will bush get a second term?

in early 1990 thatcher looked unassailable: now her party is a miserable stump and she is wreckage

The last election was effectively a tie....US economic recovery is looking flakey.... corporate america is rocking from one scandal after another..... post-Afghanistan + 9/11 goodwill may evaporate as quickly as his Dad's support after Kuwait.

― stevo, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Odds are - he wins easily. Enron never the became the scandal the Dems hoped it would be (Lieberman's prayers paid off), everything that should dent Bush's poll numbers only sends them higher (a la Clinton), the economy's recovering and will be fine by 2004 (maybe in time for the midterms even), Nader's running again (he never stopped campaigning), the Gore-Edwards fight is gonna get ugly and the loser's supporters aren't going to be enthusiastic about campaigning for the winner (see GOP '76), the results of the 2000 census play in the Republicans' favor (replay the 2000 election and Bush doesn't even need Florida), we're in a war and the either/or scenario of further attacks (stay out of Vegas apparently) or no further attacks will benefit him (further attacks: people rally around Bush; no further attacks: people rally around Bush), the tax cuts he passed, spending little political capital in the process, mean either the Dems won't be able to propose any of the programs that typically win them votes or they'll have to propose raising taxes to do it (shades of Mondale), the pledge ruling and, more importantly, the Dems caught-in-the-headlights reaction to it, are icing on the cake for him (shades of Dukakis). If the Dems are stupid enough to renominate Gore (and odds are, they are), it's a landslide comparable to '96, if not '88 or '80 (no one will ever replicate '84). Someone's going to get the bump up to VP, to set up 2008. Pray it's Powell and not Ashcroft.

It should be noted too the astounding number of policy moves/appointments he's made that play favorably toward 2000 swing states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan), the steel tarriff being the most blatant. The surest way to insure a close election is to strategize like it's going to be a close election. Or he may simply have took notes from his father and learned to not believe your approval ratings too much. Still, all those pronouncements of "whoever wins is going to be a lame-duck president" during the recounts are looking pretty stupid now.

"The surest way to insure a close election is to strategize like it's going to be a close election": i don't really follow this (do you mean "insure it will be a close election" or "insure they win an election that may be close")

"we are in a war" = sounds a plausible pro-incumbent rallying factor on the face of it, except cf johnson AND bush snr... it depends on a. essential allies not going complicatedly awol (hullo pakistan), and b. the enemy playing ball (i doubt al qaeda can mount a Tet offensive, but the nature of this dimension is that ppl far more informed than the likes of me wd be taken by surprise)

i am also less than convinced that the american middle and working classes have been as effectively bought out of their resentment towards the current settlement as eight let alone 18 years ago, plus the us economy is incredibly brittle compared to the 80s or even the 90s

in early 1990 thatcher looked unassailable: now her party is a miserable stump and she is wreckage

Are you sure, Mark? I thought that was the period when Kinnock had 15-20 pct-pt leads (except, when the question was rephrased with Heseltine or Hurd as prospective Tory leader, that gap was cut to almost nothing). I could be misremembering this; it was mid-way through my final year at college, and I'm sure Thatch had reached a new nadir of unpopularity, eclipsing the 1980/81 recession era.

everyone seems to approve of him. well, not most of the people i know, but they always think the opposite of what most of the american public does, judging from past events.

haha michael i sort of plucked "early 1990" out of the air, meaning "a bit before the poll tax riots" (which were in may/june? i forget exactly): obv by the time of her removal in november she WAS totally assailable, but my sense is that the shift was really fast, and that almost no one really believed the shift was happening until it was had happened... anyway it didn't take two years to build, with everyone commenting sagely on its inevitability every step of the way

maria, that is kind of my point: everyone thinks that everyone else - except the people THEY know — totally approves of him, and so the actual (perhaps much larger) disapproval rate get kinds of slipped away in a sort of "but that's just me" self-deprecating move... ok, but how do you measure such things, except retroactively?

J, that's really impressive. So you think the best thing to hope for is continued unpredictability (like all those various mandates gained and lost)?

pessimism of the intellect = pessimism of the will: discuss

I think he'll get in again just because there doesn't appear to be an alternative that the democrats are presenting. Anyway, his administration thus far has not been viwed as a disaster. Note the swing to the centre-right in European politics (w/ Balir being the only 'socialist' ha ha). These things go in cycles.

I can only see democrats winning if the economy goes into a deep recession, or he makes a severe blunder somewhere or he is implicated in a corruption scandal.

I'm a bit unconvinced by the two J's. Pre-Sept-11th my gut reaction would have been that any halfway-reasonable Democratic candidate had an excellent shot (witness Gore's having run a generally lousy debacle of a campaign and still pulling the popular vote). Post-Sept- 11th I think the difference isn't so much pure pro-incumbent sentiment but the slightly different proposition that the dynamic of the campaign itself will be changed: you campaign against an incumbent, obviously, by arguing that they're not so hot and you could do better, the former part of which isn't yet flying again. My take here is that the Democrats would be best off campaigning against Bush in the manner that one might have campaigned against, say, Ulysses S. Grant: cast him as even possibly-heroic, but harp on the fact that the administration's work is actually performed by a disparate cadre of let's call them "sleazebags and radicals" who the American people really have no sympathy for. E.g. even if people don't follow the complicated Enron situation, it still generally reinforces the commonly-held beliefs that (a) the corporate world is full of sleazy underhanded dealings, and (b) those dealings extend to government, particularly the Republican party. (Hahaha it extends to Democrats, too, but the justifiable conventional wisdom is still Republicans + corporate boondoggles.) You can fire away on this point without seeming to question the capital-A Authority of Bush the Statesman. Ashcroft is also quite relevant here.

Also I think it's dangerous to proceed with the idea that people's patriotism and Must Support Bush attitudes mean they'll necessarily re-elect him: I think everyone in the country is thinking that, and for that very reason quite of few of them might might feel a lot more sharp-minded and non-sheeplike for voting in the other direction.

The other campaign problem is obviously that -- if the national mood doesn't change -- actual substantive issues will be cast aside as liberal bitching, and grander rhetoric about Our Safety As A Nation foregrounded: this is really really unfortunately since I think it would now be really, really easy to take Bush apart over domestic policy issues. Gore wasn't as successful with this because Bush had no national record to assail, and could spout vague pleasing generalities about what he "would do" -- a re-election campaign, though, would either expose Bush's politics as they are or demonstrate that he really has no handle on them, as the reality is that he's as puppety as any president has been in a long while. Unfortunately, "Terror" gives him a handy veil and an opportunity to dismiss his actual political presidency as unimportant.

BUT BUT BUT: as his father learned, national moods can change VERY QUICKLY, and there's still plenty of time to go. In fact, Blount's really spurious proposition -- "further attacks: people rally around Bush; no further attacks: people rally around Bush" -- has the just- as feasible inverse "further attacks: Bush failed to protect us; no further attacks: it's over with and we can vote for someone else" (cf Bush senior).

''Also I think it's dangerous to proceed with the idea that people's patriotism and Must Support Bush attitudes mean they'll necessarily re-elect him: I think everyone in the country is thinking that, and for that very reason quite of few of them might might feel a lot more sharp-minded and non-sheeplike for voting in the other direction.''

Good point but I don't think it will translate in enough votes to elect a democrat.

As far as domestic issues go even if he hasn't entirely 'delivered' he can always say: 'Well, we're half way there, give us another term and we'll get [x] done, just like in Britain. he could produce enough statistics I'm sure to back that up (just like Blair did over here).

Though again I don't know too much abt 'domestic issues' in the US so you may ignore the above.

Bush is a big monkey. No second term, no banana.

Does Bush having a second term hinge on him actually being elected, or literally just that.... just having a second term? (I'm utterly unconvinced he was elected to a first term.)

I need to look up what would happen if for some curious, unforeseen reason, martial law is declared. After all, the terrorists would just love to bomb poll stations, as they just HATE democracy so much... or so we have been told by such wise men as Bush and Cheney. Just stay home November 2004. Stay safe.

Edwards is the Democrats best hope - ever since Nixon's southern strategy the Dems have only won when they hold their own in the south, usually by nominating a southerner. Gore doesn't count - ask anyone in Tennessee (hell, ask Gore). If they're smart they'll go with Edwards (charismatic southerners have worked wonders for the Dems against the Bushes), and maybe try to seal the deal with Graham in the VP slot (giving it to Hillary is either a horrible idea or a great idea; I'm leaning towards horrible). I'm surprised Bush hasn't usurped more centrist-Clinton Democrat positions to immunize himself from Democrat attacks (so far the only issue he's stolen somewhat is prescription drugs for seniors, and this has only been by increments, not through the single, sweeping decision you can point to on the stump). Unlike in 2000, the "American People" know who George W. Bush is now, and by and large respect and, more importantly, like him. Even his gargled malapropisms are viewed with some affection, like a dada Yogi Berra (Jacob Weisberg's Bushisms has sold to Democrats and Republicans alike). The corporate scandals theoretically should hurt the GOP (let's see what happens in the mid-terms), though considering how in bed most of the Dems were with WorldCom you can expect that to be tempered somewhat (selfpreservation is every politician's first instinct). Anything can happen in two years (in 1990 no one thought Bush could be defeated; in 1994 no one thought Clinton was a one- termer), but I'd be surprised if Bush doesn't win. I'd also be surprised if the Dems don't regain control of the house by then also.

"I need to look up what would happen if for some curious, unforeseen reason, martial law is declared. After all, the terrorists would just love to bomb poll stations, as they just HATE democracy so much... or so we have been told by such wise men as Bush and Cheney. Just stay home November 2004. Stay safe." - or maybe aliens will invade. Just as plausible.

"in 1994 no one thought Clinton was a one-termer" - should read everyone thought Clinton was a one-termer.

actually, about the aliens....

I don't truly expect another attack in 2004. It just seems as if they would use terror alerts as irresponsibly as possible, just as they use them now to kill the coverage for any breaking negative story against them.

Between a real terrorist attack during the elections and an alien invasion, the aliens seem far more plausible.

erm what is the story on that anthrax btw?

It is far too early to lay odds on a Bush second term. The issue that works in his favor is the general terrorist threat since 9/11. The issues that work aganst him are his close ties to big business (in an era when big business corruption is in plain sight) and his relentless anti-environmentalism. If his opponent has credible military credentials and is seen as an effective war leader, while being less of a captive to the religious right, big business and social conservatives, then Bush is dead meat.

"If his opponent has credible military credentials and is seen as an effective war leader" - name one Democrat this applies to.

gwb's rabbit-in-the-headlights wide-open vulnerable dimness works for him: he's surprisingly easy to catch yrself feeling SORRY for

but it cd wear thin v.quickly if he's faced with the wrong kind of crisis (like one where he has to choose between his own advisors, and slap one of em down) (the permanent war for control within his camp is not going to die down: it's kind of like when a child became monarch in the middle ages => result = civil war among potential stewards)

Reading matter!

turns out i maybe misoverestimated bush, thank god * fingers crossed *