only MY candidate can beat bush

[unblock]

what a crock.

any amateur political scientist knows that when an incumbent runs for a 2nd term, the election is quite largely a referendum about the incumbent.

bush will win, or bush will lose. period.

barring a remarkably self-destructive or incompetent campaign, ANY democratic nominee will be the beneficiary of bush losing.

[CWebster]

1. That depends on which candidate

is in the most advantagous position to highlight the failings of the Bush "presidency".

If said candidate supported *'s greatest failure and fantasy regarding Iraq they would be more likely apt to bury the issue, rather than confront it, if at all possible. A sure disadvantage.

[unblock]

2. actually, i disagree

people will still vote against the incumbent even if the challenger is in complete agreement on the key issue for them.

partly this is because they are more interested in punishing the guy who actually did what they didn't approve of, rather than the guy that merely says something they disapprove of.

more importantly, as you say, the issue will be downplayed and therefore many people will be unaware of the challenger's position on that issue. so they will vote against the incumbent in favor of the 'unknown' challenger's position.

[CWebster]

4. maybe, but

still in primary mode and that shapes the political climate come election time.

[MisterP]

6. don't you mean "complete disagreement"?

[Bombtrack]

3. your wrong, and you obviously aren't an

amatuer political scientist in any real terms if you think so

Rockefeller could have beaten Johnson or come close in 64

Bobby Kennedy would have destroyed Nixon in 68

Reagan could have beaten Carter in 76,

Heart could have at least come close to beating Reagan in 94

Gore could have beaten Bush in 88

Bush would have beaten Tsongas in 92

McCain would have beaten Gore in 00

---------------

I've noticed that the people who want to dismiss any conventional political wisdom here, are the people who's candidates chances rely entirely on wishful thinking and outright fantasy, I.E. The Dean and Kucinich people

[CWebster]

5. Yesiree

Old Lieberman is gonna wipe the floor with 'em.

[unblock]

9. nice list, did you read the original post?

this thread is about re-elections, so the only ones that count are

hart-reagan '84
bush-tsongas '92

i completely disagree that hart could have beaten reagan, though i agree that tsongas would have lost to bush.

in both cases my caveat that the challenger has to be competent come into play. tsongas was not a viable national campaigner imho. neither was mondale.

[Bombtrack]

11. and theither are all but 3

democrats currently announced that could win the nomination

Edwards Graham and Kerry.

[CMT]

13. no I doubt Rockefeller could have beaten LBJ

or even come close in '64. LBJ had done a superb job taking over for JFK and passed alot of JFK legislation and had approval ratings of nearly 80%. conservatives would have sat on their hands had Rockey been nominated--which would have made the additional moderate republicans who might have switched from Johnson to Rocky a wash. Would Rocky have done better than Goldwater, probably but I think LBJ would have still won comfortably with 55-57 percent of the vote. (also Rockefeller's recent divorce and remarriage would have hurt him iin '64--times were not as enlightened as they are today)

I'm also not convinced that Bobby Kennedy would have necessarily destroyed Nixon in '68. The Right wing actually did quite well in that election with the combined Nixon/Wallace vote at 57% almost a total reversal of LBJ's 61% from '64. Bobby probably would have gained California (which HHH lost narrowly) but he would certainly have lost Texas which LBJ narrowly delivered to HHH. Still in a close race RFK may have been able to beat Nixon with the liberals coming out stronger for him than they did for HHH--but I still think it would have been close and probably have ended up in the House due to neither Nixon or RFK winning the electoral college.

I also don't buy that Hart would have come close to defeating Reagan in '84. 1984 was Reagan's year and people were buying the "morning in America" garbage and Reagan appealed to a number of people on sentimental grounds--people actually liked him. I think Hart and every other Democrat would have gone down to defeat at Reagan's hands in 1984. George W doesn't have the same love among many people that RR had which is why I think that it will be a close election next year.

Reagan may have been able to beat Carter. But not necessarily. Reagan still had a reputation as being "too far to the right" in '76 and the country was not as conservative as it was to become in the '80's. Reagan may have picked up a few southern states from Carter, but I think Carter may have picked up moderate republicans who supported Ford in '76 and offset some of the loss of a few southern states to Reagan by picking up Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, Vermont, Michigan and possibly Oregon in a race with Reagan.

I do agree with you that McCain probably would have beat Gore in 2000.

I think Gore might have beaten Bush the first in '88, but then so too could have Dukakis who had a 17-point lead after the Dem convention and then took the month of August off the campaign trail and allowed Bush to define the election.

I think Tsongas could have beaten Bush in '92. Why? people were fed up with George. The economy was in the dumps. Tsongas didn't have a sparkling personality but people respected him. While Clinton was electrifying on the stump, Tsongas wouldn't have had all the baggage either. Remember that Bush in '92 got 37% of the popular vote the lowest percentage a GOP president ever got except for Taft in the 20th Century. Also, the deficit was a major, major issue in '92 which is why Perot took off and got 19% of the vote. Tsongas would have won the traditional dem vote and also cut in (I think) with some of the Perot vote. I actually think Tsongas might have even done slightly better than Clinton in the popular vote.

[MrPrax]

15. Good Point!!!

Hart could have beaten Reagan...EZ
The trouble is the Media...
Anyone from the democrats can beat the GOP and any scum they decide to send into the fray...
Why do democraps beat themselves up

[Alex88]

7. Good point

So many folks at DU argue for their preferred candidate by claiming the other leading candidate, Kerry or Dean normally, can't possibly win, without any regard to what the state of economy in the fall of 2004 and the cumulative economic record Shrub will have to defend, might be. Furthermore, nobody has to tell you or can tell you how you have faired financially since Shrub took office. You know for yourself.
The electorate's view of the performance of Shrub in foreign affairs in early November 2004 is also uncertain.

[ilpostino]

8. BTW

Good article in Atlantic this month showing that one term is much more the American tradition than two. Also pointing out that bad things generally happen in second terms. (Bad things!!!! Like it can get worse?)

[loyalsister]

10. It's funny, really

A lot of what we have to base our opinions on has changed. We had a presidential election stolen, Sept. 11 changed the mindset of many people, we actually started a war based on lies, and it's very hard to find ANYTHING to compare this administration to.
This is a brand new world, and the context of the upcoming doesn't begin to fit with any past election. We've got a fairly diverse pool of candidates to choose from, and they all have their assets. It's a huge and unique primary. Conventional wisdom is less useful this time around.
ie Of course, it has been traditionally believed that the south is hugely important to win elections, and one constant in the south is definitely guns. Of course, that is a great asset for Dean. However, I think a lot of the guys who love their guns might also be attracted to a war hero candidate. Then Edwards and Gep have the geography.
So, I agree noone is the only. Looks like some people are choosing the assets they believe are most important and assume that everyone in the south agrees. :)
Other people appear to believe everyone secretly agrees with them on their pet issue.
The way to sort this out is issue by issue with a pulse on the voters. A legislator told me that guns are more important to rural voters than abortion. It's tidbits like that that are useful here.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. subtext: I'm NOT a pathetic thwarted loser, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT!

Sometimes the partisanship is downright embarrassing. It's like watching people get in drunken fistfights over which sporting team is better.

Far too many people are so thin skinned about the perceived personal insult should their candidate take any shots. It's also ridiculous to see people absolutely unwilling to rationally assess certain truths.

It's one thing to support Sharpton or Kucinich out of alignment with platform and respect for the person, but it's quite another to vehemently defend either as the "one with the best chance" to win. (No offense meant to either; personally I don't think Sharpton has a chance, but slim as Kucinich's is, he's not out of it in my snotty assessment...)

Many of the extreme idealists wear their morals and hearts on their sleeves in a shrill dismissal of all the enablers and cowards who are conspiring to destroy their superior doe-eyed world. The self-styled "realists" cling to "safe" candidates dismissing the true believers as wildly impractical, but they don't hear the death-knell of defeat that will attend those who demand that the left apologize for being what it is and slink to the safe center.

It's all too personal. It should be about winning for ourselves and the rest of humanity, not about being the deucedly-clever grad student who has to show the world what a bunch of dolts they are for not accepting the wisdom of their champion. Yeeks!

[election_2004]

14. I agree

and, barring some divine miracle, I think that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will defeat Bush and be inaugurated in January 2005.

Which is exactly why the Democrats SHOULDN'T nominate Willie Tanner! ;)

[cthrumatrix]

16. Agree...on the challenger to point out the negatives of Bush....some in

the filed seem to have that problem

[dragonquest8]

17. never mind

[Simeon Salus]

18. You rightly said: "Any Amateur Political Scientist Knows..."

Professional political scientists will tell you something quite different.

In 1972, Nixon was not a terribly popular man outside of the Red states (and his own staff). He had successfully buffaloed folks into believing he was "not a crook."

Now we know he was a crook.
Many of us suspect this man is a crook.

Now we know he hired folks to disrupt potential Democratic nominees' campaigns.
Many of us suspect Rove is doing that now (Where is Sharpton getting money anyway? Why does the Globe keep fussing about Kerry's genetics?)

Now we know that in 1972, the election had been rigged. We know this from evidence.
I suspect history will validate my argument this is happening today. All we have to do is look for "f*cked rats."

But most of the kids I work with have never seen "All the President's Men."

Professional political scientists will tell you life is never black or white, period. That's the only relevant constant. Everything else is a negotiation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Phenomenon

you are referring to is retrospective voting. Folks ask themselves if they are better off than they were four years ago and vote accordingly.

But like any single variable model it has it's limits.

We can all come up with scenarios where different candidates could have knocked off incumbents.

[unblock]

20. regarding amateur/professional political scientists...

several comments in this thread insist that professional political scientists would disagree with my original comment, noting that i only said that amateur political scientists would agree.

again, i must take issue.

note that i did say that re-elections are largely a referendum about the incumbent. i did not say they were exclusively about the incumbent. and again, i did say the challenger had to run a competent campaign.

note also that larry sabato's "3 keys" and almost all of allan lichtman's more famous "13 keys" are essentially referenda on the incumbent. keys like "is there a 3rd party challenger" are ambiguous, though "is the challenger charismatic" is obviously not. but most of the keys, such as "did the economy improve", "is there a major scandal", and "was there a military failure" clearly support my view.


oh, and btw, a number of posters seem to think i'm trying to excuse or justify my preferred candidate. in fact, i do not have a preferred candidate beyond "anyone but bush".

[Simeon Salus]

22. "bush will win, or bush will lose. period."

which of those words did you NOT use?

When you speak in absolutes, expect to be called on it.

That was my sole point.

(on edit, forgot the question mark! Love the clash of ideas folks!)

[unblock]

23. "largely" a referendum? ... BARRING ...

don't quote me out of context. read the entire post.

[KG]

21. 'candidate wars on DU' - beats reality TV any day for entertainment!

:)