Bush Wins In A Landslide (StumpJumper)

I've seen enough and I've made up my mind. Now, I'm going on record: in 2004 President Bush will be re-elected with at least 65% of the Electoral College. I know that I am going out on a limb by making this prediction so early, but I'm feeling brave. Here's why:

But first, a disclaimer. A lot can happen in the next year. Hence, I reserve my right to change my opinion on this issue (and take the public fisking that will surely follow). That being said...

It is a simple matter of fact that winning against an incumbent is an uphill battle. Americans tend to prefer the status quo to the unknown. In order for Bush to be beaten in 2004 the opposition will have to do two things. First, they will have to convince America that Bush is doing a bad job. This is distinctly different than convincing America that Bush could be doing a better job (this is part of the advantage of being the incumbent). The second thing that they will have to do is convince America that they (the opposition) can do a better job than Bush. As things stand right now, I don't believe that they can do either. To understand why I say this, we need to look at each of the major issues.

The Economy:

Bush has had the misfortune of holding office during a recession. This is never good. In his favor, however, most Americans realize that he didn't cause the recession, despite what some Dems are saying (even Ted Rall has admitted, in print, that the recession began on Clinton's watch). The main question will be how well he handled it. In the eyes of most, come the election, Bush will have done a good job. The two key indicators here will be the tax cuts and the stock market. Not only did most of us receive a tax refund, but my 401K (and my girlfriend's, and I'm betting yours, too) has gone up in value for several months. By next fall it won't have gained its past glory, but it will be worth more than it was at its worst. Regardless of the underlying reason, this will accredited to Bush. More money in our pockets always equates to more votes to the incumbent. The only two potentially negative factors will be the deficit and the unemployment rate. By next fall these will be non-issues. Quite simply, we're too selfish. The deficit is a non-issue because we've lived with a deficit for so long that we've become as desensitized to it as we have to movie violence. People also recognize that the two major factors in the deficit are the recession and post-9/11. People are far more forgiving of a deficit when they have more money in their pockets. The unemployment rate will be a non-issue, too. My apologies to all of those who are out of work, but the average voter will only care about his or her own job security. Indications are that employers will start hiring again next year. Even if this doesn't happen the unemployment rate has basically stabilized and people are again gaining a sense of job security. Again, Bush will get the credit for this.

Iraq:

Argue all you want about whether we should have gone to Iraq or not, but recognize that such a discussion is, at best, irrelevant. We're there and we can't change that. Now that we're there we must see it through. Americans, a basically moral and just people, recognize this. No platform that proposes a complete withdrawl will win. Despite the opinions of the elite, more than 70% of Americans still distrust the UN. A platform that proposes giving complete control to the UN won't win, either. Unless an opponent can convince the American people that s/he can do better with the reconstruction, Bush gets the vote. As of today, things are improving in Iraq. Now that the UN is getting onboard even the argument about Bush ruining our stance with the rest of the world starts to fall apart.

Terrorism:

Is there anyone out there that really feels less safe today then they did on Sept. 12, 2001? It is a fact that there has not been a single terrorist attack in American since 9/11 despite the wild predictions from the left. In order for the Dems to get the vote on this issue they have to convince Americans that we are less safe and that they can do better on national security. The Dems have never had the upper hand on such issues so the odds of them doing so next year are slim. (Clark may do better than most Dems in this area but he has way too much other baggage and he would still have to convince America that Bush is doing a bad job, which I don't think will happen.)

Religion:

A recent poll showed that over 80% of Americans believe in God. The campaign to remove references to God from public life has always been a fringe issue that has more support in the judiciary than in the public. Now, the Supreme Court will be hearing the case regarding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. All indications are that they will hear this case in June, only a few months before the election. If the Supreme Court declares the Pledge unconstitutional there will be a huge backlash. Bush gets the vote here for two reasons. First, the anti-God movement is unquestionably a left issue. Second, Bush is very vocally religious. No matter how this issue plays out, Bush gets a boost. Moreover, many of the core Dem base, such as the hispanics, the African Americans, and the unions, are very religious. The more the Dems alienate their base, the better Bush does.

Arnold:

The recall vote in California was not a huge Republican mandate. It was a huge anti-Davis mandate. Although Arnold has an uphill battle ahead of him, he probably won't do any worse than Davis. If he does better and there is real improvement then California could easily go to Bush. If Arnold does poorly then the reason will most likely be because the Dem legislature has stonewalled him. This would cause a backlash that could easily cause the state to support Bush. If California goes to Bush then it's all over for the Dems.

Summary:

The bottom line is simply that Bush took the helm just before the storm. Very few Americans blame him for the situation that he inherited. The only question in 2004 will be whether or not he steered us through safely. On every major issue the answer, for most Americans, is yes. Not only do the Dems have to convince us that this isn't true, they have to convince us that they can do better. This is the incumbent advantage. Unfortunately for the Dems, they can't. The more I listen to the hopefuls the more obvious this becomes. All I hear is harping about all of Bush's mistakes. Their accusations range from misleading to totally false. Moreover, not a single candidate has offered a credible plan for how they would do things differently, Most actually avoid such a discussion because they have nothing. Sure, there are a few rabidly anti-Bush lefties out there, but the majority of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing (his poll numbers are up again). When it comes time to cast a ballot a significant percentage of the 'less than happy' group from the polls stick with the incumbent because the known is far less scary than the unknown. This is what happened in 1984. Reagan was neck-and-neck in the polls and ended up winning the biggest landslide in American history. Count on Bush being a repeat.

Update: I withdrew this prediction here.

Posted by stumpjumper at October 15, 2003 07:39 AM | TrackBack