A Kerry Landslide?

Why the next election won't be close.

By Chuck Todd

Over the last year, most political TV shows handicapping the upcoming presidential election have repeated the refrain that the race will be extremely tight. Last month, CNN's astute commentator Jeff Greenfield hosted an entire segment on how easily this election could turn out like 2000, with President Bush and Sen. John Kerry splitting victories in the popular vote and the electoral college. Greenfield even threw out the possibility of an electoral college split of 269-269, brought about by a shift of just two swing states that went for Bush last time, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. He ended his feature with the conventional wisdom among Washington pundits: "We're assuming this election will stay incredibly close." Reporters covering the campaign echo this expectation, sprinkling their campaign dispatches with references to the "closely fought" electoral race and "tight election."
The campaign staffs themselves have been saying for months that they anticipate that the race will go down to the wire. In late April, Republican party chairman Ed Gillespie told The New York Times that he expected a "very, very close" race. This winter, Democratic party chairman Terry McAuliffe urged Ralph Nader not to enter the race, fearing that the perpetual candidate could take precious votes away from Kerry in a race sure to be won by a hairline margin.



There are perfectly understandable reasons why we expect 2004 to be close. Everyone remembers the nail-biting 2000 recount. A vast number of books and magazine articles describe the degree to which we are a 50/50 nation and detail the precarious balance between red and blue states. And poll after poll show the two candidates oscillating within a few percentage points of one another. There are also institutional factors that drive the presumption that the race will be tight. The press wants to cover a competitive horse-race. And the last thing either campaign wants to do is give its supporters any reason to be complacent and stay home on election day.

But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.todd.html

what if the same media that decided Kerry, the candidate with the least to say, suddenly decides he isn't viable for this or that reason? What then? Will you tell your Republican cousin how unfair it is? Somehow I don't think that you would be able to convince such a disconnected person that your candidate, again the candidate with the least to say, has something to offer.

Democrats have made a HUGE mistake by getting behind the richest Senator in history. This is going to hurt guys and gals.

I guess George Washington, FDR, and JFK must have just sucked then.

I dislike Plutocracy as much as anyone, but I'll take a progessive rich guy over a radical right wing rich guy anyday.

for A LOT of dems, Kerry is not so much their chosen candidate, as he is the one that has been thrust upon them.
If JFK can prevail, it will be much more about people voting against not-so-curious george, than voting for Kerry.
that's how it's going to feel to me when i punch my ballot, anyway.

point, for violence.

and organizing for Dimson.....it's only going to get worse for AWOL and the Bionic President. Wait till the debates...it's going to be a complete embarassment for the Emporer with no clothes.

But you know what? Even if Kerry were to lose, I'd rather back the right choice for America than be party to letting this criminal, incompetent administration maintain control of this country's political institutions. Why do Republicans hate America so much?

Gore ran a horrible campaign in 2000 and still won the damn election. Plus, I don't think that Nader will get the 90,000+ votes in Florida this time. Of course, we do have to worry about the Jews for Buchanan block in Broward county.

Also, does anyone here know of any person that will vote for Bush who didn't vote for him last time. I know many that voted for Bush in 2000, but will either stay home or vote for someone else in November.

No one seems to remember how badly the presswas skewering and attacking Gore in 2000, and have totally forgotten it. In fact, the media is treating Kerry with kid gloves compared to the continual assaults on Gore. WIth Kerry in running this race this close to Bush, passing him in some places and at some times, behind a little at others, Kerry is a threat that the Bush administration just cannot shake, and the media search for minute details about the size in microns of the shrapel in his arm, while forgetting the piece still left in his leg has had minimal effects on Kerry, which along with the Bush attack ads, would have killed the campaign of any other candidate.

And the richest senator in history?

Hell, I must be biased. I see your 33 posts and right away I'm suspicious. Do you have a Republican cousin? Or a whole Republican family?

My bad. I must give you the benefit of the doubt. Now.

You really would like ABB, though, wouldn't you, Charles?

who is envisioning a Kerry landslide is deluding themselves. The only exception is if Bush shoots himself in the foot REALLY badly. The Bush machine will be spending $$$ like crazy to get their man elected for the first time, so Kerry will have to outfox the GOP spinners for sure.

And, he is a very good speaker. Maybe not of the caliber of Bill Clinton, but, then, who is?

Also, I am very tired of Kerry being blamed for marrying someone with money. You are guilty of lumping her wealth with his. Since this is a game the Republicans play, perhaps I should welcome you to DU, even if you are in the minority here.

Just keep hammering away at the idiot's credibility.

I just hope that we win either the house or senate because this administration is going to leave a disaster for Kerry to clean up. He will need all the help he can get.

Now he has to ask for billions more to dump into his disaster in Iraq. The war is only going to get worse. A lot of people who have been in denial are going to finally wake up.

that if things hadn't gone so well in Iraq for Bush (this was after all of the Mission Accomplish b.s.), there would certainly have been political repercussions and Bush would have had a hard time winning in November.

unfathomable.

He has f*cked up everything he's touched.

Kerry's new ads are wonderful. The tide is turning. I see a landslide and long coattails.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

We are going to see a serious 3rd party challenge.

My Prediction --- Hagel/McCain

That's pretty funny!

The chance of McCain leaving the GOP to be a VP for a 3rd party candidate and Hagel leaving the GOP as well are about as good as Howard Dean growing a foot this summer and joining the Lakers.

Bush will crash and burn.

BTW, Dean is in negotiation with the Lakers as we speak.

:shrug:

Mc Cain will never run against another Vietnam vet. It kjust goes against the code.

Thanks for posting it. :thumbsup:

You read the entire article.

I find a lot of time people only read the portions posted, and the meat of the article is outside of the 4 paragraphs we are allowed to post due to copyright.

The last time a Democratic challenger defeated a Republican incumbent in a landslide (i.e., with 55% or more of the popular vote) was 1932. Let me repeat - 1932.

The last time a Democratic candidate has won in a landslide was 1964. Let me repeat -- 1964.

The last time a Democratic candidate was won an outright majority of the popular vote was 1976. Let me repeat -- 1976.

So it's been almost 30 years since a majority of voters have voted for a Democratic candidate for president. It has been 40 years since a Democratic presidential candidate was won in a landslide. And it has been over 70 years since a Republican incumbent has lost in a landslide.

The fact is, in the post-FDR era, only once has a solid majority of voters backed the Democratic candidate. In every other election, at least 49% of the voters were unable to bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. That includes 1996, when Bill Clinton was running against a weak Republican candidate. Well John Kerry isn't nearly as a strong a candidate as Clinton was. So if Bill Clinton couldn't convince a majority of voters to support him, I find it hard to believe that Kerry could. Kerry's only real hope is if a majority of voters are simply determined to vote AGAINST Bush, and that Nader doesn't siphon away too much of the anti-Bush vote.

If people around here keep telling themselves that Bush is toast we risk getting complacent and losing "big time".

so your points about the last time a Democrat won an "outright majority of the popular vote" are pretty inane.

There was (and is this time) a credible 3rd party liberal candidate. Bush will have no such person on the right. Kerry will need a majority of votes to win the election and history is not on our side.

Third parties don't necesarily preclude landslide wins. Clinton won in two landslides, both with minor or independent candidates running in those elections. True, there is a third party candidate on the left this time, but it doesn't preclude a landslide win for us. Nader also ran in 1996.

An electoral college strategy and he has more states and electoral votes that are from firmly Blue states, with fewer states than it has taken Bush to get fewer electoral votes with a larger number of states.

Right now Kerry has outdistanced Bush in eight solidly blue states for 141 electoral votes while Bush has 122 electoral votes in 13 solidly red states.Out of the ten states that are in play for 125 electoral votes,One is in the Northeast,New Hampshire where Kerry leads Bush, 4 are in the Midwest/Great Lakes Area and Kerry is ahead
in 2 of these, and is so clsoe in 2 others that the right running mate could turn these around (Kerry head in Michigan, and Illinois, even with Bush in Pennsylvania, adn one point behind Bush in Ohio.
The South...Arkansas, Kerry just behind Bush, FLorida, the same, one point behind Bush and thiskeeps fluctuating back and forth beteween Bush and Kerry. The Southwest...New Mexico, Again, Kerry and BUsh even. Washinton State and Oregon, CLose but Kerry still lead by a good bit in Washinton, and by a few points in Oregon. Most of the south would be a long shot for Kerry to try for, so the best strategy is to get a running mate wh has strength and political alignments with people in the 4 northern states in play. Kerry is likely to have to try to win the presidency by firming up electoral votes in the North, the Midwest, and the West, while trying to win one or two in the south, but not to bank on it.

To be great again.

Republicans haven't won the popular vote in a presidential election since 1988. Let me repeat -- 1988. In congressional elections, they've only managed a net gain in two of the last seven election cycles, '94 and 2002. In the other five, they lost in congress. Let me repeat -- 5 of the last 7.

I think Kerry has a very good chance to win, even though he's not our best candidate. I think we'd have a much better chance with some other candidates, for example Wesley Clark. But the fact that we can still win this thing with a pretty aloof candidate speaks volumes about our agenda. Why are you always so negative?

There's no scenario I can see in which Bush wins a majority. He's done too much damage to this country. If he wins, it'll be by suppressing turnout, and appealing to fear.

Kerry seems pretty savvy so far, and immune to the pulls of media pressure ("Kerry needs to respond to X", "Kerry needs to respond to Y") that plagued Gore's campaign. I'm cautiously confident, though it's pretty clear to me that these crooks will do pretty much anything to stay in office.

I think there's also been a lot more criminal conduct than we might imagine. I think a lot of these guys are afraid of going to jail if Kerry comes into office. A powerful motivator, and reason for apprehension.

Democrats need to stop saying it's going to be close and say "Kerry's going to win in a landslide." I think a little confidence once in a while from the Dems instead of running scared and hoping for a one-point electoral college victory is the way to show those squishies in the middle that we are on the side that is so obviously right that we can't fathom more than a few extremists wasting their vote on the worst president of our lifetime. The squishies want to be on the side of the winner, so we need to talk like we have the winner.

So do it.

However, the economy seems to be picking up more.
That will help W.

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that way, and look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is"squeaky-clean."
There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:
1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. Yet he was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advencement, etc.) of those under his command.

2. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

3. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush on all issues, especially the issues
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

4. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background still makes people feel secure, like Republican candidates. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control. Taken together, Arkansas (and Tennessee) can be Democratic again, West Virginia (which lost in 2000 due to NRA campaign), New Mexico and Arizona should go for Kerry (with increase in Latinos) and Florida (with large conservative, military population in Northern Florida). Also Ohio, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and some Midwestern Red States should be in play. Pennsylvania should remain Democratic with Clark's appeal to Reagan Democrats. Clark has broad National appeal, which means that he could campaign with success wherever Kerry felt he was needed.

5. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Chaney to millions of swing voters.

6. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean as well as with Internet contributions. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

7. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As was demonstrated in Wisconsin, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

8. The Superhero Ticket - Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim. (Or "Two heroes, one mission.)" This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

9. Bringing Enthusiasm and full Clinton support: Whereas John Kerry is the Party's best choice for President, his supporters are mostly there to defeat Bush. Wes Clark though, has the most loyal supporters, because of Wes, besides the desire to defeat Bush. Kerry could use that enthusiasm. Besides Hollywood support, a Wes Clark as VP pick would bring stronger enthusiastic support from President Bill Clinton (as well as Hillary).

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

14. Is VP the best position for Clark? : Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State or National Security Adviser. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP, as long as Kerry respects Clark, he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected in National Security issues.

Please, for the good of the country, select Wes Clark.

Ken