I believe that this election, above all others, is shaping up to be similar to 1972. I DO NOT SAY THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE DEAN IS LIKE MCGOVERN, BECAUSE HE IS NOT. Dean is not nearly as anti-war or anti-army as McGovern was and indeed governed Vermont as a moderate, deftly leading a coalition that spanned from socialists to conservatives. There are a number of other reasons, however, why I say this.
George Bush has studied history. Like Richard Nixon, he has pushed a number of plans that appeal to liberal and swing voters (Bush's No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare Reform echo Nixon's Philadelphia Plan on Affirmative Action, Family Assistance Plan assuring income, and creation of the world's first Environmental Protection Agency). Though at closer inspection, none of the aforementioned plans are completely satisfactory to liberals, Bush, like Nixon, very well might be able to coopt the middle to win easy reelection.
Similarly, Bush, like Nixon, inherited an economy on the verge of recession. Bush, like Nixon, has used measures that will doubtless prove inflationary in the long run, but might ensure his reelection in the short term. As a result, I believe it will take a nearly perfect Democratic candidate to dethrone the Bush dynasty.
I hope that I am incorrect, like everyone else has said. I truly wish that Bush can be beaten by any Democrat (yes, including Dean and--gasp--even Lieberman). I just hope that the Dems do not select a candidate that APPEARS to be too liberal or too anti-war to win, regardless of the candidate's true views, because there is too much at stake--Congress and the Supreme Court, not to mention the White House--to try to be principled at the sake of winning.