Reply #77: I thought you were ignoring me

[Awsi Dooger]

Not sure which I prefer :)

Bush had plenty of advantages as an incumbent. That wasn't always recognized on DU.

Here's a very good link I saved on election day 2004, from Mark Mellman detailing the uphill climb we faced. I remember being numb when I read it, recognizing the truth of what he was indicating. I recommend the entire article but I'll paste some key paragraphs:http://www.thehill.com/mellman/110204.aspx

"First, we simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime. After wars surely, but never in their midst. Republicans have been spinning this fact for months, and they are correct.

Democrats have spoken often and powerfully about the nation’s economic problems. But by historical standards, they are not that bad. The “misery index” is 7.8 today but was 20.5 when Jimmy Carter was defeated. Economic models of elections show Bush winning 52-58 percent of the vote.

One could simply suggest that the models are off, but there is more to it than that.

These models essentially confirm that the level of economic pain we are now feeling is not commensurate with voting an incumbent president out of office.

Unemployment and inflation are lower than they have been when incumbents have been defeated. Growth is higher than it has been when presidents have been tossed out of office."

<snip>

"Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.

Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.

Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote."