Kerry Landslide Prediction

I was listening to public radio this morning and heard a man predict Kerry would win in a landslide. His rational was based on a very large voter turnout, which he said is NEVER good for the incumbent and that the Democratic base is very energized. The reason that Kerry isn't doing better in the polls now is just because he hasn't made his big sell yet.

At least, that's what I think he said. It was early in the morning and I wasn't quite awake yet. The man's name was Chuck Todd and he wrote an article about this that was published in the May issue of Washington Monthly. Unfortunately, it's not available in their online version. If anyone can fill in the gaps, it would be nice.

"Too close to call" is "close enough to steal".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All Kerry has to do is show that he's competent to do the job. Since Kerry's still an unknown, he needs to show the American public that he is able to do the job. He mentioned Arnold in California. As soon as they had some debates and was able to show that he wasn't an idiot, the job was his. There was so much dissatisfaction in CA that they just wanted an alternative who was competent.

He's right. Remember, gang, the Sheeple do not start thinking about the election until after Labor Day, many not until after the World Series. However, Bush's low numbers this early bode very ill for him, if history is any guide.

I think that's the basic rationale. When an incumbent is on the ticket, it's usually a landslide one way or the other. With Bush's poor approval ratings right now, it's a reasonable bet that Kerry could win big. I'm not counting on that just yet, but Kerry has history on his side right now. These elections are referendums on the sitting president. Clinton won big in 96 and 92. Reagan won big in 84. Carter lost big in 80.

It's just historical, and you should never ignore history, but I'm not sure how predictable this election is going to be.

saying it takes time for a challenger to win over voters. They don't turn on the incumbent and immediately boost the challenger. That's why Kerry has not yet pulled ahead in most polls even though Bush's approval ratings are sinking into the mid-40s.

and I fear the tricks they have left to play. This administration is very very evil.

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

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.

more...

didn't Pat Robertson say that god told him that bush* would win in a walk?

inflate Kerry's and his aides' egos because Kerry's support will be soft. ABB'ers have no loyalty and many will turn on Kerry if things don't get better under him.

Better a "Pyrrhic Victory" for Kerry than four more years of Bush!This is the most important election of our lifetime. I do believe that we will not have a country left to fix if bush is reselected.