Why George W. Bush will lose the next election (a must read)

jeter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-17-03 06:36 PM
Original message

Why George W. Bush will lose the next election (a must read)

Edited on Mon Nov-17-03 06:37 PM by jeter

The media, many republicans and some people here are convinced the Democrats are headed for certain doom come next November. But I am convinced otherwise. I am convinced we will win. No matter who the candidate. George W. Bush is not the 900 pound gorilla often portrayed. The question, "what will we do to beat him" is misleading and erronious. The proper question should be, "what will he do to beat us." Because George W. Bush will lose the next election. Not because of circumstances beyond his control. Not because of a liberal media. The reason George W. Bush will lose the Presidency is George W. Bush.

Some often cite the victories of the Republicans in this months elections and last years midterms as proof that we are in trouble. But this is wrong. Because the reason we lost those elections have nothing to do with the country moving more conservative. It had to do with a) the nature of the seats that were up for grabs, and b) the fact that the Republicans had a national campaign, whereas us Democrats did not. The President stumped for congressional candidates, whereas the Democrats didn't have a "leader" to do the same. Therefore, they had a coherent message. We didn't. They won. We lost. 2004 will be different in this respect for the obvious reason. We will have a Democratic candidate with ideas and a platform. The Democratic Party will rally behind the said candidate. The Republicans will not have a monopoly on the message that the American people receive. But this is not why Bush will lose. It only debunks the myths that many people believe. A victory in the midterms does not equal victory in a Presidential general election.

So why will he lose? The simple answer is mathematics. The seeds of Bush's impending defeat were actually sewn in his "victory" in the 2000 election. George W. Bush won the support of 94% of his fellow Republicans in that election. With that, he carried every single southern state (historically a Democratic stronghold). By all intents and purposes, George W. Bush received the maximum possible support he could have received in the election and won only 271 electoral votes (only one more than he needed). Also, he lost the popular vote which went to Al Gore by 500,000+ votes. In elections past, whenever a Republican candidate has won such an overwheming base of support from his own party and scored well in the south (never mind sweeping it) he has won the election in a landslide. This was true in 1952 and 1956 (Eisenhower), in 1972 (Nixon), in 1980 and 1984 (Reagan), and in 1988 (Bush I). Therefore, what can we deduce from that? The answer is simple and obvious. The Republican base is actually shrinking, not growing.

States that used to be solidly Republican are now swing states, states that used to be swing states are now Democratic. This has offset the losses Democrats have incurred in the south. In their book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," Texeria and Judis explain why this is so www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com . I will not go into all the evidence they provide. But if you haven't read the book, I recommend you do so. In it they talk about the growing "ideopolis" and how this group is becoming increasingly Democratic, as well as how moderate or independant voters are increasingly supporting Democratic policies over Republican policies. As a consequence, states falling under the Democratic coalition are growing. The Republicans shrinking.

So that is why George W. Bush can win 94% of his base and carry every single southern state and only win 271 electoral votes and still lose the popular vote overall. Many of you will say, well some of those "swing states" may go to Bush. Yes, that is possible. Because a state leans Democratic, doesn't mean it will go Democratic. But this is why I think Bush will actually lose the next election. For him to win, he needs to expand his party's base of support. Much like how Nixon did with the "southern strategy" after his narrow victory in 1968. He has to appeal to a broader spectrum of support. People vote what is in their self-interest. Politics is a game of coalition building and politicians win when they convince people it is in their best interest to support them. Some of you may disagree. You will say, that many poorer people in the south would be better off voting for the Democratic candidate then they would a republican. Yet they seem to be supporting the Republicans. Well, the reason for that is usually cultural by their nature. Southerners are more culturally conservative than are most Democrats. They may view the "culture war" to be even more important to them than their economic interests and vote accordingly. The GOP strategy beginning in the 1960s played on this division. But like I wrote above, Bush carried every single state in the south. You can't do better than 100%.

So why will he lose? Simple. Because in the three years he has been President, he has done next to nothing to appeal to people outside his base. The southerners and 94% of Republicans. Recent polls show that the majority of Independants are moving away from Bush's style of conservatism and agreeing more and more with Democratic positions. Bush's two main initatives as President have been a) the tax cut and b) the war in Iraq. In both these cases, the supporters have been the same. The right wing of the Republican Party. People will vote their interests, as I wrote above, and Bush has made sure - through his policies - that the interests of the majority of people are either suppressed or ignored. The Democrats can come away with a giant majority in the next election (as much as a 13% plurality) not from Republicans, although we may pick off a few, but by winning over 6% of Independants. That's it. 6% of independants means the difference between a close election and a Democratic landslide. For in the final analysis, which states did Gore carry that will certainly go to Bush now? Which people who voted for Gore will now vote for Bush? By contrast, I think we can do very well among independants. Especially if we hold on to our base. That is why I have always said the strongest ticket the Democrats can present is Dean/Clark (not intended to be a flame war - just my opinion). These two men appeal to the independant voter. They are both from outside Washington D.C. which is a plus. And where one is weak, the other is strong and vice versa. Dean has no foreign policy experience. Clark does. Clark has no executive (political) experience, Dean does. This ticket does the best job at uniting the different factions within the party, etc. Dean has even found a way to neutralize the huge advantage in money being raised by Bush. Imagine after he wins the nomination and if you get 500,000 to 1,000,000 people donating an average of $50 (Dean's current average) that is an additional $25 to $50 million, on top of the $40 million he will have raised to date. That also doesn't include more traditional fundraisers. Dean can reasonably expect to have $50 million to $100 million to fight off Bush's attacks (depending on the duration of the primary season).

So anyway, this is why I believe the Democratic Party will be victorious in the 2004 election. Congressionally, the northeastern and midwestern Republicans are more vulnerable than ever. And we can even do well in the southwest. We have to abandon the old "New Deal Coalition" and create a new "Democratic majority" that will keep us in power for some time.

What do you think?

Please don't let my opinions on Dean and Clark cloud the arguments I have made. I think the same principles are true of any candidate. But it is my opinion, that under the situation I have constructed, the Dean/Clark ticket does the best.