History's Tea Leaves Point to Bush*s Reelection

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank

Nearly half a trillion dollars in federal budget deficits.

And George W. Bush could still be a solidbet to win reelection next year.

The day-to-day news about violence in Iraq and lingering economic worries at home obscure a fundamental reality about next year's election: Historically speaking, it should belong to President Bush. Since the presidential primary system became influential in 1952, an incumbent president has never lost a reelection bid if he did not face significant opposition in the primaries.

This is no nugget of political trivia. Political strategists and historians say an incumbent president's lack of primary opposition is a measure of how much support he has from his base of core supporters -- and therefore how much leeway he has in appealing to the political center, the key to general election victory. Of course, historical patterns do not always repeat themselves, but Bush's strength among his base means the Democrats will have extraordinary difficulty dislodging him from office.

The pattern has repeated itself perfectly. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all ran for reelection without major challenges from within their own parties -- and all easily won second terms. Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush faced primary challenges while seeking reelection -- and all were ousted in the general election.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54072-2003Nov17.html

[tsipple]

1. Did Dana Check History of Popular Vote Losers?

Just wondering.

[Nancy Waterman]

3. I don't buy the theory

There are too many things about Bush's term that are miles away from the norm: all the lying, the preemptive war, the sheer hatred felt for us all over the world, the radical policies on every issue. None of this has happened before.

[dusty64]

19. Exactly.

Also, how can someone "win reelection" when they NEVER were elected in the first place. This sounds like another attempt to instill the "chimp is a surebet so why bother" idea in the public's mind. I put as much credence in this as I do abc's poll showing junior's approval rating "skyrocketing".

[tsipple]

20. How about Father-Son Presidential Duos?

What's the history on that?

Answer: John Adams and John Quincy Adams both lost after their first terms. (John Q. Adams lost to Andrew Jackson.)

How about Presidents with last names beginning with "B"?

Buchanan: Lost to Abraham Lincoln after first term.
Bush #1: Lost to Bill Clinton after first term.

[mobuto]

2. And in 2000, everybody was saying Gore couldn't lose

if historical patterns repeat themselves.

Well, they don't always.

Historical patterns are made to be broken. Lets break this one over the back of the Republican Party and send these clowns packing.

[kskiska]

4. I hate these tea leaves stories, too

How many times have we heard dire predictions (especially involving the Chimp) only to have them dashed. Remember the one about presidents always losing mid-term congressional elections?

Still waiting to see if the Geronimo syndrome holds true.

[goforit]

12. And Gore didn't lose!!!!........He won!!!!..The apathetic Americans lost!!

And they deserve Bush all the way!!!

[AndyTiedye]

15. We Deserved to Get Robbed????????????

We don't deserve Bush*
The rest of the world doesn't deserve Bush*
If people got what they deserved,
Bush* would be on trial here:

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

5. Hey, Dana -- maybe no other viable Republican candidates want it!

Given how swimmingly this administration's track record has been, Republicans who might otherwise be strong contenders against Bush could decide that they don't want to have their names associated with him if they want to have a prayer of running for the White House in another electoral cycle. Someone on the Rethug ticket is going to be force-fed a big, old shit sandwich at the polls next fall. What savvy politician would want to be on line for a slice of that?

And this is no nugget of political speculation, Dana. Other really smart people with college degrees are saying similar things, so it must be true. I love your total devotion to empiricism, by the way.

[shockingelk]

6. new leaf in the cup:

It would be impossible for someone to challenge Bush in the primary without being immediately accused of treason.

I expect presidential candidates from right-leaning minor parties to get an unusual number of votes in '04.

[PartyPooper]

7. Every single pResident (3-4) who won less than the majority

of popular votes...went down to defeat running for a "second" term. Most often, they were defeated by their previous opponent.

Sorry, I don't have a link for this...but, I read about it some time ago. Another DU'er posted a similar remark earlier today which jarred my memory. To be sure, if Al Gore were to run against * in 2004...he'd likely win...at least according to results from previous similar elections.

[CounterCoulter]

27. Bill Clinton did not win 50%

In 1992, the reich wing was screaming bloody murder about how Clinton won with 44% of the vote. Perot's strong showing handed the election to Clinton in their minds.

[leesa]

8. It all depends on Diebold and the theft of the election by the purely

evil Republicans. If they don't steal it and abuse voters like they did in 2000 and 2002, there is no possible way Bush would win. But ALL Republicans are apparently criminals without a shred of decency.

[DUreader]

9. Well this is not a 'reelection bid' Bush* lost the 2000 election

Fuck the tea leaves

read the fair trade organic coffee grounds

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

10. This ignores the money issue too

If I was a republican and I wanted to run for president, the fact that my opponent has a $200 million war chest would be a little off-putting.

[0007]

14. I guess with that much money, one would expect junior to win.....

but remember folks the U.S.A. loves the underdog and loves to prove the experts wrong. And most of all America hates the liar. They don't mind being lied to but not all the time, and particularly when our soldiers have died in vain.

So Barbara can have both of her one termers.

[bemildred]

11. This is drool.

If nothing else, the sample is way too small.
:puke:

[LoneStarLiberal]

13. Some good quotes, not a good overall picture, though

Milbank quotes from some good people who study this type of stuff in a rigorous, as-scientific-as-possible manner.

As with any piece where you go to the eggheads to get bites, however, this one also leaves a whole lot unsaid.

One thing I would recommend having read and replicated some of the literature is that whomever wins the nomination needs to invest some time and permanently-tasked staff in wooing moderates away from the Republican Party. Mod conservatives and independents are riper than in the past for Democratic picking.

That being said all this Presidential stuff for all of our candidates is pure, unadulterated hooey if we screw around and lose the four Senate seats that are up for grabs in the next election.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Things are not going to improve in the next six months

No matter how many lies they tell about Iraq and the economy.
The economy is has completely transformed in the last 3 years. The rules have changed. There is no longer a base of creating wealth through manufacturing products from raw materials, or inventing software. The only "wealth" that is created now is through speculation and borrowing. This will not see us through to economic recovery.
Iraq will remain unstable and dangerous until it is ruled by Islamic Fundamentalists, or another brutal dictator, there is no other way.

These problems cannot be wished away by cheap talk and slogans.

[truthisfreedom]

17. this doesn't fit the pattern. we've never had an administration that used

fear to motivate their own ranks in this way. the only reason he's running unopposed is that his own people are afraid of him. it has nothing to do with him being the best candidate within their party... certainly McCain is better... but the fear of being destroyed by bushco v.s. being paid off by bushco is a great influence.

[Kinkistyle]

18. like predicting the stock market

this is all bullcrap. its akin to the theory that all zero-year elected presidents eventually die in office (lincoln, kennedy, etc..)

Bush has to deal with an Iraq War that is spiraling out of control. If his popularity keeps on falling, not having a primary may be what ultimately kills the Republican party.

[The Stranger]

21. Forget tea leaves.

Drink coffee.

[mrdelurk]

22. My tea leaves show a clearer pattern

Let's see... a megalomaniac leader in an ailing economy who hijacks the media to whip up ethnic hatred with lies to conduct plunder disguised as "military operations."

My tea leaves show a consistent fate for such schemers: they are executed in a humiliating, public manner. The first historical specimen was killed in a Berlin bunker, with Russian soldiers kicking his head around in a soccer match. The second one was shot and hanged naked in Milan for the people to spit on. The third one was executed on Romanian public TV to the cheer of the general populace and the fourth one, a certain Milosevic is awaiting some sort of similar closure in Hague now.

[depakid]

23. More vacuousness from Milbank

Must have had too much to drink and a deadline due.

[VolcanoJen]

24. Well, screw it. Dana's right. I think I'll not even bother to vote...

... in the Democratic Primary. Bush has it wrapped up. Good Bet!!! Thanks, Dana!

/snark

Let's change history in '04! Go Dems!!!!

[truthisfreedom]

25. coffee grounds say...

flushed down drain.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Here's a phrase

"(Staged) Failed Assassination Attempt".

Adds 35 points to the Commander-in-Thief's popularity in less than a week. That will be our October Surprise.

--bkl

[BlackFrancis]

28. I think it's early to say he won't face a primary challenge

I bet Buchanan has a go at it.

I bet he would do damn well also, it would split the paleocons from the neocons and he could pound Bush on things like immigration (which now really, really, really, scares the crap out of the xenophobic right) and make headway.