Election Odds

[Nym90]

I agree, if there was another 9/11 type terrorist attack, it would not help Bush. It would hurt him. A lot of people would be questioning why we weren't able to stop it and there would be a lot of questions as to whether the current policy was not only not working but making things worse.
As the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Nym90]

True, but conversely if we haven't found Bin Laden, Saddam, or the WMDs, then it becomes a potent issue that can be used against Bush. So either way, there are political risks for both sides.

[Nym90]

By a super-majority I assume you mean 60 seats...I highly doubt that the GOP could pick up 9 seats under any circumstances. They'd have to win every race that is even remotely competitive...even in the most optimistic scenario for the GOP, in which they sweep all 4 southern Democratic open seats and hold Oklahoma, Alaska, and Illinois, what would be the other 5 seats they would pick up? Even if Breaux retires and the GOP picks up that seat, you still need to come up with 4 more pickups. I don't see that many vulnerable Dem incumbents to make that possible, in addition to the fact that the GOP isn't likely to hold every one of their own seats.
I realize you and I disagree strongly about the impact of a Hispanic nominee, but I just can't bring myself to believe that Hispanics will vote en masse for Bush simply because he nominates a Hispanic. Hispanics don't vote on race alone, as don't whites, or blacks, or american indians, or asians, or arabs. Hispanics, like everyone else, will actually look at the positions on the issues of the nominee in question.
Even if your hypothesis is true and this causes Bush to sweep the Hispanic vote, there aren't that many competitive Democratic seats in states that have a large Hispanic vote that I can see.

[Nym90]

You are right, there are enough potentially competitive seats for it to happen, but you are correct that the chances of the GOP sweeping all of the toss up and even marginally competitive races is highly unlikely. There would have to be a huge wave in favor of the GOP, at least as large as there was in 1994 (even then Republicans picked up only 8 Senate seats).
I highly doubt that nominating a very conservative Hispanic to the SCOTUS would create a GOP tsunami nationwide. Even if it did help Bush among Hispanics it is not going to be that big of an issue for most voters.

[Nym90]

So shouldn't conservatives complain then about how they have to give their hard earned money to their children? Parents earned the money, and they should be allowed to keep it, and the government shouldn't have a law that says you must use your money to help provide for your children, right? That's a pretty socialistic law, when you think about it.
Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that communism works very well in small units, such as the family. The overall standard of living for the family is higher even though it is lower for those at the top. It is true, though, that the larger the group, the less likely it is to work since people have a harder time keeping perspective on the potential pros and cons of the system and try to get something for nothing instead.

[Nym90]

Well, parents are required by law to provide their children with basics such as food, clothing, shelter, etc. or else they are guilty of child abuse, and the children can be taken away by a court.
Also, I'd say it is at least socialistic if not completely communistic, since parents who earn far more money than their children (children earn no money at all when they are young) give up their hard earned money and allow their children to derive benefit from it even though they did not work for it. It would seem that under conservative principles parents should not give handouts to their children, and should force them to work in order to earn their own money for food, clothing, shelter, etc. It shouldn't matter how much money the parents have, or what the ability of the children to work is, the parents earned it and should be allowed to keep it.
Liberal principles, however, say that the more fortunate have a societal obligation to help out the less fortunate, and that this at least partially overrides the rights of the wealthy to keep the money that they have earned.

[Nym90]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

[Nym90]

I don't think that the Republican core vote comprises 48% of the vote nationally. A lot of people voted for Bush thinking that he would be a centrist and have been disappointed. Both parties have about 40% of the vote as a core vote, with another 5% or so which strongly lean their way, and then about 10% of the electorate which is true swing voters.

[Nym90]

As well they should be. As you say, high gas prices hurt almost everyone, and they'll hurt the economy too if they stay this high. Obviously it's something tangible that people can relate to...unemployment is too, but really only if you or someone you know is unemployed.

Personally I think that we need a lot more investment in road building and widening and in public transportation so that people don't have to drive as much if they don't want to, and so that they spend a lot less time stuck in traffic congestion. More congestion means more wasted fuel, which means people have less money. Plus, people have less time...think of how much better the economy would be if we didn't have all of that lost potential productivity. Not to mention the damage to the environment from the extra wasted fuel...it just plain hurts the economy and the well-being of everyone, to waste time stuck in traffic jams. Making public transportation (buses, trains, subways, etc) more efficient, effective, faster, and easier and more convenient to use would also help save fuel and save people money in the long run. Also, not to mention that using less fuel obviously reduces our dependence on Middle East dictatorships, always a good thing.

Helping to curtail suburban sprawl wouldn't hurt, either.

Sorry for the off-topic rant, just had to get that off my chest. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread....

[Nym90]

Well, since the gas tax is what largely funds transportation and roads, decreasing it, while perhaps providing some short term economic relief, would be far more costly in the long run, unless you think we should make up for the loss by increasing revenue in some other area and then shifting that money to transportation.

Improving the efficiency of our infrastructure is the only effective long term solution to the problem of high gas prices.

We need to encourage less use of gas, not more. Reduce our dependency on foreign oil by increasing efficiency of our roads, our vehicles, and our transportation infrastructure. Then when OPEC tries to gouge us, we can tell them to go shove it.

[Nym90]

I believe he supports raising CAFE, doesn't he? That would be a huge step in the right direction. We have the technology now to make cars much more fuel efficient, if the automakers had the proper incentive to do so.

I haven't kept up with Kerry's statements on energy policy, but I'm pretty sure he's for that.

Again, increasing domestic production is a short-term solution at best, as the world's supply of fossil fuel is of course limited. The real long term solution here is to switch to the use of renewable energy sources whenever and wherever possible, and encourage the development of new research into this.

Part of the problem in Washington, of course, is that politicians are only there for a short time, so they usually go for the short-term solution, even if it will be worse in the long run.

[Nym90]

Interesting ideas.

I don't honestly know a lot about the mixture requirements, and I'd want to see more as to the benefits vs. costs before I'd endorse that, but it's certainly something worth looking into. It seems a little esoteric to use as a campaign issue, but if the price of gas comes down, that would help Bush, for sure.

As for the strategic reserve, I'm not so sure there. Personally I tend to feel that it should be saved for times of true national emergency (I opposed Clinton's attempts to use it to reduce gas prices back in 2000, as well). But again, I admit I don't know enough about the particulars.

[Nym90]

Agreed, but the auto companies aren't voluntarily increasing fuel efficiency enough, so the incentive must not be large enough. The highest profit margin vehicles are the full-sized SUVs. I don't think the manufacturers will increase their own CAFE to 40 MPG by 2015 without government intervention.

Hehe, I just knew you'd try to bring Gore into this at some point...

Personally, I feel that we should preserve nature if there are other perfectly good and reasonable solutions that exist as well. We only have so much wilderness, and they aren't making any more of it. It's always a one way street...rural areas become more urban, but it's pretty rare that an area that was formerly inhabited gets turned back to nature. I realize this is inevitable and don't necessarily oppose it in principle, but I think it makes sense to at least try to preserve what we have for as long as possible. I realize that's a completely seperate issue, suburban sprawl, but it plays into the same idea, that preservation is important.

I'd love to visit the North Shore myself, though I doubt I'll have the time or money to do so in the near future.

I realize others may not share my values in this instance, but I think that if other reasonable solutions exist (which it would seem that they do in this case) then increased oil drilling should only be done as a last resort.

Plus, my points about it only being a short-term fix still stand, as I feel other solutions are not only workable, but better in the long term.

[Nym90]

I see your point, but I still don't see how he's relevant to the current political debate. I certainly don't put any more stock in what he says than I would for any other former Vice President. I wouldn't listen to Quayle or Mondale really either.