he could ask for and if it hadn't been for the last minute release of the DUI record in the last few days of the campaign it wouldn't have even been close.

Now I will agree that New York, California, Illinois, and Maryland are all more liberal than they were in '92 or even 2000, but there are other issues in play. Despite California's incredibly unpopular governor (Democrat), I don't think Bush can win there unless his opponent is completely incompetent. New York is not a traditional Republican state but I believe Bush will do well there because his personal popularity is still quite high from 9/11 and the Republican convention will be held there as well. Illinois will go Republican as will Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin because they're all more red-state than blue-state (Illinois only marginally so but that'll be good enough).

As for the competency of the candidate and their campaign, well unless you get to pick 'em and run their campaign I'm afraid that the odds are against you. Gephardt is this year's Bob Dole. Sharpton is a racial demagogue. Mosley-Braun is only in it to keep Sharpton from finishing in the top three. That leaves Kerry, Dean, Liebermann and Edwards. I don't count Graham because the only thing he's running for is VP.

Of the four only Lieberman and Edwards can be called moderates and all four will have to run to the left to win the nomination. That will require money and organization, that means Kerry and Dean will be slugging it out from Iowa thru New England, but really only Kerry has the money to go the distance. Edwards might be able to hang on to the South Carolina primary but if he's not in the driver's seat by then he's a goner. So in all probability you'll end up with a liberal New England senator who's run a hard left primary campaign and has a bad habit of being transparently opportunistic against a popular sitting president. Very much like '88 I think.

Posted by: Robert Modean at May 8, 2003 02:08:27 AM

You might also recall that before Bush beat Gore it was almost unheard of for a challenger to defeat a sitting VP who was running for the Presidency in a time of peace and prosperity. Gore had all the advantages he could ask for and if it hadn't been for the last minute release of the DUI record in the last few days of the campaign it wouldn't have even been close.

Now I will agree that New York, California, Illinois, and Maryland are all more liberal than they were in '92 or even 2000, but there are other issues in play. Despite California's incredibly unpopular governor (Democrat), I don't think Bush can win there unless his opponent is completely incompetent. New York is not a traditional Republican state but I believe Bush will do well there because his personal popularity is still quite high from 9/11 and the Republican convention will be held there as well. Illinois will go Republican as will Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin because they're all more red-state than blue-state (Illinois only marginally so but that'll be good enough).

As for the competency of the candidate and their campaign, well unless you get to pick 'em and run their campaign I'm afraid that the odds are against you. Gephardt is this year's Bob Dole. Sharpton is a racial demagogue. Mosley-Braun is only in it to keep Sharpton from finishing in the top three. That leaves Kerry, Dean, Liebermann and Edwards. I don't count Graham because the only thing he's running for is VP.

Of the four only Lieberman and Edwards can be called moderates and all four will have to run to the left to win the nomination. That will require money and organization, that means Kerry and Dean will be slugging it out from Iowa thru New England, but really only Kerry has the money to go the distance. Edwards might be able to hang on to the South Carolina primary but if he's not in the driver's seat by then he's a goner. So in all probability you'll end up with a liberal New England senator who's run a hard left primary campaign and has a bad habit of being transparently opportunistic against a popular sitting president. Very much like '88 I think.

Posted by: Robert Modean at May 8, 2003 02:09:34 AM

You might also recall that before Bush beat Gore it was almost unheard of for a challenger to defeat a sitting VP who was running for the Presidency in a time of peace and prosperity. Gore had all the advantages he could ask for and if it hadn't been for the last minute release of the DUI record in the last few days of the campaign it wouldn't have even been close.

Now I will agree that New York, California, Illinois, and Maryland are all more liberal than they were in '92 or even 2000, but there are other issues in play. Despite California's incredibly unpopular governor (Democrat), I don't think Bush can win there unless his opponent is completely incompetent. New York is not a traditional Republican state but I believe Bush will do well there because his personal popularity is still quite high from 9/11 and the Republican convention will be held there as well. Illinois will go Republican as will Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin because they're all more red-state than blue-state (Illinois only marginally so but that'll be good enough).

As for the competency of the candidate and their campaign, well unless you get to pick 'em and run their campaign I'm afraid that the odds are against you. Gephardt is this year's Bob Dole. Sharpton is a racial demagogue. Mosley-Braun is only in it to keep Sharpton from finishing in the top three. That leaves Kerry, Dean, Liebermann and Edwards. I don't count Graham because the only thing he's running for is VP.

Of the four only Lieberman and Edwards can be called moderates and all four will have to run to the left to win the nomination. That will require money and organization, that means Kerry and Dean will be slugging it out from Iowa thru New England, but really only Kerry has the money to go the distance. Edwards might be able to hang on to the South Carolina primary but if he's not in the driver's seat by then he's a goner. So in all probability you'll end up with a liberal New England senator who's run a hard left primary campaign and has a bad habit of being transparently opportunistic against a popular sitting president. Very much like '88 I think.

Posted by: Robert Modean at May 8, 2003 02:10:36 AM

As I recall in the summer of 2000, except for the post GOP convention bounce, Gore and Bush were tied neck and neck, and Bush even fell behind 3-5 points after the Democratic convention. Yes, plenty can and will happen between now and the 04 election, but there is one huge difference between 2000 and 04. In 2000, Newt Gingrich and Dick Artmey were still largely the face of the GOP, that isint the case anymore.

Posted by: John B at May 8, 2003 05:49:39 AM

I'll be satisified with 270 electoral votes, however arrived at - GW is the greatest President in 100 years and we simply need him in the White House for another four years....the only perplexity is whom shall follow....will GW do a Reagan and select a loyal trooper (Powell?) who wont necessarily keep the Reagan/GW vision going?

We as GOPers/Conservatives have to work to prevent a Presidential coronation of the 44th President.

As for my prediction - 59% for GW, at least 5 Senate seats and a dozen House seats....Patrick: we're counting on you retaining this thread until the day after hte election in 2004 so we can see who did best!

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 12, 2003 12:54:54 AM

Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Remember personal info? YesNo

Comments:

Y'all! MT hears you — just click once to see your comment posted.

Syndicate this Site: XML or RDF