|
You have to look at the 2004 race in terms of electoral allocation to get a clear picture.
Presently, Bush's approval ratings are between 50-60 percent, and, as is usual, his re-elects are lower. Now, obviously the landscape could be vastly different come November, but if the Iraqi resistance continues at its current pace, given demographic trends over the past four years, the election should be somewhat of a rehash of 2000.
Obviously, the advantage of incumbency now belongs to the GOP, but it should still be incredibly close. Al Gore ran a pretty uninspiring (to democrats + swing voters) campaign in 2000. If someone in the Dean mold could employ more effective rhetoric, he could appeal to a greater cross section of those groups.
But Dean's electibility is a topic for another thread. What's at issue here is the fact that, with only I believe 9 electoral votes (based on 2000) changing on account of the census, a Democrat winning Al Gore's states + one or two others would win.
And Al Gore did horribly in the South (he lost his home state) perhaps due to his inept campaign, something a Clark or Edwards on the ticket could remedy.
That said, Bush has the bully pulpit and he will be able to define the debate. It all comes down to (in large part) who has the more effective economic stump speech - no matter how well the economy performs, deficits and massive debt will remain for the foreseeable future. If the Democrat can use these unfortunate facts effectively, he's got a shot.
__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer
|