A by no means exhaustive list of reasons why John Kerry could win a landslide victory over George W. Bush:
Historical Precedents
·Harrison & Hayes: Only two Presidents lost the popular vote, and both lost the next election.
·Only one other president presided over four years of net job loss--Herbert Hoover, who lost by 17 points and 413 electoral votes.
·In the last 100 years, Presidential elections have seldom been close, especially when the incumbent hadn't assumed office due to the death or resignation of the previous President. Incumbents ran in 15 of the 25 elections, and they won 11 times. Of the 11 wins, Wilson (3% in 1916) and Truman (4% in 1948) posted the only narrow wins, but both had third-party candidates on their left flank who took over 2%. Ford is the only incumbent to lose by less than 5%, and the only one to lose by fewer than 100 electoral votes. Overall, only Wilson (1916), Kennedy (0.2% and 76 EV's in 1960), Carter (1976) and G.W. Bush (-0.9% and 5 EV's in 2000) prevailed with margins under 5% and fewer than 100 EV's. [Note that Bush lost the popular vote by more than Nixon in 1960 and Humphrey in 1968.]
State Trends
·Gore states: States totaling 135 EV's voted Bush all three times, while states totaling 99 EV's voted against Bushes all three times. However, states totaling 260 electoral votes have gone Democratic all three elections since 1992. Several of these states are far from a lock for Kerry. For instance, in MN the combined Gore and Nader percentages were less than Dukakis' percentage in 1988. In IA, OR, WA and WI, Gore%+Nader% is about equal to Dukakis%. But most of the other Gore states have trended increasingly Democratic over the last four elections. Nader won't be a big factor, so Bush will have to gain at least 3% over 2000 to win MN, WI, OR, WA and NM.
·Bush states: In several Bush states, what trends exist favor Democrats. Gore came close to matching Clinton's 1996 winning percentages in OH and MO. Gore pulled almost 45% in VA, which makes it worth watching this time. WV has gone Republican just 4 times since 1932. And Gore racked up higher percentages losing NV and FL than Clinton did when he won them in 1996.
·Economic and demographic trends: Several swing states--OH, MI, PA, WV, WI, MO--have been devastated by manufacturing job losses, which disproportionately affect middle aged white males with less than a college degree--a demographic that gave Bush big margins in 2000 and which he can't afford to lose. The economy is better in some swing states, such as NH, FL, AZ and NV, but those states are up for grabs more because of demographic change and social issues.
The Political Environment
·The press has become much more skeptical of Bush and his administration. Blogs are also playing a bigger role in disseminating liberal talking points, digging up damning evidence against the administration, and challenging the press on it's accuracy and impartiality.
·In 2000 the personal finances of most Americans were better than they had ever been and foreign threats weren't a concern. In good times more people will support a candidate who was a callow ne'r do well prior to holding the weakest governorship in the nation as long as he doesn't excessively sigh during debates and isn't associated with a libidinous President. This time more voters are feeling pinched or even pained, so expect them to pass much harsher appraisals of Bush.
·Bush doesn't have any foils. Unlike Truman and Reagan, who won despite problems early in the campaigns, Bush cannot campaign against a "do nothing Congress" of the opposite party.
·The effect of governors is debated, but most people accept that governors probably give their party's candidate an extra 0.5%--1.0%. Depending on who's doing the targeting, there are 19 states that are mentioned as battleground states: AZ, AR, FL, IA, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, and WI. In 2000, 12 of these states had Republican governors, 5 had Democrats, and two governors were independents. This time around, 13 of those states have Democratic governors, and only 6 statehouses are controlled by Republicans.
The Campaigns
·Unless the FEC breaks a deadlock and a precedent to change rules this late in the campaign cycle, the Democratic-leaning 527's will give Kerry a major boost that Bush's supporters aren't prepared to match.
·The Bush campaign has been spending money like a sailor on liberty, but the best that can be said is that their efforts have prevented a more precipitous decline in his support. Also, should Bush continue to falter or even take a dive, many donors will hedge or even place their bets on Kerry, thus diminishing Bush's expected financial advantage.
·Kerry may not be exciting, but he's highly disciplined and unlikely to make a serious gaffe.
·Rove has shown his tactics over the last five years, so the Kerry campaign has a better idea of what to expect.
For Bush, Things Don't Get Better
Many folks kvetch that this poll or that indicate a close race. At this point, the horserace matters little, especially in state polls. More important are the fundamentals, such as job performance, right track/wrong track ratings, and consumer confidence. In those areas Bush is sliding, and here's a few reasons why he'll probably continue to slide:
·Foreign Affairs: Iraq probably won't get any better, and it's likely to get worse. Foreign nations continue to vote out parties that cooperate with the Bush administration's policies. And with the hostility toward him across the globe, it's hard to imagine Bush achieving any foreign policy achievements that could help him in November, such as Clinton's brokering of the Northern Ireland peace agreement or Reagan's Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev. And always lurking in the back of everyone's mind is another major terrorist attack on American soil. Some believe that another attack would make obvious Bush's claim that his administration is vital to providing American security, but just as plausible is that an attack would make obvious Bush's failure to keep us safe.
·Economy: The Federal Reserve is out of tricks. The Bush tax cuts didn't boost refunds 25% as predicted; through last week tax refunds were only 5% higher than last year. More middle class families got nailed by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and unemployment cut into many families' incomes. The foreign trade balance and federal deficits are going through the roof. And there's still no significant and sustained job growth.
·No New Initiatives: The administration won't come up with any exciting new policy initiatives. Hatred of the Federal Government has been fading ever since the Oklahoma City bombings. Nevertheless, except in the areas of privacy and law enforcement, the administration has reduced the scale and scope of governmental power in domestic policy, through slashing taxes, limiting or choosing not to exercise authority, cutting or under-funding programs, and reducing or eliminating regulations. Bush has pushed only four major initiatives, and all four have been political failures. The Patriot Act is hated mostly by liberals, but ironically it's created real problems with libertarians (who are also appalled by the deficits). No Child Left Behind is becoming a serious problem, especially among families with small children, a group that strongly supported Bush in 2000. The Faith Based initiatives really haven't gotten off the ground. And the Medicare Bill, which doesn't start to take full effect until 2005 but is becoming extremely unpopular among senior citizens, could become a rare case of a policy rescinded because of voter frontlash.
·Scandals and revelations--The administration is under investigation on several fronts, such as the outing of Valerie Plame, cooking the books on the Medicare bill and Cheney's energy task force. Several other areas of inquiry could damage Bush, such as the 9-11 Commission and the soon-to-be-released books by Bob Woodward and Joe Wilson.
·A year ago it might have looked like a good idea for the Republicans to convene in NYC just prior to September 11th. Not any more. The Republican script will be about how Bush pulled the country together after 9-11, but the counter-message will be about how Bush flubbed things so badly that not enough was done to prevent 9-11. Expect to see lots of profiles of the Jersey Girls and families of soldiers in Iraq, and ex-soldiers, taking a page out of John Kerry's personal history, protesting the Chickenhawk boondoggle in Baghdad.
·The Senate Republicans face an tough battle to retain their majority, and if it comes between protecting themselves and their majority or helping out the President, look for self-interest to prevail.
There is still plenty of time for Kerry to implode (although there's no indication he will). There's also still time Bush to get his footing (although again, there's no indication he will). The election may seem close today, but it's a general rule that people who decide late in a campaign tend to vote against the incumbent. For Bush to win this November, he's going to have to defy the historical precedents, buck the historical and demographic trends, repeat his near-flawless campaign performance from 2000, and get really lucky about the atmospherics, like the economy, Iraq and national security, which will decide this election. Everything could go Bush's way [again], but it's unlikely. This conclusion shouldn't lead anyone to complacency or hubris, but there are many good reasons for confidence that our hard work and a strong campaign will put John Kerry in the White House next January.
Update [2004-4-16 14:27:37 by DHinMI]:
As several commenters pointed out, the Harrison & Hayes precedent should really be Harrison & Adams. Rutherford B. Hayes did lose the popular vote in 1876, but he did not run for reelection in 1880. John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote in 1824 and the presidency in 1828.
quintic79 adds another great historical tidbit--three of the four Presidents who lost the popular vote were the sons or grandsons of presidents.