Asymmetrical Information

Nope, if they were smart, they wouldn't be liberals. BTW, while he doesn't sound it, Clarke is a Southerner from Arkansas. With his military background, he'd probably be better recieved in the South than Edwards, who would likely be viewed as some slick lawyer type. For whatever reason, lawyers and liberals aren't especially popular down here.

I would estimate Bush's chances of re-election, regardless of the Democratic nominee, at roughly 65%, with a 50% chance that the Republican total in the electoral college will be greater than 330. This is predicated on a three guesses; that economy will continue to improve for the next 12 motnhs, that Iraw will not become markedly worse, and that the Democrats will run, at best, a mediocre campain. Guess number one seems fairly sound, guess number two is as good as anybody's, and guess number three stems from my observation that the Democrats are so visibly filled with contempt and animus for their opponent (and Dean is the most visibly contemptuous major candidate) that they are distinctly unattractive to all but the hard core Democrats. It never fails to suprise how often people in politics fail to understand how harmful to one's goals it is to appear to be a unfiltered jerk. I'm still convinced that it is the main reason Gore lost; particularly how he came off in the debates. People simply don't want to associate with, or vote for, others who seem to be the sort one wouldn't wish to have over for cup of coffeee or a beer.

Keep in mind that this all based on superficial appearances; I think it likely that a very small percentage of national politicians are the sort of people one would actually enjoy spending time with. There are exceptions to this theory of the importance of appearing to be likeable, of course, but they tend to confirm the theory. Nixon, like Gore, was an incumbent VP for a popular outgoing President, who lost to a very publicly likeable challenger, and Nixon only was able to gain the Presidency, despite his singularly unlikeable public image, in a time of great national tumult, when an incumbent President had beeen immersed in an unpopular war that cost tens of thousands of American lives.

Absent such circumstances, Nixon never would have gained the White House, and I don't think the Democrats can this time around either, absent a dramatic turn for the worse in Iraq, since it appears the Democrats are convinced that a snarling contempt for their opponent, and a very large chunk of the electorate, and doom-saying in general, are the keys to victory. Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of voters who are not hard core party members aren't that plugged into politics, and when they witness this snarling contempt, they are reflexively repelled by it.

I don't think we're going to know anything until Primary season shakes the wheat from the chafe. Does anyone remember Tsongus winning the NH Primary in 1992? No one thought anyone could beat Bush and Clinton came in a surprise third place (or was it a surprise second place). Not a surprise because it was such a poor showing, but a surprise that he did so well.

Speculation is fun, but be realistic, there are many swing voters out there who have been very dissatisfied with Bush. He's screwed up on enough of a range of issues to have people who won't vote for him on principle. I'm all for compassionate conservativism, but I think many people feel misled by that moniker and, while the polling numbers could go up (and probably will) and the economy is rebounding, his image has suffered some substantial blows.

Clark and Dean are all well and good, but they're still new to the game. Start making predictions in six months, when we know who Bush is up against and when we can see whether Bush's numbers are up and whether those guys (if they are involved in the race anymore by then) are still making amatuers mistakes.

In the meantime I think whomever wins (and it could very well be Bush) it's going to be very close. We have a divided country.

So did Kennedy make a major political blunder picking Johnson?

And what about Reagan/Bush?

The JFK/LBJ geography was pretty close to that of Dean and Clark. Were they closer philosophically?

And how much did Reagan and Bush agree? Remember that before his convention conversion Bush was pretty much a liberal eastern Republican.

But again, Bernard, I don't think that either LBJ or Bush I was meant to shore up the president's support in an area where the president's position simply contradicted that held by a majority of Americans. If JFK had been against going into Vietnam or desegregating or expanding welfare programs while LBJ was for those things, I don't think it would help to spam them together and hope the voters would play "choose your own adventure" with their policy positions. Ditto Reagan/Bush -- their combination was a regional one, not a combination of two disparate policy schools.

But, um, Reagan/Bush was an attempt to bring together the two sides of the Republican Party at the time. Remember, Bush was the one who invented the term "voodoo economics".

In 1960 the southerners still hadn't forgiven the Republican party for Lincoln and the Civil War, so there was no possibility of the South going Republican, but there may have been some possibility of the Dixiecrats splitting the Democratic vote again. Johnson may have been Kennedy's insurance against that - even while Kennedy was coming out for civil rights and picking up enough black urban votes to put him over the top in some large northern states. Or maybe the rather uncouth Johnson helped that rich Boston prig pick up more working class votes...

Anyhow, it turned out that the differences between Kennedy and Johnson were mainly in style rather than political principles. Kennedy was liberal like Wilson and Roosevelt, not like the raving moonbats of today. (Wasn't he the first to try to implement the theory that you could sometimes increase tax revenues by lowering rates? IIRC, that was his justification for lowering the rates - to a top bracket of 70% - and the economy did expand to more than make up the differences.) Johnson may have been supposed to be conservative while all his constituents were in Texas, but as President he had no trouble at all with continuing Kennedy's policies. In fact, it was Johnson, not Kennedy, that put federal enforcement of civil rights into high gear, and declared "war on poverty".

And this will really shock the liberals: Johnson's Vietnam War was nothing but a simple(minded) continuation of Kennedy's policy - which was neither the whole-hearted fight against communism he kept promising in every speech nor the pusillanimous retreat favored by later "liberals", but rather seemed to be one of
ratcheting up the aid level every time our guys lost too badly. By 1965, giving the Saigon regime guns and advice was obviously not enough, so the combat troops went in, but not too many of them. When they still weren't doing too well, send a few more troops, but never so many as to require cutting back the welfare programs... Kennedy might have eventually realized that was a losing game and done something else, but it wouldn't have been a retreat.

Jane Galt wrote:

I've seen more than a few Democrats hoping that the ticket will be Dean/Clark, a combination that many of them describe as "unstoppable". But is that really so?

Probably not because having Clark on the ticket would not do much to shore up Dean’s numerous weaknesses and he does not add much to the ticket other than a guy in a uniform who has had some of co-workers publicly say they won’t vote for him because of the “character” issue and speculation as to whether or not he deserved to keep his job much less receive his promotion. Also he really does not seem to have much of a position on the issues (flip-flopping on whether or not he’d authorize the use of force in Iraq in 24 hours comes to mind) which undermines his credibility as a candidate of anything other than the “vote for me because I’m a general” variety.

But on the plus side, having the guy whose greatest claim to fame is bombing the Serbs pretty much neutralizes any of the baseless claims that Operation: Iraqi Freedom was “illegal” or that Iraq was never an “imminent threat.” Especially when you were part of the administration that told us and still believes (justifiably so IMNHO) that Saddam Hussein still had unaccounted for WMD’s and that the policy of the United States should be regime change in Iraq.

Face it, a Clark VP will do more to bolster Bush’s strengths on Iraq while undermining Dean’s position on the issue which only serves to increase the Democrat’s deficit when it comes to foreign policy. Not a good quality for your VP nominee – unless he really is working as a plant for Karl Rove. ;)

"Ditto Reagan/Bush -- their combination was a regional one, not a combination of two disparate policy schools."

I have to disagree. As Charlie points out, it was Bush who labelled supply-side economics "voodoo economics." And way back when, he was also pro-choice. Bush was not, pre-Reagan, much of a conservative.

Markm Is correct that LBJ as President continued JFK policies, but his views in 1960 were possibly a different matter.

To what extent is the 2004 Democratic ticket likely to be a function of US electoral politics as a whole rather than a function of faction and realignment within the Democratic Party itself?

If the Democratic ticket beats Bush, or even makes a race of it next November, would that vindicate the Party leaderships move to the left after 2000?

By the same token, if the Democratic ticket gets its hat handed to it next fall, would that be enough for the moderate wing to realistically challenge for leadership of the Party?

To what extent is the 2004 Democratic ticket likely to be a function of US electoral politics as a whole rather than a function of faction and realignment within the Democratic Party itself?

If the Democratic ticket beats Bush, or even makes a race of it next November, would that vindicate the Party leaderships move to the left after 2000?

By the same token, if the Democratic ticket gets its hat handed to it next fall, would that be enough for the moderate wing to realistically challenge for leadership of the Party?

I'm not saying that Bush and Reagan were carbon copies of each other. But I also doubt they attracted many pro-choice voters on the grounds that hey, Reagan might die! And my sense is that the country liked Reagan's economic policies (as distasteful as I personally find the strong version of the supply side arguments) -- no one was arguing that Bush was going to somehow make up for Reagan's unpopular fiscal program, which is basically what Democrats seem to be arguing about a Dean/Clark ticket, the logic of which strikes me as awfully tenuous.

I think you guys are missing a simple point, at least as far as the odds of GWB's reelection. The key question, to me, is does he have a primary challenger?

(And, as far as I can tell now, the answer is "no.")

In recent history, incumbents who have had primary challengers have lost and those who have not have won. LBJ, Ford, Carter, Bush I all had primary challengers. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton did not.

This is not quite as simple-minded as it appears. I believe that a primary challenge occurs because the pols in the incumbent's party sense weakness, and either think they can win outright or want to establish themselves for the next election cycle.

OTOH, if they believe the incumbent is very likely to win, they won't want to incur his wrath in later years.

Don't forget Kennedy's Catholicism, which was still a drag in the South. Thus, some sort of Dixiecrat could well have had an impact. Plus, Kennedy still only won Texas by some 5-10,000 votes, or less than one per precinct. The 1960 election has long been thought by some Republicans to have been stolen in Texas and Illinois (by Mayor Daley). At any rate,no LBJ, quite probably no Texas electoral votes, and maybe missing some others in the South.

Reagan/Bush, on the other hand, appears to be a "bring the party together" move. A split party in 1976 barely lost to Jimmy Carter (and what did Fritz Mondale bring to that ticket? Well, maybe some Dems who didn't trust hicks from the *really* South South.).

Generally strong candidates see VP choices as afterthoughts, candidates with specific electoral weaknesses do, indeed, try to prop them up. Doesn't always work, probably because ordinary voters don't really think like politicians. (Did Repubs really think that women would find Dan Quayle so attractive that the infamous "gender gap" [which was actually a Mondale gap among males] would be closed? That is not how ordindary voters think.)

> Bush was not, pre-Reagan, much of a conservative.

I hadn't noticed him being much of a conservative post-Reagan either.

I think you all are missing a major point for many VP picks, which is to unite the party behind the candidate. This, I think, is the main reason Reagan chose Bush and JFK chose LBJ.

So, if Dean does well in the primaries, and, say, Gephardt is the other main vote-getter, I'd expect Dean to pick Gephardt as his VP. If Dean wins a blowout in the primaries, he might pick anyone, so I suppose Clark is a possibility. But does anyone expect Clark to do well in the primaries? And if he doesn't (suggesting he's not popular with Democrat voters), why choose him for VP? Better to find another guy in a uniform, frankly.

In the meantime I think whomever wins (and it could very well be Bush) it's going to be very close. We have a divided country.

Kate, I have to disagree. We had a narrowly divided electorate in 2000, but things are very different in 2004. Gore had the advantage of an incumbent behind him, an economy that looked pretty good (the cracks were just starting to show), and no major issues for the Republicans to run on. Now the advantages are on the GOP side, including incumbency, the improving economy, and national security concerns. Other events may intervene, but I see Bush getting 55% of the vote or better next year. (Which would make him the first President to win a majority of the vote since 1988.)

Reagan's first choice for VP was Gerald Ford, but Ford wanted too much say in the Administration (if they won). Reagan said no, and Ford held out. Reagan waited, giving Ford time to change his mind, and finally, with only a few hours to go before his convention speech (where everyone expected him to announce his running mate), he called Bush and offered him the slot. So I really don't think you can construe Reagan/Bush as any sort of strategy, other than having a credible candidate on the back half of the ticket.

As far as '04 goes, Democrats win when they convince voters to be afraid of Republicans. "They'll take away your jobs! They'll take away your Medicare! They'll take away your abortions! Your Civil Rights! They'll turn you children into robot slaves!" I really get the feeling that those tactics aren't working with the swing vote any more. I don't know if it's because terrorism and national security are far more frightening, or if folks are just tired of the Boy/Girl/Person/Transgendered Humaniod who cried Wolf.

PJ - The economy may be improving, but we'll still be in a net worse position than we were when Bush took office. An improving economy may neutralize what had been Democratic advantage - job losses and massive deficit growth, but I certainly don't believe that the economy will be an advantage to the GOP.

Likewise, national security is no longer the slam dunk for the Republicans that it was in '02. People are waking up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake - things probably will improve over there by next year, but Democrats can still make points pointing out the lives and resources wasted on this adventure.

That being said, Bush's base is as fervent as ever, and that combined with his $200M war chest might very well win him 55%. As a Democrat, I'm not optimistic.

PJ/Maryland wrote:

Kate, I have to disagree. We had a narrowly divided electorate in 2000, but things are very different in 2004. Gore had the advantage of an incumbent behind him, an economy that looked pretty good (the cracks were just starting to show), and no major issues for the Republicans to run on. Now the advantages are on the GOP side, including incumbency, the improving economy, and national security concerns. Other events may intervene, but I see Bush getting 55% of the vote or better next year. (Which would make him the first President to win a majority of the vote since 1988.)

I agree and I would just like to add that there are several other factors as well need to be considered which will help Bush in 2004:

1) Since the 2000 census there have been shifts in the apportionment of electoral votes which I believe tended to favor States that went for Bush in 2000. I don’t recall the exact numbers but I think it was something like a 7 to 15 vote shift in favor of Bush.

2) According to Morton Kondrache of Roll Call, voter identification in “light-blue” and “light-red” (States which barely went for Gore or Bush respectively) has increased in the Republicans favor by about 5%.

3) Republicans have done very well in the mid-term elections both in 2002 (in which Republicans made unprecedented gains) and recently in which they won at least three major victories and that’s not including the CA recall which now makes California that much more competitive. Having an incumbent governor is also usually considered one of the most important things for State party building.

4) Also Democrats seem to have written off about a third of the country in the South of which they need at least a couple of States to prevail. Zell Miller (D-GA) is a pretty prominent Democrats to come out for Bush in 2004 and he probably won’t be the last. Howard Dean’s ignorant and bigoted comments about Southerners – of which only Edwards seemed to half-heartedly challenge him on – are certainly not going to do much to woo Southern voters who are even more concerned then the country at large over the lack of any seriousness on national security issues in the Democratic Party.

Unless the Democrats wake up out of their stupor and reclaim their party from the Howard Dean/MoveOn.org/ANSWER wing of the party with a more moderate candidate like Lieberman, I do not see much hope for them in retaking the White House. Particularly not when they also have to defend more vulnerable Senate seats than the GOP and will probably lose ground in the House as well.

A good vice president candidate will never help a ticket but a bad one can hurt it. The idea of balancing a ticket with a VP that appeals to a special interest group is so 50 years ago.

The left’s VP should be as bland as possible with no discernable past. The media will make him appear to be a genius and will suppress all news of his screw ups-baby killing excepted.

However, the Republicans must have a great vice president candidate. The media will distort his record and then constantly attack him. It takes a great candidate to stand that pressure.

I actually thought Dean's "confederate flags" statement was right on the money. Democrats can't win while they remain identified only with the usual special interest groups of gays, blacks, lawyers, unions etc. Every poll and election result since 2000 seems to have confirmed that. They have to branch out, be less shrill and more inclusive. The phony outcry after the statement was made shows how hemmed-in Democrats are by the constituencies that make up their base.

As for handicapping the presidential race, it's quite a bit too early for a prediction but what the hell, I'd put it at 95% chance of a Bush victory, 50% chance that he'll pull a Reagan and win all but one or two states.

...but we'll still be in a net worse position than we were when Bush took office.

Wallster, I think people look more to the future than the present when it comes to the economy. If job growth has been picking up, they'll tend to project that into the future when they get in the voting booth. (Of course, we haven't had much job growth yet, but I'm expecting it over the next few quarters.)

...massive deficit growth...

I don't expect this to be a big factor in 2004, though I'm sure the Democratic candidate will bring it up. If the deficit remains high, it'll be much more important in 2008, maybe in 2006.

Likewise, national security is no longer the slam dunk for the Republicans that it was in '02. People are waking up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake - things probably will improve over there by next year, but Democrats can still make points pointing out the lives and resources wasted on this adventure.

I agree with you here, tho I personally don't think Iraq was a mistake, an adventure, or a waste of lives and resources. But while the Democrats can win some points, it's an uphill battle; since Vietnam, the Republicans have been the war-mongering/military party, and it will take a long time to change that. So national security is not a slam-dunk for the GOP, but it's still very much their game to lose.

If Dean is the nominee, I don't think Clark will be offered the V.P. slot. He's a creation of the Clinton's to maintain control of the Democratic Party. If Clark wins the nomination, the Clintons will have a strong postion in the party. I think the Clintion's believe Bush can't be beat by anybody in 2004. The economy will be strong and Hillary doesn't want any part of Iraq post-war so soon. Support the Clintons or not, they will not take the kind of risks that Bush has and don't want to face Iraq for another five years. If I'm not mistaken, Dean has made several comments about his intent to shake up the party. This would weaken the Clinton's ability to control the party and wouldn't help position Hillary for her run. Ask yourself if you were Dean, would you really want Clark as V.P. with his connections to the Clinton's?

"Johnson's Vietnam War was nothing but a simple(minded) continuation of Kennedy's policy - which was neither the whole-hearted fight against communism he kept promising in every speech nor the pusillanimous retreat favored by later "liberals", but rather seemed to be one of
ratcheting up the aid level every time our guys lost too badly."

This isn't what Halberstam says, and he has a lot of quotes to back it up. You can't base everything on that one hawkish speech Kennedy gave.

Thorley, I have to disagree with all of your points.

1) The 2000 census did result in a shift of 7 electoral votes to states Bush won last time. However, 2 of those electoral votes were in FL, which is perfectly split, and FL has 5 times the size of the shift in electoral votes. Basically, I expect whoever wins FL to win the election; if you lose FL, you more or less have to win every single other toss-up state to make up for the loss - but then how did you lose FL?

There's also the Nader issue. The only reason Bush was even close in quite a few states was Nader; for example, Gore's margin was only 2.4% in MN, but Nader got 5.2% there. The only states realistically in play that I see are NH, PA, WI, IA, OH, MO, FL, CO, NM, and NV. PA's pushing it, as Gore + Nader there was 52.7 to 46.4.

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_newev.html
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

2) Apparently that voter identification shift was a transient 9/11 thing; I can't find the link, but I remember a Ruy Teixeira article talking about how it's dissipated.

3) All of the 2002 elections were extraordinarily close; 94,000 going the other way out of 75 million would have resulted in a Democratic House and Senate. 1994 it wasn't.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.teixeira.html

4) Except for FL, a state split down the middle, the Democrats don't really need the South to win an election, the same way the GOP doesn't need the NE corridor to win.

The thought of nominating Leiberman is hilarious; it's like if the GOP decided to nominate Olympia Snowe.

Oh, Can I point out that you people who think CA is competitive are completely crazy? Gore + Nader outpolled Bush by 15.5 points! That's roughly how much Bush won Mississippi by, to give you an idea of the "competitiveness."

Comments are Closed.