Republican Revolution.....

[zachman]

The opposition party can change on cultural issues if they do not have the incumbent president. Thats how the Republicans started to turn after Goldwater.

[classical liberal]

The Democrats might be able to take the fiscal conservatism away from the GOP.  If they did, much of the south and midwest would go to them.  The GOP is spending like a drunken sailor at the moment.  If the Dems seize the chance they could take back the House and Senate and hold the White House for a few decades.  If the GOP manages to reign in spending or the Blue Dogs don't shape Kerry's platform then the Dems will have no chance going forwards in either branch of Gvt.  If the Dems had picked Dean and he ran on his record as a Conservative to Moderate Governor, they might have been able to pick up LA, VA, GA, IN, OH, NH, AZ, NV, NC, FL, and maybe one of the Dakotas or MT.  But Kerry is a regular tax-and-spend Liberal elitist so the GOP is looking strong.

But Bush is a borrow-and-spend Liberal elitist so the effects may not be so drastic.

[agcatter]

Dean would not have been able to take any of those states and particularly not the Southern states you mentioned.  In his dreams maybe...probably not even in his dreams.

[zachman]

Although all the predictions of Dean being beaten in a landslide, would have been false. Although in terms of EVs Dean just wouldn't have been there.

[Ben.]

Dean could probably have gotten around 40-42% of the popular vote and 210 electoral votes to 328 for Bush…I really don’t think that a really huge blow out is possible in 2004 with such a polarised electorate…unlike McGovern in 1972 Dean would have avoided complete humiliation as he would have had the Democratic party firmly behind him and could probably have kept that solid 40 or so percent of support but when it came to Independents Dem leaners would either have stayed home or voted for Bush at the presidential level while with moderates Dean would have made no head way at all…It would be in the senate races in the south that Dean would have really cost the Dems as contests in SC, NC, FL, LA and OK would all proably have produced GOP wins (ouch!!!!!!!!)… Kerry IMHO is a much more serious prospect…          

[classical liberal]

Did any of you read his platform.  For all practical purposes he was a center-right rural governor.  If he ran as he governed he would win all the states I mentioned.  The fiscal conservatism that won Gov. Warner his term would especially have helped him in Appellatia and the Border-South. However, in the primary race, he was too successful in passing himself off as a liberal, creating the impression you all seem to hold.

[angus]

It wasn't Howard Dean's real fiscal conservatism, nor his perceived social liberalism, that scared them.  They simply saw what they see in Bush:  A man with the capability to embarass all of us.  Chosing the lesser of two reckless drivers of the Nation, given a choice of Dean and Bush, would have netted Bush an easy re-election.  To their credit, the Democrats saw that.

[zachman]

    I think it was Dean's supporters that scared people. If his media line was just "You have the power to take America back," he would have done much better. Instead people were scared by the people cheering at his quotes about Bush. The same thing has happened to John Kerry in the last month. The cheering and laughing at Bush's flip-flopper line makes me even more scared of Bush. Its a tough balance to have a completely positive approach.

[classical liberal]

If Dean was a reckless driver, then Kerry is a driver without a sense of direction.

[angus]

That's good.  

Still, he has a certain gravitas that will be hard for the incumbent to match.  In debates, I'd advise George to let the Senator contradict himself, then use sarcasm to make the audience laugh at Kerry and remember.  This has worked well to his advantage before, and it's not difficult.

[classical liberal]

I can't imagine Bush quipping at anyone, let alone a skilled orator like Kerry.

[angus]

Small memory.  Recall those same words uttered about George Bush vis-a-vis Al Gore (and Ann Richards six years prior).

[A18]

2004 is going to have 4-5% growth, and 2005-2008 will have at least 3.5% and above.  Its all just part of the normal economic cycle in our highly productive capitalist economy.  As for Job Growth that happens late in the cycle, just like it did in the 1990's (only more so due to productivity growth) - the unemployment rate will not change much in 04,05, and 06, but will get very low in 07 and 08.   

If Bush is elected its all on track, if Kerry is elected only one thing could mess it up - if he manages to increase taxes.  I suspect he could by vetoing a Republican attempt to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.  But even if he does such a horrible thing, 2004-2008 are still good growth years, possibly just a little less than under Bush.

Old Opebo...

[Ben.]

I could see the Democrats being driven into a position where they occasionally take the senate for 2-4 years over the next couple of decades and sometimes manage to win the White House with moderate tickets which are often presented as distinct from the national party (ala the GOP in 52 + 56).

What I think is more likely is that both parities will grow and develop, the GOP will seek expand its support amongst Hispanics and Afro-Americans based largely on its social conservatism, this will force the Democrats on to the defensive unless they have already begun to shift to a more moderate position on social issues nationally (doubtful without something which really scares the leadership).

Then you have to ask will the Democrats move in a more populist direction on economic issues? Will the GOP move in a more Libertarian direction?

I don’t think that the kind of political hegemonies that both parties have enjoyed in the past are possible any longer, for no other reason than voters are far more likely to get bored even if the incumbent person or party are doing a good job.