Election Odds

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, cool -  I have no reason to agree or disagree with this prediction, but if there's a chance, it sure gives me another reason to be pulling for Bush.  I tend not to hope for too much, even from a Republican administration.
Yeah - lets topple those Mullahs!

Anyway I put Bush's re-election chances at 70%.  A stock market crash/dollar crash or possibly some terrorist event could derail it - though the terrorist event might actually help because the more dangerous the world looks the less people trust Dems - especially one like Dean.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I don't know, the British occupied India for quite a long time, and it contained a lot more than 70 mil, even back then.  

[opebo]

Its to the credit of this forum that 'turds' has been the most off-colour word I've read here!

About election odds - I had been confident of Bush's re-election, but last night something very subjective shook me.  I live overseas, and so don't have a very good grasp of how the 'man on the street' is feeling.  I called up my dad and talked for the first time in months.  He's a lifelong Republican, but seemed convinced Kerry had a very good chance to unseat Bush due to economic conditions and Iraq casualties.  Of course he's a very old man and a little out of touch - but it struck me as a bit shocking he had so little confidence!  
Has anyone observed either a major political shift or an increase in fatalism in their elderly parents?

[opebo]

Old people are quite fatalistic.

BTW, Opebo, where do you live?

Thailand.  Its 75 degrees tonight!

[opebo]

Centigrade or Farenheit?

Hah!  I'm an American.

[opebo]

It's going to be very close again... and I think there might be more upsets than usual (in the EC, in the House and probably in the Senate) due to the anti-incumbency that seems to be floating around at the moment...

It'll be good TV!

Yikes, upsets in the Senate!   I'm not worried about the House, but if Bush goes down we need both House and Senate to control whatever Democrat gets in.  Actually I'm not that worried about the Senate either - though if Bush loses we can't afford to lose even one senator net.

[opebo]

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.

I agree its going to be awfully close, as these polls suggest - though it is early.  I can't actually identify why Bush's popularity would've gone down in January, other than the attention drawn by the Democratic primary and the fact that he hasn't begun compaigning.   I'm really hoping money can make the difference this time around.

The one thing I do pin my hopes on is I don't see how Bush is likely to do any worse than he did in 2000.  I think the people who voted Bush in 2000 represent a kind of very likely Republican core vote.  Given the changes in the electoral college caused by the Census, Bush could lose NH, lose an even bigger percentage of the vote in the Gore states, and just gain about a hundred thousand votes net in Florida to make up for the Nader factor (FL was the only state where Nader mattered), and he holds.  I could actually see Bush winning again with a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote.

[opebo]

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.

I don't agree.  I think 2000 was a polarizing election under the surface.  There was absolutely no reason to vote for Bush unless you simply preferred Republicans.  Times were good, etc etc.  So I see that 47.9% as being extremely likely to go for Bush again.  I have yet to run into a passionate moderate who's upset that Bush takes principled stands.  I think presidents are far more likely to get unseated for being too moderate (Bush Sr.) than too extreme.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Gustaf, but NH is totally expendable.  I'm saying Bush could win with every state he won in 2000 minus New Hampshire.  Not that I think he'll lose NH but the point is he can get the same votes he got in 2000 plus a few more in Florida, while getting even less votes in 'Gore States'.  In other words his net vote percentage could actually be lower due to polarization and unpopularity in the Northeast and West Coast, and yet still win reelection!  That would be cool stuff!