Crystal Ball
by matt at 6:06 am on March 1st, 2004 in PoliticsSettle down, Peabs & Cos, not an 8-ball of crystal, we’re talking about predictions here.
I keep saying these out loud rather than writing them down, and because it’s much more fun to point to a URL when I say ” I am a fucking genius”, here you go.
1) Scott McClellan is overmatched as White House Press Secretary. He will either crack under the pressure, make a huge mistake and be fired, or he will resign by choice. The press is waking up a bit, and he is getting hammered every day. If the press briefings continue to end with the reporters openly laughing in McClellan’s face, he will be toast sooner than later. But I’d put a lot of money down against him making it through the campaign. The Republicans have a deep bench when it comes to people who can spin with a straight face, and it makes no sense to continue risking it.
2) The President is starting to run ads in an effort to bump up his fading approval numbers. This strategy will help him a little, but not enough. Dick Cheney will be replaced on the ticket. Calculations like this are pretty simple actually. Cheney’s gruff manner and undisclosed location/behind the scenes aura is working against Bush now, and the massive overcharging by Haliburton combined with investigations into Cheney’s role in bribing officials to get a Nigerian contract when he was CEO are significant drags on the President. Cheney himself is more than able to read the polls, and I’m positive that he would rather step down than risk losing the election.
Who to replace him? Some say former New York City mayor Rudy Guiliani, and that may happen. Guiliani clearly has Presidential ambitions, and while he is a notorious egotist who might have a hard time playing second banana, he’ll serve if asked.
John McCain has had a stormy relationship with the President. Their differences during the 2000 campaign and in the four years since then are well known. That being the case, why on earth is McCain going state to state campaigning for Bush?
With either Guiliani or McCain on the ticket, Bush can veer as far to the right as Pat Robertson pushes him, and it won’t make any difference because independents in the middle will go along if they think there is a more reasonable voice in the inner circle even if ultimately that voice is of no consequence.
3) John Edwards will not be John Kerry’s running mate. Even though Edwards is quite popular and has high “favorable” numbers and very low “unfavorable” numbers, he would have lost his Senate seat were he to have run for it, and would not win North or South Carolina as Kerry’s VP. Whomever Kerry picks must carry one or more states that Kerry would not otherwise have won.
Kerry (unlike Al Gore in 2000) must choose someone from a swing state or a narrowly Republican leaning state in an effort to maximize electoral votes. Here is a useful electoral map that can not be ignored.
The smart choices for Kerry would be Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (Indiana+Ohio=31 electoral votes), New Mexico governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico+Nevada+Arizona=20 electoral votes), or Either of the Florida Senators Bob Graham or Bill Nelson (Florida=27 electoral votes).
If I were a betting man (and of course I am), I would put money on Graham. As a former governor and current Senator, Graham is revered in Florida especially by the state’s enormous block of senior citizens who we know vote more than any other group. Graham’s inclusion on the ticket gives the Democrats a huge edge, and without Katherine Harris as Secretary of State and Pat Buchanan presumably not running for president, odds would be high of a win in Florida.
4) Bush will win reelection in November. He will again lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote.
Rep. Peabs (D-Mich) wrote:
How can Peabs settle down with all these fucking bugs on my face??????
Obvs in ‘04.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 7:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
Don’t tell me that Cos isn’t sharing those qualudes he got from Deano.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 7:58 am ¶
Rep. Peabs (D-Mich) wrote:
Coz is fucking greedy, Matt. Especially when it comes to ‘ludes. Schmobvs.
Obvs in ‘04.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 8:47 am ¶
matt wrote:
He always kicks down the pudding pops, I guess I just assumed that he shared everything else too.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 8:52 am ¶
jamie wrote:
aha, pudding pops, matt, you’re killing me.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 10:07 am ¶
gorilla wrote:
Ah the defeatist attitude, way to represent the democratic wing of the democratic party! I’m waiting to join the beat down (ass kicking) wing of the party as soon as someone starts it. I’d start it myself, but I’m lazy.
The presidential campaign starts at the close of the democratic convention and if they are up big they will win. Whatever the post convention boost the democrats get, Bush has an extra month of unfettered spending to kill it, only after his convention does he have to abide by federal spending limts. Wake me up when we get there, cause it’s gonna be a long boring road ’til labor day.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 10:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
Not defeatist, realistic. I’ve given significant amounts of money to the Democratic party, as well as Clark and Kerry, and will continue to work to get a Dem elected in November.
If the election was held on its merits, Kerry would win. But I have been watching this administration (and the campaign before that) since early 2000, and if there is one thing I know it’s that these people will not give up power. End of story.
I imagine the next few months will be anything but boring, especially Rickard Clarke’s book about pre 9-11 national security briefings comes out later this month.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 11:06 am ¶
gorilla wrote:
Realism is the rationalization of a defeatist. I’m sure you’ve given lots of money to the dems, as I said you represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, there are lots of you.
I on the other hand gave them $10 and later in the year, I might give them $10 more, because I am cheap as well as lazy. This is not significant, but does underscore that while our votes count the same, your dem influence is potentially exponential, except for the primary dollars you wasted talking to yourself.
The dems can win and they will win, as you suggest Florida or Ohio is ready to fall electorally to the dems, Mi and Penn will hold, the rest is gravy.
Don’t give up yet, most voters, much less regular people aren’t paying attention yet. If you get caught up in the horse race bullshit that passes for political coverage you’ve already lost.
The middle is soft, and it doesn’t much like Bush, hold the line and the Dems will win and then we can complain that the new Pres is too conservative a la Clinton.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 1:49 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Realism is the rationalization of a defeatist.
And irony is the new black.
Do you really doubt that the administration would do absolutely anything to stay in office?
>your dem influence is potentially exponential, except for the >primary dollars you wasted talking to yourself.
My dem influence is not so high. I send them money, they send me more junk mail. I give because i couldn’t stand the thought of them running out of money in an election year. my primary money wasn’t “wasted” as I gave money to the candidate (Clark) whom I thought would have made the best leader of the bunch.
>as I said you represent the democratic wing of the Democratic >Party
I really can’t tell if you are having fun with me or you think I’m a Dean supporter or if you are talking out of your bungholio.
If i’m in any wing of the Democratic Party, it is the neo-lib wing, and only because there is no center-right party in this country.
On a level playing field, FL, OH, MI, and PA would all go dem, as would most of the other swing states. But we’re not on a level playing field, and the other team has all of the control.
I certainly haven’t given up, but my hard won position of “internet know-nothing know-it-all” would be in jeopardy if I did not make predictions on events.
>Don’t give up yet, most voters, much less regular people aren’t >paying attention yet.
This is what keeps me awake at night. A) because there is just no excuse for that, and B) the president’s team will not continue to be as wobbly as they are now, and they will have it together by the time the people start paying attention.
>If you get caught up in the horse race bullshit that passes for >political coverage you’ve already lost.
If I’ve lost, then certainly the terrorists have won
>The middle is soft, and it doesn’t much like Bush, hold the line >and the Dems will win and then we can complain that the new >Pres is too conservative a la Clinton.
They may not like his policies, but until very recently, they liked and trusted him. If his number was closer to 40 than it was 50, i’d be ok with it. but it is about 50, and with the exception of a glib cheap shot he took at Kerry last week, he hasn’t really started to fight.
I am taking all bets if you want to put your chips in play. Current 1115.org odds are 12 to 1 in favor of bush.
I’m also taking bets on VP nominees, a 5 star dinner in NYC has already been bet.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 2:39 pm ¶
evan wrote:
You know who’d be a great VP? Oprah. The Dems pick her and they win in a landslide.
Posted 01 Mar 2004 at 3:04 pm ¶
gorilla wrote:
Recently democrats have been characterised, not by their political views, or even the diversity of views in their party, but by their willingness to let the Republicans control the national agenda. Of couse a White House that subverted the constitutional check on the ellectoral college with the courts will try to stay in power.
Of couse you are a liberal, at least in the Bill Clinton sense of the word. Your political belifes are not in question, at least not by me.
Your confusion over my point is exactly my concern, you’re focused on “your” beliefs and your perceptions of the country’s propensity to be bamboosled — “I am smart, they are dumb”. You’ve additionally rationalized that Bush will cheat again to reinforce your point that defeat is inevitable. He could cheat, but the probablity that the election ends up in the courts again is very low, spending more money and being a liar aren’t really cheating in this system, just doplorable.
The POINT is dems need some of the self confidence and bravado of the other side — we need to do a better job in managing issues and taking those issues to the faithful and beyond.
Bush only “cheats” with deflections like Iraq, no child left behind, homeland security, etc. because the dems let him. The attitude that he’s already won, the lovable loser rationalization is endemic to this problem.
Posted 02 Mar 2004 at 10:47 am ¶
matt wrote:
>their willingness to let the Republicans control the national >agenda.
100%
>Of couse a White House that subverted the constitutional check >on the ellectoral college with the courts will try to stay in >power.
All 1st term presidents want to stay in power. It’s the lengths that they will go to to stay in power that is the deciding factor. Do they run on the merits of their policies, or do they politicize everything and hide anything they can from the light of the voters? I think we know what this administration is willing to do.
>Your confusion over my point is exactly my concern, you’re >focused on “your” beliefs and your perceptions of the country’s >propensity to be bamboosled — “I am smart, they are dumb”.
I think i’m equally focused on what the dems should do and why what they are doing now isn’t really working. I watch polls every day, and when i see people’s beliefs on what is really going on, it PROVES that they have been bamboozled. I’m looking for the study that answers another of your concerns that we went back and forth on a few weeks ago, but the headline number from that survey was 19% of Americans think that they are in the top 1% of income. The low end of the top 1% is around $300,000, and median wage is about 40,000. Still, the republicans will play culture wars and get people who make less than average wages to vote for them and then enact plans that redistribute wealth up. And then call democratic tactics “class warfare”.
I blame the dem leadership of gephart/pelosi and daschele/reid and the press. The dem leaders are too meek and willing to compromise, and the press has reduced its role to parroting administration talking points.
>You’ve additionally rationalized that Bush will cheat again to >reinforce your point that defeat is inevitable. He could cheat, >but the probablity that the election ends up in the courts again >is very low, spending more money and being a liar aren’t really >cheating in this system, just doplorable.
It won’t end up in the courts this time, this much is true. but evidence of the cheating is already happening in special elections for vacant house races. posters telling people to pay their parking tickets before they vote, settle warrants, and pay child support are appearing in minority neighborhoods where these races are taking place in order to suppress the vote. think this won’t happen in the general election?
There’s nothing “lovable” about being a loser. The dems need new leaders and a new attitude. that’s part of what we are trying to do here, and the pessimism/realism is the result of the same old dems doing the same old things.
as i said, kerry’s campaign is doing the right thing by staying offense and not giving ground. but we’ll see what happens when the bush ads start running on thursday.
Posted 02 Mar 2004 at 11:11 am ¶
tom wrote:
“19% of Americans think that they are in the top 1% of income”
hahahahahahaha. man, too many people are too stupid. you gotta find that poll man, its too brilliant. i wonder how many of those people get their election coverage from the daily show?
Posted 02 Mar 2004 at 11:36 am ¶
gorilla wrote:
Now your getting fired up, I like that, put that with today’s post and you’re getting somewhere.
Posted 02 Mar 2004 at 2:04 pm ¶