dazzleman
Atlas Icon
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59
|
 |
« on: November 22, 2003, 12:43:35 PM » |
|
I don't think the 2003 state elections are that much of an indicator of what will happen next year, good or bad, for President Bush.
Many states that voted for Gore had Republican governors. New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Michigan (and maybe some others -- I'm going from memory) had Republican governors in 2000, but voted for Gore, some overwhelmingly.
As a previous poster said, local elections are decided on local issues. A person running nationally has to take a consistent position, but on the local level, party definitions vary widely in different regions of the country. Most Republicans in the northeast are more liberal than a lot of southern Democrats.
An important indicator could be how the electorate in each state responded to an endorsement of a candidate by the president. Even that is not foolproof, but it gives some indication. The fact that Pres. Bush did not actively campaign for Schwarzenegger in California is an indicator that victory will be difficult for him there despite the Schwarzenegger victory. I agree that the south should be solidly for Bush -- if not, he might as well throw in the towel now, because he can't possibly win without picking all almost all the electoral votes of southern states.
I have found it interesting that a pretty good percentage of the candidates that President Bush has campaigned for have won, while it seems that most of the candidates that Clinton has campaigned for have lost. The media loves Clinton, and keeps trumpeting his popularity and influence, so they aren't emphasizing his track record, but it doesn't seem too good. Bush's relatively good track record is a good indicator of his re-election prospects.
I think the bottom line is that the party with the positive message almost always wins. Right now, the Democrats don't have a positive message. If they don't get one, I don't see how they can win.
|
