Why 2004 WON'T be another 1992

No Dems 2004

[No Dems 2004]

I've long felt that 2004 wouldn't be another 1992, as so many Democrats contend. I guess I've filtered my reasons out in this article.

I'd love to hear your comments!!

[international american]

You left out one thing. The national news media is out for blood, and they are drawing it. They will write, say or do anything to destroy Bush. It is already so slanted, that I cannot bear to watch them. They are closing the door on the truth, period! We shall see if we can overcome the most vicious, malicious attack on our President!

[BigSkyFreeper]

I believe 2004 will closely resemble 1984. Won't be a landslide, but it will be close.

[walford]

One thing that hasn't been discussed much is fuel prices. Kerry is already preliminarily blaming Bush for $3.00/gal gas prices that are anticipate in the fall. Just in time for elections.

I strongly suspect that OPEC is going to do all it can to choose a winner in our presidential election by tanking our economy. The production cutbacks in '73 and '79 were devastating, because unlike Europe, our country is spread out and much more dependent upon trucking for shipping.

Prices of everything will skyrocket, especially staple items like groceries. This will then have a broad effect upon every man, woman and child in this country. Food prices are already going up.

Most Americans don't care about politics, but enough of them will blame whomever is president if they can't pay their bills.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Screw the television and print media. The balance comes from talk radio and the internet. Liberal newscasts are already suffering from low viewership, thanks to the internet, FNC, and talk radio.

[No Dems 2004]

If anything, the media was worse in 1992. I was shocked at their flagrantly anti-Bush tilt then.

It's bad, now, too, but I don't think it's totally impossible.

[EllaMinnow]

If Tancredo (Buchanan) had challenged GWB in the primaries, and John McCain (Perot) was running as an independent, and the dems had chosen Edwards (Clinton) as their candidate, it might come close to being another 1992.

But it won't.

I keep thinking of Lincoln v McClellan, 1864 as a parallel for this year.

[Dane]

You left out one thing. The national news media is out for blood, and they are drawing it.

The national media was out for blood in 92. It was all negative all the time for the alphabet networks. The networks then still had a monoploy, there was no mass internet and talk radio was not in it's infancy but not yet in full aldulthood either.

NoDems, a very cogent and well thought out thread.

[don'tbedenied]

Yes, this isn't 1992 it's 1972. Media hopelessly against the at-war R President, favoring a very liberal D Senator with anti-war background.
The good news is we know what happened. Nixon ran against the "nattering nabobs of negativity" and clobbered McGovern in a giant landslide.

[Defiant]

Bush will need to get his buddy Putin to help out on oil production again. High gas prices would put a damper on his reelection. I think he'd still win, but it might be too close for comfort. I like blowouts, and all things being equal, this is shaping up to be a blowout. Kerry is so unlikeable that it's comical.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Didn't we just invade the Oil Spigot of the Middle East? Give it a quarter turn in July or so and then sit back and prepare to party in November.

[hresources]

Did anybody notice that yesterday the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll came out and showed a huge reversal from their last poll with Bush up 51% to 47% (Last poll by them in early March had Kerry up by 11%), but the headlines weren't that result. The headlines featured Bush dropping in popularity on handling war (down to 58%). The part about Bush polling over Kerry was literally buried by the same publications that commissioned the poll. The first I heard of this poll was on Fox News. MSNBC featured a PEW poll showing them even with no mention of the Gallup poll. These guys in the liberal media are sure trying their best to prop up Kerry even when their own polls show Bush ahead.

[David Noles]

I Agree , it's 1972 all over again. Bush has even governed like Nixon , liberal on spending and government growth but hard right on foreign policy and social issues.

[sr4402]

Super Analysis that isn't biased only toward the democrats.

Ho Chi Minh, Anti-War Hero, John Kerry has some major baggage this guy isn't talking about. I'd like to see some of Johns 70's testimony before congress in GWBs Ads. And bumper stickers: Kommunists for Kerry.

Bush has already used the Kerry's major flub "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". This has to be the political flub-up of the decade. I hope it will be used to define prevaricating politicians for years to come.

[David Noles]

Don't think gas prices will hurt BUSH when Kerry is on record of supporting a .50 cent gas tax.

[ex-snook]

"disgraceful to lose this many votes to an irrational, almost crazy fellow, like Buchanan. "

The author should get real. It is not 'crazy' to be right as often as Buchanan.

Buchanan has been right about NAFTA causing job loss, illegal immigrants, foreign entanglements bringing war to our shores, abortion and homosexual practices damage America. Bush and Gore saw tax cuts and increased government spending for as far as the eye could see. Buchanan did not and his America citizen first views were not permitted in the 'debates'. Buchanan's ideas could have avoided 9/11, Iraq war, recession, job losses and the budget deficit tax increases past on to our children.

[sr4402]

These guys in the liberal media are sure trying their best to prop up Kerry even when their own polls show Bush ahead.

Yes, I call it Kerrying Water.

[international american]

McGovern was a known Marxist, and did not have a billionaire wife. Also the media is out for blood, and will kill anything positive about Bush until the elections!

[BigSkyFreeper]

Just wait when the next set of polls come out, you will think Richard Clarke is running on the Democrat ticket.

[Truth29]

Nevr undrestimate McCain's penchant for treachery. He wants Bush to lose in the worst way. I would not be surprised if he has his own October surprise in the form of some "revelation+ about terrorism and national security, an actual endorsement of Kerry, or ... whatever it takes. He has already defended Kerry and protected him from GOP attacks. There is more to come.