Four Scenarios for November
Will Bush's troubles sink him? Can Kerry close the deal? Here are some possible outcomes -- each one well within reason
This much seems certain: The 2004 Presidential election outcome will probably be a stunner -- as if 2000 were a boring affair. George W. Bush is clearly in trouble, with his approval ratings dropping in the low- to mid-40s. Consider that the five most recent incumbent Presidents who won re-election never dipped below 50% at any point during the election year, while the three whose ratings did -- Bush's father, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford -- all lost.
Advertisement
And yet, the President's challenger, Democrat John Kerry, can't seem to gain any traction. Despite a string of horrendous news from Iraq for Bush and an uncertain economy, the two main contenders have been running neck and neck for months, with most polls reporting that neither candidate is able to attract the support of more than 47% of the electorate. Indeed, the only Presidential wanna-be with any momentum is independent Ralph Nader, who has been garnering between 5% and 6% with his out-of-Iraq-now rhetoric -- a policy neither Bush nor Kerry will espouse.
So what's going to happen in November? Here are four plausible scenarios:
• Al Qaeda Strikes, Bush Wins.
Horrific as the prospect is -- and homeland security officials have already warned of the heightened risk -- any effort by Osama bin Laden & Co., to influence the election with a bombing or attack will likely have the effect of boosting the commander-in-chief's standing. America isn't Spain, or Europe for that matter. While the April bombings in Madrid led to the ouster of a conservative government in favor of a liberal regime eager to extricate Spanish troops from Iraq, Americans traditionally rally around their leaders in times of peril. Expect that to happen if we are attacked again.
• Seems Like 1980 All Over Again.
Many political pros see echoes of the Presidential contest 24 years ago, when an unpopular incumbent, widely considered inept and unworthy of the office, nonetheless ran slightly ahead of an untested, still largely unknown rival right up until the final days of the campaign. Then, a last-minute surge gave Ronald Reagan a convincing victory over Jimmy Carter. Americans put aside concerns about Reagan's ideology in favor a clean sweep, also giving Republicans control of the Senate. In a sense, the outcome was more a referendum on Carter's Presidency than a mandate for Reagan's policies. But it's a prospect that Team Bush has to be worried about, as the President's standing with the electorate continues to drop.
• Ralph Nader Strikes Again.
So far, the polls don't bear out the citizen activist's assertions that his candidacy appeals as much to restless conservatives as angry liberals (see BW Online, 5/11/04, "Why Ralph Is Running Again"). His support is rising, all right, but mostly among voters who would likely vote Democratic if he weren't around. These are the same voters who were energized by Democrat Howard Dean's insurgent campaign during the primaries (Remember "The Democratic wing of the Democratic party?"). More recently, they stood and cheered at the angry attacks on Bush's Presidency by Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost in the Electoral College.
In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry is beating Bush by 5 percentage points in some polls, but that's without Nader. When Nader is included in the choices, the race reverts to a statistical dead heat between Bush and Kerry. It's a virtual guarantee that Kerry will lose some crucial states on Election Day if Nader's support nationally approaches 10%. As Gore found in Florida in 2000, it could be Kerry's demise.
• Gore's Revenge.
Here's the most intriguing scenario. This time, Bush really wins Florida without a recount. And while he doesn't win states way out of his reach in 2000, such as New York and California, he picks up votes in these giants nonetheless. Remember that the GOP nomination convention will be held in the first week of September in New York, where memories of September 11 are still vivid. And in the Golden State, a very popular GOP governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will campaign on the President's behalf. Bush probably won't win these states, but he'll do better than last time.
Compound this in other enclaves, and instead of losing the popular vote by 500,000 as he did in 2000, Bush ekes out a razor-thin victory nationally in the popular vote -- but this time, he loses in the Electoral College. How? Ohio and West Virginia go for Kerry, as voter anger over the loss of manufacturing jobs under Bush's tenure bubbles over. Remember that West Virginia, which supported Bush in 2000, traditionally leans Democratic in national contests. And no Republican has ever won the Presidency without winning Ohio -- yet support for Bush in the Buckeye State is floundering.
Far-fetched? There's an old saying that, in politics, absurdity is never a handicap.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...3855_db038.htm
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Sorry to say, but I think the first scenario is most likely. I do not think AQ is smart enough to realize that what work in Spain will back fire in the US. I would like it to be the third scenario but Nader getting 10% is pretty unlikely. As to the second, the wheels would have to come off the economy, and that isn't likely at this point. And the final one, if Bush wins CA and NY to say the dems are done would be putting it mildly.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
"Al Qaeda Strikes, Bush Wins"
Al Qaeda, strikes, Bush loses
The Spanish government under Aznar, in an attempt to garner votes, tried to portray the Madrid attacks as having been done by Basque seperatists when it was obvious to the public that it was Al-Qaeda related.
Basically, the Spanish government lied, and the public knew it.
So you think Bush is like Aznar and the US public is like the Spanish public.Originally Posted by Irondüke
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Did Bush blame the 9/11 attacks on domestic terrorists? Don't think so.
On 9/11 both the American president and American public pointed the finger at Al-Qaeda.
On 3/11, the Spanish president pointed at ETA, the Spanish public pointed at Al-Qaeda.
If another major terrorist act is committed on American soil, many people will see it as a failure on the part of the Bush administration.
Or an inevitability regardless of who's president.
I think most of us are smart enough to know that we'll be hit again eventually, and in a very big way.
At least i hope so.
I doubt most would see it that way, and even if they did it would be illogical to vote Kerry in because of it. Kerry is seen, and rightful so, as weaker of National Defense. He clearly does not believe those terrorists are as large a treat as Bush does. People see that. If there is another terrorist attack, they will vote for a strong leader. Unlike most Europeans, an American’s first reaction if when attacked is not to ask, "What did we do to cause this?" It is, "What can we do to prevent this for happening again and to punish those responsible?" Kerry's answer is to bend over and take it from the UN while quickly digging a hole in the sand to stick our head in. That might fly with some in a time of quiet, but right after an attack I don't think it will sell.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
The sledgehammer approach is not always going to work. I favor a quiet cloak and dagger strategy that silently and efficiently eliminates threats to America's security and hamstrings their efforts.
Abduction, assassination, and blackmail would be better to accomplish our goals.
If terrorists strike again, what country are we going to invade next?
As you may recall we tried your approach. It is what Clinton tried to do throughout the 90's. As to whom we should invade next, we should win in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we might have something to say to countries like Iran and Syria, but some how I think if we win in Iraq the Iranians and the Syrians will step in to line. If they see that we have succeeded in Iraq, they will not challenge us because they will have seen that if they do that we have the confidence to destroy their regimens militarily in a matter of weeks and then the will to remake their countries in to a democracies.
BTW, none of this changes the fact that voting for John Kerry after a terrorist attack is illogical.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
No, I don't recall Clinton fully utilizing that approach, his attempts were lackluster in the extreme. The terrorist dragon has no head, killing OBL and his henchmen will not end it.
One way to do it is to undermine their credibility. As we all know, many of these Islamist kingpins are hypocrites. They could be lured into "compromising" situations, then exposed to the public. Or mysteriously wind up... I'll leave it to you. Or disappear without a trace, never to be heard from again. ON A MASS SCALE.
So basically, undermine the credibility of those who preach the terrorist gospel, and instill fear in their followers.
For example, if a radical imam pops up in some major European city, take care of him, take care of his successor, his successor's successors, their loudest supporters, and so on and so forth.
There are hundreds of radical imams who have yet to be "taken care of".
Illegal? Yes. Effective? I think it would be.
Killing OBL and co. won't end it, but make no mistake.....he IS the dragons head.
Cloak and dagger stuff won't work alone. It's gotta be done in conjunction with massive military operations as needed.
Who's next?
Here's a list, all are suitable, pick one:
Syria
Iran
Somalia
Phillipines
and my personal favorite....Saudi Arabia
I would never normally say this about a "green" politician, but from what I saw/heard about Nader... he doesn't sound THAT bad. Surely a lot different than the greens we've got here (stupid, opportunist, communists). But then, I don't really know that much about him to think of it.
Note: I wasn't able to vote.
In the immediate wake of the Madrid bombings, the Republicans started spinning the notion that if the same things happened in the US leading up to the election, a vote for Kerry would be akin to a vote for OBL. Karen Hughes practically said as much in numerous TV interviews ("... blah blah blah victory for terrorists if they see they can affect democratic elections blah blah blah...") - in other words, "they're going to try it here and you are a traitor if you don't vote for Bush in the aftermath."
Let's assume the worst and terrorists strike on US soil again - what would happen? I think the immediate response would be to rally around the flag and support whichever candidate gets on top of the story (as cynical as it sounds, we all know that's what will happen). However, if there is enough time between any attacks on US soil and the election, I think a lot of people will reflect enough to ask, "why haven't all these homeland security measures worked well enough to thwart such attacks?" Once that question gets asked and works its way into the public consciousness, Bush is a goner, IMO.
I believe the point was that Americans would react differently then the Spanish people. While Spain asked "What did we do?" Americans will ask, "What can we do?"
What you are missing is Americans don't blame other Americans for Terrorist attacks they blame the enemy. At least most Americans. Besides, you don’t prevent terrorist attacks by increasing homeland security. It is pointless. A person that is determined to kill himself is going to find a way. You have to stop this stuff at the source.Let's assume the worst and terrorists strike on US soil again - what would happen? I think the immediate response would be to rally around the flag and support whichever candidate gets on top of the story (as cynical as it sounds, we all know that's what will happen). However, if there is enough time between any attacks on US soil and the election, I think a lot of people will reflect enough to ask, "why haven't all these homeland security measures worked well enough to thwart such attacks?" Once that question gets asked and works its way into the public consciousness, Bush is a goner, IMO.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
I don't disagree. I think most Americans would react differently than it would appear how the Spaniards reacted. From our side of the Atlantic, where all we heard was a two minute story on the evening news about the bombs followed a few days later with the electoral defeat of Aznar's party. We got no analysis through the US media outlets in the interim to explain that Aznar's folks appeared to be manipulating info about the investigation. Anyhow, the appearance is that Madrid changed the results and that Spaniards capitulated to terrorists and internalized the bombing as a matter of national fault ("let's undo whatever we did to cause this menace to visit our shores... if we keep our heads down, they'll go away"). I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's the impression the news cycle here in the US created. It may be true, it may not. I have never been to Spain, so I don't know the exact public mood between the bombings and the election. But Karen Hughes, et. al., jumped on this and began making similar statements about the US election.
I think Americans are much more stubborn than that and would probably (initially, at least) rally around Bush. But I do think that if any acts of terror happen with enough time to allow us to sit back and contemplate things, people will begin to wonder why Bush, Ashcroft, Tenet and others, dropped the ball on protecting us this time around. Why didn't they do X to secure our ports? How is it possible that weapon Z got past border security? Why wasn't nuclear power plant Y protected properly? I'm not saying every act can be stopped, but someone has to take the heat for failures in security - particularly if the attack is huge or exploits an obvious weakness that should have been corrected in light of 9/11 or Madrid or Bali or wherever.
Another point to consider is that terrorists could attack to affect the outcome of the election - not against Bush, but in his favor. Think about it: you're a terrorist and you hate the USA. So far your attacks have caused the US to follow an approach that has alienated itself from its traditional allies. You have created a rift among the western powers. There is obvious tension between the US and Saudi Arabia. The US has lost much of its global support. Your cause is attracting more adherents as a result of existing US policies. Knowing the psychology of the average American who will likely rally to Bush's side, wouldn't a nice little act of terrorism, timed just right, cause a Bush re-election and, therefore, further enactment of rigid policies, crackdowns against other Islamic people and further alienation from the global community?
I am already voting for Kerry and no act of terrorism is going to change my vote for the Democrats this year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: