What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004

[Beet]

I don't think Democrats are going to win just on the back of even a few hundred casualties in Iraq or Bush's inability to justify his war, or the inability to find Saddam or bin Laden, even if none of this happens. I am a strong Democrat but I have to admit, next year looks very bad. Bush could win California, Delaware, and even maybe Illinois.

The reason for all this is that the Democrats seem to be trying to emphasize Bush's faults rather than what they can do for the country that is both different and better. Ideally they should subsume Bush's percieved strength on national security with a more moderate domestic policy, with attention to popular issues such as controlling corporate corruption and corporate power and protecting the environment. The debate should never be about how hard to fight terrorism but simply how to fight terrorism. That is the key distinction that could change the dynamics of the debate away from the 1980's style "tough on Communism" or "tough on crime" advantages for Republicans. Unfortunately I find a hard time seeing how Dean is going to alter the debate in that direction.

In some ways it is actually good for the Democrats in the long term if the economy did well this season, because it may help the Democratic leadership to see that they are missing the boat by not adequately developing their own platform. That is another thing I like about Edwards: he has deep ideas and he is willing to articulate them well. Unlike Dean who just issues hollow platitudes, and whose strength is based on an issue (opposition to the war) which is both unpopular, and no longer an issue. One thing Democrats should remind votes of is that they were the ones who first championed the Department of Homeland Security.

What will likely happen next year is the economy continues to grow strongly on the back of strong productivity growth (which has more to do with 1990's investment payoffs and the loosest monetary policy in decades than Bush policies) and the U.S. will hand over domestic control of Iraq to the IGC in June 2004. Around that time the administration also hopes to hold elections in Afghanistan; the Afghan constitution requires that elections be held by June 2004. This may draw attention to the fact that 1/2 of the country is owned by warlords, but it isn't strong enough of a criticism to seriously hurt Bush. And in any case the I see the administrating buying off the warlords to hold elections in their controlled territories with the promise that the new government will only have real power in Kabul and the surrounding areas. The Democrats will hold their convention in Boston and will be seen as out of touch; the Republicans will hold their convention in New York on Sept. 11. The only thing that might disturb that are large protests, but they are not likely to take the shine off the event if successful, or even acceptable elections are held in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the potential PR windfall to Bush from the success of elections in both those countries, I'm pretty sure Bremer and whomever is the U.S. liason to Afghanistan will work like a Nazi to make sure things go well.

[Beet]

A 45 state victory for Bush would basically mean that he would have to win states like Connecticut (if Lieberman isn't the nominee), New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, and California (add Vermont if Dean isn't the nominee). Right now Gallup has Bush's approval rating at 50 approve/47 disapprove, the lowest of his presidency (actually equal to where he was about 2 months ago). Certainly things could turn around, but until they actually do start turning around politically for Bush, it's a bit premature to suggest that he's going to win any kind of landslide reelection.

The polls are usually taken among registered voters, but Republicans have higher turnout historically, so a poll parity of 50-47 suggests a voting advantage of up to 55-42. I doubt Bush could win 45 states unless everything goes as planned for him, which is not impossible but probably the worst case scenario for Democrats. It will take a real leader coming out of the primaries next spring to develop a forceful enough platform that middle Americans can start to embrace.