Chuck Todd: Landslide for Kerry?

Landslide for Kerry?

In the Washington Monthly, The Hotline's Chuck Todd gets all contrarian about the conventional wisdom that the 2004 election will be a squeaker like 2000.

"There are perfectly understandable reasons why we expect 2004 to be close. Everyone remembers the nail-biting 2000 recount. A vast number of books and magazine articles describe the degree to which we are a 50/50 nation and detail the precarious balance between red and blue states. And poll after poll show the two candidates oscillating within a few percentage points of one another. There are also institutional factors that drive the presumption that the race will be tight. The press wants to cover a competitive horse-race. And the last thing either campaign wants to do is give its supporters any reason to be complacent and stay home on election day."

"But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout."


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.tod

But landslide in modern terms, more 52(D)-46(R)-1(I)-1(other) or so.

that the 'undecideds' are more likely to go against the incumbent, esp. when his record is as utterly FOUL as the insipid chimp's

hope so!

Incumbent Races: Closer Than They Appear

by Nick Panagakis

http://www.socastee.com/all_politics/incumbent_races.htm

(Nick Panagakis, a member of the National Council on Public Polls, is
president of Market Shares Corporation, a marketing and public opinion
research firm headquartered in Mt. Prospect, Ill. This article
appeared in the February 27, 1989 edition of The Polling Report.)

How will undecideds vote on election day? Traditionally, there have
been two schools of thought about how undecideds in trial heat
match-ups will divide up at the ballot box. One is that they will
break equally; the other, that they will split in proportion to poll
respondents who stated a candidate preference.

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an
incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time,
most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

<more>

"Mr Carter, I mean Mr. Bush, what are your plans to assist Mr Kerry in the transition?"

Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye...

on this server." Went to Wash Monthly and still can't find the article.

Thanks! :-)'s if you can redirect.

when I used the 'copy shortcut' option, it truncated the link...

:( And I want to read some good news!

bad link in the Salon "war room" column....

it's the Hotline column

And since the polls are tied, they predict that Kerry will win.

I cannot see how BushCo can win big so they may be right.

how long to keep telling us the emperor has clothes? When will the rats jump ship?

It looks like they've decided to avoid talking about Bush altogether, preferring
to write the ridiculous Kerry "scandal" stories. But how long can they keep that
up?

Not only does Kerry lack substance and vision, he is not attractive, physically or emotionally. He is not a likeable character. He doesn't connect well, he doesn't relate well, he doesn't project well. He comes across, flat, phoney and insincere. He is his own worst liability. His advantages are that he doesn't threaten the status quo, he is a member of the ruling elite and voters are desperate enough to settle for that over a Bush disaster. When it should be a landslide, Kerry will win only by default when it should be no contest with a better candidate..

Glad to hear you trash the Democratic candidate here in Democratic Underground. You are a real inspiration to us all.

Perhaps you need a different forum where you can actually support their candidate?

I am shaking in my boots, party boy. Musta hit a nerve, musta hit on an uncomfortable truth. Wait a minute I'm still trying to click my heels together and mumble the proper pledge. Now what words were changed again?

Achtung, der DLC Sir, sir patrolling the threads, defining the perimeters, barking orders, abusing party insurgents who don't stand quietly in line when the torture starts. :hi:

Surely you would feel more comfortable at some other board.

We really like President Kerry here, and are doing everything we can to help him win.

You dictate what is discussed and who can discuss it?

Did you support Bush's crusade to wage illegal and immoral war? Kerry did, oh yes, he attempts to nuance his position, but he cast his vote. And when the last blinder has been pulled off and there were no WMDs, there were no links to Al Queda, and hell, it is starting to look like there is not much difference between life under Saddam and life under US occupation, your big war hero still supports it... Yet, we are supposed to overlook this and in thread after thread, complain about it endlessly, but ignore it when it applies to Kerry. Why bother to discuss it all? Every thread should be titled "Kerry" and every word of every post should be "Kerry" and nothing else if you believe that is all that matters under the (progressive?) Democratic party banner.

Did you support Bush's crusade to wage illegal and immoral war? Kerry did, oh yes, he attempts to nuance his position, but he cast his vote.

What should Kerry have done? Reflexively said "No!" like a toddler, and watched as the Republicans drafted a resolution that would have authorized force throughout the Middle East? Or do what he did - trade his support for limitations on what Bush could do?

And when the last blinder has been pulled off and there were no WMDs, there were no links to Al Queda, and hell, it is starting to look like there is not much difference between life under Saddam and life under US occupation, your big war hero still supports it...

Hardly - Kerry is on the record that going to war when we went was a mistake; he wanted to let the inspectors finish doing their job. Had that happened, we would have found that there were no weapons, and not gone to war.

Now that we've toppled the existing government, we have a moral obligation to help construct a new one. Do not conflate supporting that goal with supporting the incredibly bad way Bush has handled reconstruction.

Your goal seems to be to the goal of all negative campaigns - drive down voter turnout among supporters.

resolve a lot of the bullshit.

Kerry's not perfect, and we have a right to try to improve his candidacy. But constantly slamming him just poisons the atmosphere.

Go vote for Chimpy if it makes you feel better. But why pollute Democratic Underground - which is officially supporting the Democratic nominee, who barring an act of God, is John Kerry.

We've got enough to do to get Chimpy and his gang of criminals out of the White House.

Sorry, can't accomodate you.

Still, what does that have to do with any discussion of the political landscape?

question? :shrug:

you make me sleep, just like boring Repugs do.

Side by side, the American sheeple (who may be dumb, but aren't quite as dumb as Karl Rove wishes they were) will see that their is no contest as far as "statesmanship" (assuming it's even possible for one to consider such an obviously ignorant, unqualified neanderthal like Bushler in that regard)!

You know how many primaries he's lost? Exactly three - one to Clark, one to Edwards, and one to Dean.

I guess that's him "not connecting with voters," eh?

Maybe it's just me, but I always enjoy listening to JK. I find him intelligent and interesting, I don't watch politicians for entertainment.

Plus, no Diebold stock, him.

Kerry has held his own in all the polls, and Bush has done absolutely NOTHING good to his credit.
It may be a walk.

But there isn't much left that's "trustworthy" here in the Empire.

Our media is Sovietized.

Our government of checks and balances is parasitized.

Our Voting Systems the same. That is discounting both Manual Disenfranchisement and ballot-stuffing strategies not to mention all the "legal illegality" of misusing laws like the Calif. Recall, or of Extreme Gerrymandering.

Kerry can only hope for as squeaker, because the Busheviks start off with a 10% lead automatically, IMHO.