Rove types will point out that the only poll that makes any difference is the one in the first week of every other November.

They also believe that if your popularity is too high, you're not trying hard enough. 70% approval ratings give you the "political capital" Dubya talks about.  That's 19% more than you need. What do you do with it?

I've tried to say this may times without getting anyone's attention, but Republicans live in a world of events, actions, initiatives, and gambles, whereas Democrats live in the world of regularities, norms, standard procedures, overall truths, and laws. On the average, people are mostly Democrats. In the first week of November, they're 51% Republican, and that's all they need.

That's what the guy was talking about with his sneer about "reality-based" Democrats.

"The point is not to understand the world, but to change it". 

I agree with what has been stated above and furthermore it just seems like people didn't LIKE Kerry.  I saw something elsewhere in the Cafe beating up on him for his Health Care for kids thing he is promoting and they seem to suggest that he just shut up and go away.  As if it was Kerry's fault for not winning.  Afterall, the guy did get something like 59 million votes. 

I think it would be interesting to do a poll to see if any swinging has swung...Not just for poops and giggles so much as it might be an indicator of what is to come in 2006?!

If the election were held today, not only would all the smears be in place, but all the electoral irregularities and e-voting black box tricks would be in place.

We all have to recognize that any possible candidate is going to be human and have weaknesses and the Rove machine is going to be prepared to attack and exploit  and smear those  weaknesses and make them appear to be much worse than they are.

So it's time to stop blaming Kerry for being who he is and deal with this reality and devise a strategy for dealing with it. 

have expressed a lot of "buyer's remorse" over their Bush votes. Many of them tell me that they still would not have voted for Kerry, but they would have just stayed home.

Most of these folks had serious reservations about Bush (all of them were moderate-leaning conservatives who traditionally vote Republican, and it would have taken a miracle for them have to voted Democrat regardless), but still, had these people sat home in November......

Side note: I wooed and harranged and informed many of these voters prior to the election. Many of the things I predicted Bush would do, and they said that he would not, he did. They still, however, refuse to admit that fact outright. Guess it's something in the GOP water...

Their biggest qualms:

1- They thought many Bush cabinet members, especially Rumsfeld, would be purged.

2- They wanted Colin Powell to stay on at any cost.

3- They assumed after the Iraqi elections things would finally cool down and gradual troop withdrawals would begin.

4- They never believed that Bush would actually go after Social Security.

5- They expected future nominations and policies to be moderate to ease the political tension.

Why they expected these things given Bush's track record, I have no idea. But that's what I'm hearing, and I thought I would share.

One last thing, almost all say they will most likely not vote "in protest" in 2006, and will do the same in 2008 unless a McCain, Giuliani, Powell, etc, gets the nomination. That said, if any of those ran under the Democratic ticket, they still would be hesitant to vote Democrat. So us moving to the center would seemingly not affect these voters (so let's not do it, k?).

I'd rather see how a California-style recall shaped up.

Bush would lose "big-time" on the first question (to recall or not). Much worse than he would have done in November on the same question.

But I don't know if that means he would lose to Kerry if the vote were held again today. The dynamic of that race would still hold, I think, even given Bush's Social Security and Iraq debacles. Kerry would still have to prove himself a viable President. And he'd still have to go up against the likes of the Swift Boat Liars.

I think Presidential historians will look back on the election of 2004 as a real anomaly, with Bush's win being seen as due to the post-9/11 haze we as a country are beginning to come out of only now.

The question is not fair, but I'll answer it anyway.

Not fair, because Bush is squandering his capital on suicidal things like SS gutting, something he would not be doing if he were running for reelection.

My answer is, Bush would win. Because the Dems don't have a message (unless whining is messaging).

Only Dean has guts, and look how he scares our own party, for crying out loud. What wimps have we become?

The Dems is run by old ladies of both sexes!

Can we get a do-over of the Democratic primary?  Just sayin'...

Then Bush and Rove had the gall to say that there was somekind of mandate in Bush's reelection.  A mandate?  If Ohio goes our way we win...and that is a "Bush mandate"?  They are the spin masters without peers.  They even have Bush out there saying there is support for his Social Security privatization proposal.  As bad as his poll numbers look I hate to say if the election was held again today Bush would probably still win somehow.  I would give all the credit to Rove.  I despise but am in awe of the job he does.  The GOP is amazing at staying on message and the left is still busy bashing each other, if Rick Heller's thread from earlier today is any indication, instead of the GOP.  We need to put our parochial issues aside and come up with a platform we can all agree on and one we will all fully support.  Then we work out any differences we have amongst ourselves once we get in power. 

Well, the exit polls said Kerry was leading.  Now you say that in a new poll more people say they voted for Kerry than for Bush.  One explanation is they want to misremember.  Another is that the voting machines were fixed.

Most of these folks had serious reservations about Bush (all of them were moderate-leaning conservatives who traditionally vote Republican, and it would have taken a miracle for them have to voted Democrat regardless)



I have somewhat reluctantly come to the conclusion that a lot of "moderate Republicans" who are not happy with Bush voted for him anyway, because they felt "safe" in doing so... they believed that the "moderates" or the "Democrats" or the "somebodies" would keep him (and the extremist Republicans in the House and Senate) from going too far. So far, they've been right. We've stopped (so far) the phase out of Social Security. We "saved" (so far) the filibuster. We've blocked (so far) the Bolton nomination.



(I developed this line of thought more thoroughly in a blog post about the 'Filibuster Deal" if you're interested.)



I'm not particularly proud about kinda-sorta wishing dire consequences on the people who are relying on "us" (Democrats, and to a lesser extent, moderate Republicans) to save them from the consequences of their actions (not to mention the dire consequences for the country), but I can't deny that I think it's a big part of the reason those moderates felt secure in voting "party" over "reservations."



Bottom line, I don't think a rematch would come out differently today. It's kind of like the "boiling frog" analogy - the water's getting warmer all the time, but it's still not hot enough for these folks to jump.

The next Do-Over is scheduled in November of 2006 -- mid-term elections. One will be able to judge if Bush's re-election was a fluke depending on how many seats in the House ands Senate the Republicans can hold on to.

Also note that Bush made a fatal mistake in the last election; he kept Cheney on the ticket. Fatal in that once Bush's term is over, there isn't anyone capable of taking the reins.

This past election was the opportune time to dump Cheney for someone to become the golden child for the next Presidential election. As it now stands, the Republicans are in a panaic over who will represent them in 2008. Notice the MSM is carrying stories of Frist, Rice, Laura Bush, and others as possible candidates. There was even one that hinted at a McCain-Bush ticket.

I think its safe to say that the Republicans have shot their wad and have nothing to show for it. Their only hope is for the Democrats to nominate a candidate that they can tear to shreds in an election campaign.

regards

Unfortunately I think the result would be the same. Once it came to a campaign the ability of the neo-cons to manipulate the MSM would trump the basic problems of the Bush Administration that are obvious at this time.

And the MSM is invariably in favor of the incumbent. Security and comfort are best maintained by what you already think you know.

The election is determined by a very small percentage of voters. Without personally interviewing them I would guess many of them voted for Clinton's second term and Bush's second term. To those on the right and the left this would seem impossible because they hate that guy.

One of the key elements in a reelection is that that middle group fundamentally believes in the myth of the good person. Clinton/Bush has his faults but he is not insane or evil. This is true to them because they cannot believe The POTUS can be insane or evil. From their perspective "reality" will not allow this definition of the POTUS. It is anathema in the American faith.

Short of multiple camera angles showing the POTUS killing his wife they will never accept this idea.

The effort to defeat Bush should have been to peel away by very thin layers this middle group. This effort needed to begin the moment his first election was decided by the court. The attack should have been directed and focused on the most diseased and cancerous of his supporters always with an eye to creating tension between this middle group and the extremists.

Someone can more easily accept that a good President is led astray by a bad advisor--they never voted for him/her and that person is usually unelectable (Cheney/Rumsfeld). People can also believe that a single policy is misguided--Bush's Social Security plan (unfortunately not part of his first term agenda).

As you cut away the evil poison the center will slowly, and on their own, begin to equate the POTUS with his bad advisors (why does he keep picking these jerks) and his bad policies. But the key is that they have to "discover" on their own. The Downing Street Minutes is a beautiful example. If you hate Bush it is a whack right to the head. But if you love America and respect the POTUS you need to believe that it isn't so clear-cut as all that.

That's why the Right isn't really discussing it. They are just sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). When you don’t have a product differentiator FUD is basic marketing. As long as they can keep the ball up in the air that the DSM is “not clear evidence” or is in some way “questionable” the public will avoid reality.

I was young during Watergate but focus on the timeline. From the break-in till the Resignation was almost three years. It took almost two years for the middle to accept that the President “may have” lied. Many of them still WANT to believe that he somehow got bad advice.

The main focus on ending the neo-con parade should be in identifying the smallest fragment of their support which is most easily and obviously different from the center. Make the center realize that that tiny fragment is bad—that it is not like “us.” And hammer that fragment until it is dust. Then identify the next.

President Bush is no longer an issue. His bad policies and bad choice in friends are the issue. Do you want four more years of Donald Rumsfeld? Do you want six more years of Frist?

And right now John McCain, which of the President’s worst policies is he enabling. Add any other possible candidate to the mix.

And to the Whackos who want to define/label/criticize the Democratic Party Strata Whether Left/Center/Right…shut the hell up. The publishers of “Chevy Tahoe Magazine” don’t editorialize on how the Tahoe is superior and has more power than the Chevy Blazer. It kicks the Ford’s ass in their book period end of story. They never complain that the Tahoe, “would sell even better if it wasn’t for the marketing support, or lack thereof, from GM (which is ALWAYS true but if you say that outside the company you get canned).  And they never say the CEO is a blow-hard or misspoke. THEY ALWAYS SAY he was MISINTERPRETED.

Somewhere this went from a response to a rant. Oh well. 

Kerry lost because he was a very incompetent candidate,

I absolutely agree with this post.  He was terrible.  Can any of you remember a time when Kerry was talking that you were compelled to say YES! That is what I believe! He was so careful that he seemed to lack any convctions at all.  I was deeply disappointed with him.  He made a huge mistake by playing up his military record in his convention appearance.  Jut let that speak for itself and let others make the point for you.  It seemed contrived, self-aggrandizing and staged.

He should not have proposed a raft of new spending on health care so that his budget numbers did not add up.  He should have said " I am going to repeal the reckless Bush tax cuts and get the country back on sound fiscal footing.  If there is any money left over, I would like to try to extend health care to the uninsured." He could have won over the fiscally conservative social liberals with that approach but I bet his neulous yet expensive health care plan did not get him one vote.

Plus, these Swift Boat guys had been dogging him for years and he knew well in advance that they would be putting this book out.  How could he not have a canned response ready for them? He seemed to be caught totally off guard.

And finally, when asked "Would you vote the same way today on the war in Iraq?" he should have said "HELL NO! If I had known that Bush was going to bungle this so badly I never would have supported it!"

He was terrible.  Bush was beatable, but Kerry was totally uninspiring. I would never support a second Kerry candidacy.

I thought about this a lot since the election.  in April, Zogby did a poll and it showed that Bush still would've been re-elected back then.  Granted, things have changed quite a bit since then. 

My guess on a do-over election right now is that the popular vote might change quite a bit, but Bush would still win the electoral college and would therefore still be re-elected.  But that's assuming that everyone who voted in the do-over voted in the first election.  My reasoning is that we've learned nothing new (really) that a person couldn't have suspected with a reasonable inspection of available evidence.  In other words, a Bush voter isn't likely to change their vote for Kerry. 

However, if we didn't make that assumption and it was a true do-over - anyone can vote who didn't previously or vice-versa, I think the election would be much closer.  Kerry might even win the popular vote (because I think Bush would receive fewer votes).  I'd have to say the electoral college would be a toss up.  Again, Ohio would still probably be the key. 

Of course, if there was a full election build-up and all that, Bush would win comfortably, despite all of recent unpopularity.  Rove would push the terrorism fear and Bush would never say anything about Social Security.

Let's face it, what you call the Bush team's "cynical brilliance" in disregarding public opinon would, if done by a Democratic President, be considered as enlightened and principled leadership, unconstrained by cynical electoral calculations.

I'm not a Bush fan at all, but this sounds like the kind of Democratic president that we would have liked more than Clinton.

Absolutely right.  Kerry made a major mistake in playing up his war record.  Obviously, he wanted to make the point that he had been in combat and Bush hadn't, but it's really basically irrelevant to being president.  He should have made the point and moved on.

He also, IMO, should have laid out a realistic Democratic foreign policy for the world, not just Iraq.  After all, Iraq is not the only foreign policy issue.  And, anyway, he did a lousy job on Iraq--just Bush-lite as far as I'm concerned.

What the Dems need are NO MORE POLICY WONKS (ie, Dukakis and Kerry).  Clinton was wonkish in some ways, but had much more ability to relate to people.  I would like to sit down and have a drink with Clinton--would anybody want to do that with Kerry?  Elections are about passion and charisma and "values" rather than credentials. 

I suspect that one reason the polls show Bush tanking even though he won the election is that the difference is who voted and who didn't. The people responding to these polls didn't all necessarily vote. To me, this proves that notwithstanding all the handwringing about culture of life, who lost Kansas and just how far to the right the Democrats must go to ever win again, what they really need to do is give the 40 percent or 50 percent of the electorate who don't vote a reason to vote Democratic. Had they done that last November, I think we wouldn't be worrying about Bush now. Bush proved your point -- that you don't have to be popular to win; you just have to be less unpopular than the other guy.

Can we do over the primaries while we're at it?

I spent time volunteering for the Kerry campaign, but I never for a moment believed that he would be a good President.  When a Republican friend commented that she believed that Kerry would be a disaster, I could reply only that it was possible to be both a disaster and an improvement.

Kerry did not deserve to win that election.  He ran a campaign premised entirely upon the idea that Bush deserved to lose.  An additional eight months worth of data might have convinced a few more voters that he was right--but he still wouldn't have deserved to win and he still wouldn't make an effective President.

The Democratic Party went into the primary season with one goal in mind: Don't offend anyone who already dislikes Bush.  We got the milquetoast candidate we deserved--a Senator with a long and undistinguished career.  Until we're prepared to do better, we don't deserve a do over.

Actually, Fox News DID ask this question in their latest poll. The way they phrased it, though, was asking the sample whether they "regretted" their choice for President.

Based on the results, the "buyers remorse" effect has not set in yet.

Both Kerry and Bush supporters said they did not regret tehir Preisdential choice at a 94% clip.

Anmd for Bush supporters, only 4% said they did, while 3% of Kerry supporters regretted their vote.

Of course, this poll also has Bush's approval rating 5 points higher than anyone else's and his disaproval rating several points LOWER.

I suspect that a REAL poll done by, say, Pew Reserach would show a samll, but legitimate buyers remorse effect. How can Bush's approval ratings drop by ten points and NOT cause people to rethink their votes?

I would have pointed out that he took as much vacation in four years as Clinton took in seven - including the whole month before 9-11 - maybe he's just not fit to be President.  The country deserves a full time President..

I think most human beings realize that Presidents are never on vacation.  Saying a President is on vacation really means he's just out of Washington for a while

Um, what elections? 
Twice, the Republicans prevented enough Democrats from voting (on the ground that they were going to vote Democrat) to take the election (though, as you may recall, Gore got more votes). In 2000, they tossed people of the registration roles for being D, and in FL's biggest Dem stronghold gave out a ballot that falsely led people to vote for Pat "I Know Them Jews Didn't Vote for Me" Buchanon. In 2004 they refused to send absentee ballots to democratic strongholds, blocked Dem phone lines, harrassed, intimadated, and threatened dems, failed to provide sufficient (pre-programmed to lie) machines, and on and on and on.
I don't consider such a set-up to constitute an election. An election is when we find out who the voters pick. If one side is systematically excluded, it ain't no election.
The "newbie" Ukranians had the right idea: We demand a real election, and refuse to recognize psuedo-election results.
Anyone have any idea how many legit voters were prevented from voting in each of those years?

Well, betrayal of trust is, technically accurate. But I think Slip-shod has more adhesion.  And it would tie all the mismanagement to Bush personally.

Slip-shod sticks in the mind space better than "flip-flopper: or "betrayal of trust." 

Its a tough call: slip-shod or betrayal of trust.
 
Finally - Kerry forgot to say something that Bush and Cheney said in 2000.  We can do better than that. America deserves better.  In the case of Bush, one could hardly do worse.

I think the important number for Bush's (re)election was the approval on handling terrorism.  It's still his best number, even though it has dropped since the election (52% approve, 40% disapprove).  Bush's team did a good job convincing Americans that Kerry was just too scary to handle terrorists and that won the election.

I forgot to mention clearly in my own previous post that it was indeed intended as a response to Josh's question.  This shouldn't be a hypothetical question.  We should actually demand that the election be done over - it was fraudulent. 

We are far more apathetic than voters in the Ukraine, or Yugoslavia.  If the situation were reversed, you better believe that Republicans would be screaming bloody murder and demanding investigations and a revote.

Well he certainy isn't one of "them".  But he didn't have so many nice things to say about people like me either, counterproductive comes to mind for one..."critique" me and I will "critique" you, so I did and vented a spleen Marc.

In 1972 Nixon won in a landslide.  Shortly after the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach him and he resigned, less than two years after that election, it was very difficult to find anyone, anywhere who had voted for him.