Still Bush's race to lose

Real Clear Politics ^ | 5/24/2004 | John McIntyre

[Keith]

STILL BUSH'S RACE TO LOSE: Five or six weeks ago there was a flurry of stories describing how Democrats were terribly concerned about the state of the Kerry campaign.

Only three or four weeks before that we witnessed the crescendo of Kerry's primary run and there was a lot of talk about how the White House had to "get in the game" and "get serious" with the campaign.

The latest flurry of punditry, brought on by the string of bad news in Iraq over the last few weeks, is best summed up by the theme "President Bush is in big trouble."

Everyone needs to settle down. Republicans should take a deep breath and perhaps take an early Memorial Day vacation and Democrats who are rubbing their hands thinking they are headed for the White House might want to temper their enthusiasm. President Bush is not nearly in as bad of shape as you would think from reading the papers or listening to the punditry on TV.

Yes, I know all about the falling job approval numbers, the right/track wrong/track polls, and about how no modern day President has won reelection with approval ratings below 50%. Lost in all the focus on particular polling, however, is an underappreciation of the significance of September 11, 2001 and the fact that America is at war.

I have said for months now that the more the country is focused on terror, Iraq and war the more it will ultimately benefit President Bush in the fall. While the media continues its gleeful self-flagellation over the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the rest of the country has moved on in understanding the seriousness of the war and the context of the prisoner abuse in the larger scheme of things.

In many ways this election will be about whether the war in Iraq is more like World War II or Vietnam. Can you imagine hearing endless rants of defeatism in 1942: Why are are we in North Africa? Doesn't Roosevelt know it was the Japanese who attacked us in 1941? Can you imagine story after story on how we were abusing and humiliating poor Japanese and German prisoners?

Yet today all we hear from the mainstream media outlets is negative story after negative story. In an excellent article last week Mort Kondracke suggests that Congress and the media could talk the U.S. into defeat in Iraq:

The American establishment, led by the media and politicians, is in danger of talking the United States into defeat in Iraq. And the results would be catastrophic.

The media - unperturbed by mistakenly likening both the Afghan war and last year's invasion of Iraq to Vietnam - focuses overwhelmingly on the bad news coming out of Iraq. There is plenty of bad news - but there is also much good, and it is being almost completely ignored.

Some Members of Congress - either out of a passion to defeat President Bush, pique at not being listened to by the Bush administration, or simply a need to hear their own voices - are declaring the war "unwinnable" or "a quagmire," or are demanding an "exit strategy."

Although everyone says they support American troops in Iraq, soldiers have to wonder whether the country is fully behind their mission. Iraqis, too, have to be wondering: Will America stay the course?

President Bush surely will. He strikes me as being as resolute as George Washington was at Valley Forge, Abraham Lincoln after the early defeats of the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt in the darkest days of World War II. They didn't have "exit strategies," either. "

We are at war and right now the war is not going very well. That is why the President's poll numbers are down. It's that simple.

What is not that simple, however, is taking the next step and assuming because the President's job approval is down John Kerry is going to win.

Eighty percent of the press may feel Iraq is more like Vietnam than WWII, but I get the feeling the majority of the American people aren't willing to concede that Iraq is another Vietnam.

And as long as America sees Iraq more like WWII and less like Vietnam, they won't want a President who just wants to get us out, they'll want a President who is willing to do what is necessary to win. It's going to be the number one factor in determining who wins the election this fall: which candidate is the best man to win the War on Terror?

President Bush is not hostage to events in Iraq and around the world as much as people think. The country is a lot tougher than the talking heads on TV and the prophets of doom in the press. Contrary to popular wisdom, events can get worse in Iraq and the country will hang in there as long as they believe there is a plan and a commitment to win. All President Bush has to do is show the same leadership he has shown since September 11th.

The President's biggest problem isn't Abu Ghraib or Al Sadr or Fallujah. His biggest problem - and the thing that most concerns the American public - is that for the last few weeks the White House has acted like it doesn't have a plan and doesn't know what it is doing.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties in Iraq and I realize there are no easy answers. But the American people want more than just "stay the course" from the President. Unfortunately not only is the White House fighting the enemy in Iraq they are also constantly having to battle the forces of defeatism here at home.

The reason this race is still President Bush's to lose is because he is in control of whether he will show that leadership. I suspect he will. Amazingly, his opponents are once again "misunderestimating" him.

You would think after beating an incumbent Vice-President during a time of peace and prosperity and then personally carrying his party to an unprecedented victory in 2002, the prophets of George W. Bush's demise would be a little more circumspect in their predictions.

This is going to be a long 5 1/2 months until Nov. 2 and there are going to be many pendulum swings in the polls. Given the relatively even partisan split in the country we are probably headed for another close election. But I have news for all those cheering the President's current problems; George W. Bush is no Jimmy Carter. If there is going be a blow out this year, it's going to be the Democrats holding the short end of that stick.

[Keith]

These guys are amongst the best...Good analysis. Everyone take a chill pill and have a nice Memorial Day vacation.

[DM1]

well lets hope that this is correct and BUsh and the Rs can turn things around
I just read that not only may we lose the Senate but the House as well! I definitlely thought that we had the House no matter what :(

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Yes, I know all about the falling job approval numbers, the right/track wrong/track polls, and about how no modern day President has won reelection with approval ratings below 50%.

Yeah. Crazy, wacky me for finding this sort of thing even the teensiest bit troubling, obviously. < /sarcasm>

[southernnorthcarolina]

"Real Clear Politics" had a real foggy crystal ball in 2000. They were way off; if I recall correctly, they were predicting a landslide win by Bush through most of the campaign, and still had him up by 5% or more on election eve.

That said, I agree with their current analysis. Maybe both the RCP folks and I are incurable optimists.

[Charlotte Corday]

In World War II, we put the whole country on an economic footing for war. Although it was Churchill who promised "blood, toil, tears and sweat", much the same thing was done in the US.

In Vietnam, by contrast, LBJ tried to win a war while telling the home front, "life is good, keep up the boom times, it's business as usual".

In this important respect, the war on Islamic fascism is more like Vietnam.

[Names Ash Housewares]

http://web.archive.org/web/20001024053252/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The above link is an archive of realclearpolitcs in late october. It was the closest I could find to election day. Everybody was showing Bush ahead back then. It was the standard "three days before the election" sleaze attack that hurt Bush the most and threw all the numbers off. There wasnt enough time for the people to digest it and for Bush to recover completly. They WILL try it again. But this time we can be ready and warn the people. In fact it was expected so much in California with Arnold it really had no effect at all.

Hail to the King Baby.

Hail to the King Baby.

[NYC Republican]

Excellent analysis, as usual, by the folks at RCP.

[NYC Republican]

They were spot on in nearly every election since the '00 Presidential election... See the '02 Senate races, where they almost nailed every single race!

[Keith]

That's not what he's saying...we need to keep cool...this back and forth is going to happen all year.

[GmbyMan]

In this important respect, the war on Islamic fascism is more like Vietnam.

In that case, we should do what we didn't have the guts to do in Vietnam. Win the freakin' war and not worry about what the naysayers are saying. I know many of these guys and gals miss the 1960's and the Vietnam War. They miss the protests and every thing that went along with it. By allowing them to "win" the Vietnam war for the Communism, our country suffered a major loss that we are still trying to get over. This war in Iraq is our chance to show them that we can do a war like this the right way!

[no_problema]

i'm a positive thinker.

i expect that democrat anti-war stupidity will increase, but after june 30th, and the turnover of the government to iraq, president bush's lot will improve. also, the economy's on the mend.

if president bush does lose the election, instrumental will be the sickos with their photos at abu graib. i hope all involved get the maximum sentence. this issue of all the things brought up by the dems this year got the most traction.

[Iron Matron]

* . . .if president bush does lose the election, instrumental will be the sickos with their photos at abu graib . . ."

Not to mention voter fraud. Dead democrats will still show up at polling places, so will illegals, and others bought and paid for by the DNC.

I'm sure there is something up their sleeves.

[KC_Conspirator]

I find his numbers freefall troubling too and when I point it out, I get attacked here. Ridiculous.

[Keith]

I'm not attacking either one...I think if it were debate time and it looked like this, I would share your view...but it's not, so I don't...ok?

[Common Tator]

And as long as America sees Iraq more like WWII and less like Vietnam, they won't want a President who just wants to get us out, they'll want a President who is willing to do what is necessary to win

One thing is certain. VietNam was very much like VietNam. In 1972 after 8 years of war where 58 thousand American troops (mostly draftees) died, Richard Nixon won the biggest re-election victory of the 20th century.

If Iraq does for Bush what VietNam did for Richard Nixon, Bush wins 61 percent to 37.5 percent.

If Iraq does for Bush what WWII did for Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 then Bush wins 53 to 46.

Nixon did a lot better with Viet Nam as the issue in 72 than FDR did with WWII in 1944.

Oh just for the record in the summer 1944 we had just done little except take some worthless sand in Africa, and a couple of islands in the South Pacific. We were in danger of losing the war in Europe and Asia. It did not look all that good.

We had done little in the Asian theater except take a few islands. We had not bombed Japan and we were in real trouble in China. WE were losing bombers at a fantastic rate in Europe. Victory was anything but certain.

Today's media would have thought that after the first 3, long, non productive, WWII, years all was lost. But we were a little over a year and a three quarters from total victory.

Our major media is our worst enemy and none of us should ever forget it.

Did you know that reporters were drafted into the military in WWII. Everything they wrote or said on the air had to be approved by military censors before it could be aired. Failure of the war reporters to get approval before filing a story, could be punished by death by firing squad.

All battlefield reporters were drafted and given a rank equal to a 2nd john... but with no command authority. They were all subject to military law.

I often wonder if Tom Brokaw would like to report the war news under the rules adopted by the GREATEST GENERATION.

[atomicpossum]

You know, it's rainy here today. Does that mean it will be rainy on election day, too?

There is a lifetime until election time. 51% of the electorate apparently haven't got the news that the economy has been doing great for months now. Gas prices could continue to soar, though the news earlier was saying that they exect a drop around Memorial Day. June 30th hands over contorl of Iraq to the Interim Government. Basically, there are numerous things that could change wholesale in a day, much less five months. They could hurt Bush, they could help him. To begin to despair or celebrate now about any of them is premature.

[atomicpossum]

We had not bombed Japan

Well, Doolittle....

[Common Tator]

I find his numbers freefall troubling too and when I point it out, I get attacked here. Ridiculous.

Nixon was not in very good shape in the polls in June of 1972 either. Nixons people knew that Howard Hughes had given big bucks to the DNC. That is why they broke into the DNC headquarters in the WaterGate building. They wanted to prove that the Democrats were getting illegal money.

If the Nixon campaign had known the media buzz and polls were bull crap, they would never have broken into Larry O'Brians office of the DNC in hte Watergate.

Most of the media polls are really off. They typically interview 29 percent repubicans and 36 percent democrats and 35 percent independents. That way they can get a tie or a slight Kerry lead.

If they polled by using the real makeup it would be 45- 45 R & D and 10 indpendent. Using the real voter make up Bush is up about 7 points. .. about where FDR was in 1944 during WWII.

At this point Bush is not doing quite as well as Nixon did in 1972. But then Nixon was not doing all that well at this time of the year in 1972.

If Kerry though he was well ahead, he would not be trying to delay accepting his nomination. Even if he does mange to delay Bush will bury him.

[CWOJackson]

I particularly like the part where they say:

"Everyone needs to settle down. Republicans should take a deep breath and perhaps take an early Memorial Day vacation and Democrats who are rubbing their hands thinking they are headed for the White House might want to temper their enthusiasm. President Bush is not nearly in as bad of shape as you would think from reading the papers or listening to the punditry on TV. "

I think a lot of people missed that part.

[Common Tator]

DoLiitle was media hype for the folks here at home.

Dolittle did little in comparison to what the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor.

The Doolittle raid did zero dammage to the Japanese. It convinced them that a wimpy failed bombing run,where we lost all our bombers was all we could do to them.

In the world as the Japanese saw it, they sawed off our legs at Pearl Harbor and they DoLittle response was to stomp on their toe.