My Prediction

[Mort from NewYawk]

                           

Bush 346   Kerry 192


The Democrats have made an unwise choice in selecting a nominee from the classic 60’s liberal wing of the party at a time when the nation’s top concern is security and world affairs. John Kerry represents the post-Vietnam conflicts of the Democratic position in foreign affairs, and in all likelihood will suffer a defeat similar to Michael Dukakis, who also was perceived as a potentially weak Commander in Chief.

The situation in Iraq will steadily improve from this point. Less American lives will be lost as Americans withdraw from actual combat. The voices and images of Iraqis settling their differences and running their own affairs will be evidence of the soundness of the Bush policy. Kerry will find little to distinguish his position as the effort becomes increasingly multilateral. Even a major terrorist event or instability in another Middle Eastern country will not move any votes from Bush to Kerry, as Kerry will not offer solutions that Bush has not already pursued.

The only conditions that would have made a Kerry victory possible would have been a stable Iraq (America takes a breather as foreign policy seems less urgent) coupled with an unfavorable economy. This combination would play to the Republicans perceived weakness and the Democrats perceived strength. However, with jobs increasing, and stepped up Iraqi oil production calming markets, it is unlikely that Kerry will get a lot of traction on his economic positions.

On Election Day, then, there will be a 2-3% shift from the Democrats to the Republicans off the 2000 popular vote, offset slightly by a shift of about 1% from Nader voters to Kerry:

Bush 50%      Kerry     47%        Nader 2%      Other 1%

In the Midwest, however, conservative voters will come out strongly for Bush, and the loss to the Democrats will be steeper overall, as much as 3-4%. Without a large enough contingent of 2000 Nader voters to compensate for the loss, the traditionally Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan will fall into the Bush column.

The loss could be even worse for Kerry, if the hard left contingent of the party begins to press Kerry toward even more dovish policies on the Middle East. Kerry would then be presented with the cruel choice of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, that is, from which side of the political spectrum does he want to lose votes. In all likelihood, he will choose to stay moderate, in which case, enough defections to Nader in Minnesota and Washington could deliver those states to Bush.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Michigan is a conservative state. Dukakis and Mondale were trashed there. Even Carter lost there twice.

The reverse is true in Minnesota. It only looked close for Gore in 2000 because of the Nader vote:

Minnesota >5% Nader

Michigan <2% Nader

[Mort from NewYawk]

In 2000, Bush got a greater percentage of the statewide vote in Michigan than he did in Minnesota.

Minnesota also has a much larger contingent of voters whose most important issue is conservation of wilderness (hence the large Green vote in 2000). A lot of voters who are right of center on every other issue will stay with Kerry because of this issue, even in the face of a large defection of moderate conservatives nation-wide.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Mort:

You forgot to mention one little thing: gas.

However, with jobs increasing, and stepped up Iraqi oil production calming markets, it is unlikely that Kerry will get a lot of traction on his economic positions.

Oil prices could be an issue, but only if there is a more dramatic rise that threatens the larger economic picture. Though I'm no expert on oil, I somehow think that before that happens, Bush-Cheney and friends have more cards to play on the price of world oil.

I do hope that Iraqi production increases as the Iraqi security force grows - they have a lot of capacity that's not being tapped. American business, particularly the oil industry, will eventually have a great market in Iraq in which to invest.

I'm not sure that Kerry could capitalize on rising gas prices in the absence of oil-induced inflation or recession. What is his winning position, the one that draws moderately conservative midwest voters? That the Iraq war is responsible for instability that caused prices to rise? That we should end our dependence on Middle East oil? These are arguments without immediate solutions. The Republicans will push drilling in Alaska, and with high gas prices, these voters will be inclined to support it and Bush.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I knew that you would object.

Of course, you know your state better than I.

But I still will predict that the summer and fall will see a large shift of white males into the Bush column. We know that white males are more hawkish in their views than the general population and disproportionately support Republicans.

When it comes down to a decision, a significant number in midwestern states who may have supported Kerry on the economy will decide that he's not the man they want as Commander in Chief in a dangerous world.

I just have a hunch that if I'm right about this effect, Michigan is just the kind of state that could flip as a result.

Minnesota, on the other hand, may have enough truly liberal voters whose dislike of Bush is strong enough that they will stick with Kerry, even if he looks like a ghastly choice for Commander in Chief by election time.

[Mort from NewYawk]

The 346-192 prediction is an ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO for Bush.  If Bush wins every state he possibly could, in his wildest wet dreams.  In fact, I think it's 1 EV too heavy, I don't know where you think Bush is gonna pick up an EV in Maine.

Well, ok, fine.  Here is the absolute best case scenario for Kerry.  Not that I really think this will happen, mind you, but its just as likely as the prediction that started this thread.

Fritz, I agree with your absolute best case scenario for Kerry (and I'll go with BRTD's suggestion that you throw in LA, VA, and NC). I also agree with your assessment that mine is the absolute best case for Bush (and I'll add in WA and MN).

I don't want to think of what catastrophe could befall Bush for your scenario to pan out, but I'm sure I could come up with some.

However, I'm predicting that Bush will get his best case scenario, for all the reasons I stated in my opening post. A 3-4% shift of all voters from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004 is not unrealistic when you realize that Gore in 2000 was a presumptive moderate, a sitting Vice President under a popular President, supposedly to the right of his party on foreign affairs. Kerry is a Senator from Massachussetts with a liberal voting record.

Look it's just a prediction, and I admit I'm being bold, but I'm predicting that 2004 will be the year that the Reagan Democrats come home to roost, and by home I mean with the candidate who most resembles Reagan. If I'm wrong you can say I was nuts all along. If I'm right I can be entertained watching the Democrats try to get it into their collective confused state of mind that nominating a Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry is not the way to win the Presidency. When they finally realize this is when I may come home to roost.

Also, look at the statewide maps of Maine the last time the Democrats had candidates from the left wing of the party. The northern part of the state (CD 2) is littered with blue.

[Mort from NewYawk]

LBJ a liberal? LOL I'm sure even he is rolling in his grave at that one. He was one of the biggest racists in 60s politics.

This is one of the things we have to accept, in 40+ years the definition of liberal and conservative have moved around a bit.

Thank you Tredrick, and welcome to the forum.

This is what I'm trying to say here. Not that the liberal (alright, I'll give you liberal to moderate) domestic politics of Kerry is unelectable, but that the post-Vietnam foreign policy ideology, particularly in relation to when war is called for, is in a shambles.

LBJ and Kennedy are not relevant to this conversation, except as an example of what a liberal Democrat USED to be, before Vietnam.

(StatesRights, I would say here that whatever racism can be attributed to LBJ, he came up out of the South in the 40's and 50's - by the 60's, he was, like JFK, a social reformer [the Voting Rights Act] and a distributionist [Medicaid]).

However, though Kennedy and Johnson were political liberals at home, they were hawks on Communism, until Vietnam destroyed Johnson and shook the Democrats' faith in the value of America flexing it's muscles, particularly in an unconventional war in the Third World, in defense of freedom.

Now we have Bush, after this tragic insult to America and humanity on Sept. 11, declaring and fighting an unconventional war in the Third World, and he has the Democrats who identify with the post-Vietnam malaise of the party tied in knots.

My contention is that as the election nears, the voters in the middle of the spectrum, the real Reagan Democrats, will have had enough of the angry ranting and raving against Bush, especially if things in Iraq give a glimmer of maybe being alright, even good for us. They may not love Bush like they loved Reagan, but they will recognize that, like Reagan, he knows who the enemy is, and is unafraid to press our advantages until the enemy falls.


NOT AS MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF(S)


Governor Dukakis and Lt. Gov. Kerry, 1983