Article

2004-06-20 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sludj 2004-06-20 6:52:30 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Read this on an electoral college blog (Run by Dems, who are deluding themselves, but thats a different story). Pays to know your enemy.

But there may be a weaking of Kerry support as soon as its shown that he is lagging Bush in electoral and popular vote. Some of them are looking for reasons to bail out (and go Nader or Green, etc).

The following commnet is a cut n paste of someones's reasons for wanting Kerry to dangle in the wind and lose, and set up for 2008. I wonder who has 2008 in mind... (read next comment)

Posted by Oldspook 2004-06-20 1:35:25 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:35:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Fred: Pardon my cut n paste but I thought this might be interesting to us here.

my comment: Hillary, is this you posting?

---------
The facts are that in spite of the recovering but still poor economy, war disasters, the 9/11 report, etc, Bush and Kerry are still in a dead heat in the 2 states that will swing this election - Ohio and Florida. It just doesn't bode well for Kerry. Kerry should be far far ahead in all those polls, and yet is at best 1-2 points ahead, which is inside the margin of error for the polls.

If the best Kerry can do is a tie, with all the stuff going against Bush, then what will happen to him if things continue to improve? As noted Dukakis was well ahead of Bush the Elder at this point as well, and that was without the help of all the negatives piled up against the current Bush.

The problem is the nature of the Kerry vote: in the polls reporting, especially in key states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the Kerry vote breaks 60-40 For the candidate-against the opponent. The Bush voters usually break 80-20 for/against. Basically, Bush's people are more committed to him and his policies than are Kerry's. They worrisome part for Democrats is that the percentage is so large for "Anti" voters in Kerry.

"Anti" sentiments are notoriously fickle - historically they point to a fade in the weeks after the convention, when the focus neccessarily turns to policy. And that is where the recovering economy will really help Bush, plus the inadvertent timing of the 2 conventions and the Olympics between them. Also, the "break ahead" point for Jobs is supposed to come by late summer, giving Bush a net "add" of jobs during his term, taking away one of Kerry's major campaign weapons.

Plus the current efforts of the Republicans and conservative commentators have already laid in the "Kerry Flip Flop" image, much aided by Kerry's own words (still cringing over "Voted for it before I voted against it" - Kerry really put his foot in it there).

Add to that the Republican ability to use their large coffers of primary funds until Early September (think expensive adds during the Olympics), while Kerry is stuck using his limited federal funds from July 26 onward. and August could be a very very hard month for Kerry. Outspent, out advertised, overshadowed by the Olympics, losing his ability to club Bush with the economy/jobs, and with the typical "End of Summer" stock market rally at the end of August leading up to the Republican convention.

Combine all these with the breakdown of the voters For/Against in each candidates block, and this could spell an electoral meltdown in August for Kerry, which would be accelerated by Nader campaigning to pick up the disaffected votes.

Thats the big problem - unless Kerry can come up with policies that people believe in (and escape his very liberal voting record in the Senate -- which will work against him in non-liberal key states like Penn and Ohio), the "Anti-Bush" votes will bleed off to Nader - and it only takes 2% of the "Anti Bush" votes to leave Kerry for Nader to swing the election completely to Bush (or to simply not vote, which is the usual drop off in "anger" motivated votes).

Were I to run things, I'd simply let the presidential campaign flounder, and set up for 2008. Democrats should not want the Presidency over the next 4 years: the war on terror will be bloody and whoever is in will get the blame - and if its a Kerry, the whole Dem party will be used as a whipping boy and suffer (Remember Jimmy Carter?).

I'd concentrate on the trying to win the Senate this election, and picking up seats in the House to make a run at pulling within 2-3 seats in 2006, and then setting up for a majority of the whole Congress in 2008, which would help elect a Democrat President.

Think about it: assuming Bush is reelected, by the time 2008 gets here, either Bush will have screwed things up to the point where there will be a Dem landslide, or messed around and left a festering problem that will spill over in blame for Republicans for "failing to win decisively", or he will have done so well that the threat is gone. In all of those cases case, Cheney will not run as a presidential candidate, so there will be no Republican incumbent and at worst a neutral political situation, and quite possibly a very favorable situation for a Democrat candidate.

Think of it this way: Bush does a "Reagan (vs Communism)" on terrorism, that means the Democrat can run on "Its time to move on from war to social issues". Bush fouls it up "We need a new leadership - Bush/Republicans lost the war". Bush neither wins nor loses "The Republicans have had 8 years and have not finished things off - time for a change!".

So I'd say throw Kerry to the wolves. Reload for a full Democratic sweep in 2008, and regain parts of the Congress in 04 and 06.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-20 1:41:22 AM|| 2004-06-20 1:41:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Pretty interesting, OS, but there are problems with it.

1) I think Al Qaeda has been and is being rocked on their heels. They are theatening us but shitting in their own pool. The only public acts of terrorism they have managed since 911 against Americans is in their home turf, and only against single unarmed civilians. I believe, even as bad things appear, we may well have already turned the tide in the WoT. Does anyone really think that Al Qaeda is ready for a coup in Saudi Arabia? Does anyone really think these recent beheadings are part of a plan, rather than a last grasp at straws?

2) There is no need to look forward to 2008 since it appears Bush may well be heading for a super-landslide in November. Who the hell on our side wants to come forward and take away or overshadow this possible victory for the right this year? I wouldn't want it and I doubt anyone with a view towards 2008 would want to do so until after 2004.

3) With Bush retired in 2008, will the left be able to unite? You bet they will, and they will sound strangely moderate when they start getting serious about 2008, and they will gain some ground. They will attack policies, an area they have always excelled in, and they will have some successes. But the one thing which we know always defeats the left is to make them define their own policy positions and proposals, and attack them from the right for what they are: socialist policies in the mask of some sort of twisted centrism.

4) Hilary will be a very strong candidate for the left in 2008 but only if the right allows her and her supporters to tiptoe passed their own socialist policies and proposals, if we fail to gut their supporters by attacking their ideas for government, and if we fail to raise the money we need to defeat them. That is one major reason why a super landslide in 2004 will go a long way towards blunting a successful political gain by the left in 2008. It will enable the right to further enhance their positions on issues which democrats seem to prevail on, but only prevail if the right fails to suit up for the game.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-20 2:02:45 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-20 2:02:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 badanov: I wish I were as confident as you about Hill's demise; it seems to me that she's done a very good job distancing herself from the liberal lunacies of -this- election cycle, leaving the other ones reeking of 9/10-era old news (unless we unexpectedly win the war completely, which won't happen within 4 years). This is just too much of a war election -- does Bush even have any other initiatives? wth happened to SS privatization? -- for a Kerry wipeout to eliminate more than the dovish France-ism of the Democratic party.

The Republican party is too cowardly (or microeconomics-ignorant) to puncture the disasterous and immoral drug-reimportation idea; who the hell is going to come forward by 2008 and take the battle to Clinton2? Furthermore our wartime spending profligacy leaves us with some serious house-cleaning before we can stand on the idea of small government again...

Dropping Cheney for Rudy would be interesting, but I think he's our best candidate only if war issues are as or more pressing then than now.

Posted by someone 2004-06-20 2:30:49 AM|| 2004-06-20 2:30:49 AM|| Front Page Top

23:11 OldSpook
22:59 Frank G
22:51 Robert Crawford
22:45 Mr. Davis
22:38 Frank G
22:27 Atomic Conspiracy
21:49 Mark Espinola
01:38 .com
01:23 Super Hose
01:14 Super Hose
01:12 Super Hose
01:12 Quana
01:10 Super Hose
01:07 Super Hose
01:03 Zenster
01:01 someone
00:54 Zenster
00:50 11A5S
00:45 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
00:23 tu3031
00:11 RWV
00:08 tu3031
00:02 RWV
23:55 Zenster