President Bush will be opposed by the eventual Democrat nominee (most probably Howard Dean)---and the hostile liberal media. The latter subconsciously see it as their duty to assist the Democrats. I am convinced that George W. Bush has an 80% chance of being reelected, but it would be 95% if the “mainstream” media weren’t out to destroy him. The current Democrats tend to be so liberal that a New Democrat candidate like Bill Clinton wouldn’t stand a chance. Indeed, the former President is not sufficient liberal to keep the hard core Democrats content! Neo-Liberals such as Brad DeLong, James Fallows, and Larry Lessig, will likely endure a long, dark night of the soul on election day, 2004.

Daniel Drezner makes a big deal about unemployment and the Iraq situation. However, it is the way the media frame these issues that negatively impacts on Bush. Logically speaking, why is the present unemployment rate so dangerous to the incumbent? Isn’t it still under 7%? Also, why do our universities seem to graduate a bunch of historical illiterates? Are some folks totally unaware that we have lost very few soldiers in Iraq considering what we have already accomplished? We are being at least very successful, if not even outrageously so. For heaven’s sake, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and things are getting vastly better on the daily basis. This is one of the central reasons why the Arab nutballs are coming out of the woodwork. They rightfully sense that Iraq will become a stable democratic nation---and relatively prosperous--- within a few years. This sends a clear message to the rest of the reactionaries residing in the surrounding Muslim countries. Their old way of doing things will no longer be tolerated.

Well, Mr. Thompson - Since I can't improve on that, I'll second it.

Here's to the new way - Cheers.

"Liberal Media"...Please tell me you don't actually believe that crap. I couldn't believe how many times Hawkins, et al referred to this in the discussion. This is the same "liberal" media that gave President Bush a pass during the 2000 election and through most of his first term (rightly so, in the months following 9/11). If the Bush Administration is receiving less than stellar coverage now, it's not the fact that they are liberal, it's that the press corp is tired of repeatedly being played, as in fast and loose with the truth.

Nice discussion...although I will admit that I found myself skipping to comments by Dan and just scanning what the other two guys had to say. Has anyone read the Sy Hersh article call Stovepipe?

Mike Hendrix: I believe it was at 7% during the Clinton recession was it not?

That was a weird statement. Did Clinton ever have a recession? I know when Bush I left office, the economy was growing, and when Clinton left, wasn't the economy growing?

Secondly, are people dropped off unemployment rolls considered in the unemployment rate?

“Does anyone think Arnold's victory requires the Dem nominee to work harder for California? “

Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush merely need to be moderately popular to force the Democrats to spend precious time and money in California. Nobody should forget that Al Gore barely visited the state during the 2000 campaign. The majority of California voters, regretfully, are stark raving flakes. Still, Bush might capture the crown if everything breaks right. If nothing else, the Democrats won’t be able to take anything for granted.

California has far too many college educated yuppies who spend most of their waking hours devising brilliant business models. Sadly, they are almost functional illiterates regarding politics or anything else not pertaining to increasing their growing bank accounts. Knee jerking to the liberal zeitgeist is far easier than doing any real studying of the issues. They are also usually pro-choice on abortion and therefore believe that this somehow obligates them to embrace the total liberal package. A social liberal like Shwarzenegger may very well encourage them to take a fresh look at Milton Friedman’s economic views.

I'm surprised the issue of Bush's veep didn't get addressed. Did everyone think Cheney stays?

Mr. Chan raises an excellent point. I suppose you would have to, per convention, even if he were not a good choice - which is not the case. (The resident Buzzflashers in residence not withstanding).

Which would leave us only with the issue of health, which is were I assume yuou're coming from, Hei Lun. And even if that was a legitimate concern for Lynn, the papers would not treat it as such (Professor D's new view of an eventual end to liberal bias notwithstanding) (heh).

All that said, I'd love for Condi to VP, so she could run in 08. Now that would be something.

My one fear in 2004 is that Bush may be much more competitive in California (because of Schwartzenegger) and New York (because of 9-11), but still not do well enough to win either state. If the Democrat picks up ground in the industrial Midwest and wins Florida, it would make it difficult for Bush to win. So, if this gets to be a close race (and right now it doesn't look like it will be), then it's possible that President Bush could lose the election while winning the popular vote -- the reverse of 2000.

While I'm very pleased our blog host is pessimistic about the 2004 election, I don't agree that the Midwest is where the struggle will take place. If California is in play, then the election is such a Democratic disaster, the details don't matter. It won't be in play. Bush's social views line up more with McClintock than Schwarzenegger and he won't get any of the crossover vote (20% for A.S. in the gubernatorial race).

I'm not sure I see the Democrats losing any of the states they won in 2000 (except FL, a lost cause; maybe MN), and IIRC the two closest were NM and IA. In NM, Nader was a big factor; I don't see a repeat. I see 2004 being fought over NH, WV, NV, AZ. If the Democrats win Ohio, Bush can concede in the Eastern Time Zone. (I realize I don't live in a place likely to have Gore 2K/ Bush 2004 voters, but does anyone have a real poll about them? I think they will be thin on the ground.)

Seconds to Andrew- Cali being potentially competitve is a media non-story story. Sort of like the Hillary campaign, something talking heads like to chatter about.

Read some Josh Mashall about the walking disaster that is Dick Cheney before calling him a good Veep. Insofar as most Veeps were nonentities, Cheney's net minus makes him one of the worst Veeps ever, IMO. (of course, that's like the "Worst 12th man" award in basketball). If Cheney steps down for "health reasons", it would probably mean that the GOP wanted to groom a comer for 2008 or shore up the ticket, not that Dick was worried about his health.

I dont necessarily see Rice as the Veep under those circumstances. I think he would grab someone from some swing state like Ohio or Florida.

Wu

Dave Thomson, do you have a blog? or are you in charge of steering each comment thread here at Drezner's?