I got my Christmas card from the WH a couple of days ago.

At this point in time, I'm not voting.

If Bush keeps spending my money like a drunken sailor I'm going to stay home too.

The primary reason Bush has such high ratings is because he is a leader and has showed a mature effectiveness as President, something we have not seen in 20 years. He does not flail around, he does not bob and weave, he does not ooze and slime, he does not condescend, and most of all, he seems to enjoy the job without being consumed. He confounds the critics, and then just smiles and keeps on going.

As for Sandy and Gideon, wanna bet?

As for Sandy and Gideon: all elections are about choices. Bush is not running against a composite of Dick Armey's Fiscal Discipline, Phil Gramm devotion to free markets, and Ronald Reagan's indefatigable faith in the American Spirit. Aginst "that" he should lose. He will be running against Howard Dean or John Kerry or Dick Gephardt or worse, Hillary Clinton. And always, aganist Terry McCaullife. If he loses, all fiscal compromises that have been made so far will be (a) for naught; (b) you all will see what real spending is all about; (c) you will see how real spenders finance this spending (TAXES) and, Oh I forgot, (d) the Islamofascists win.

If this still leaves you unconvinced, I hope you vote in Wyoming or Idaho.

OJ:

There has got to be a better moniker than "Buchanacons."

What's most interesting about the Gallup numbers is how closely Bush tracks with Clinton at similar points in their first terms. This strengthens my belief that Bush will win next year by a margin similar to Clinton's in 1996: 8-10 points. Especially because Bush will benefit from a strengthening economy as he goes into the election year, just as Clinton did.

Clinton ran against a moderate who didn't scare indie or even Dem voters. If the Dems gift Bush with a Howie Wild-Eyed Dean nomination, I'll admit that Bush's victory margin could grow.

Paul,

Buchananistas?

Did I mention a "strengthening economy"? The unemployment rate for November was just announced at 5.9%. That means a half-point drop in the last six months. Quite a move for this sluggish lagging indicator. The drop in initial unemployment claims over the past couple months indicates further declines in the rate are on the way.

It really is starting to look like Bush will arrive at election day with economic numbers eerily similar to Clinton's in 1996. And Bush will benefit from the country's drift towards the Repubs, while Clinton had to swim against that current.

Of course, the stock market is poised to sell off because the payroll survey came in a touch weaker than "expected" by whoever does the expecting. But even the stock market has had a huge run-up over the past six months.

One historical note: did Eisenhower really have a 69% approval rating among DEMOCRATS, 79% among indies and 91% among Repubs? Why didn't they just re-elect him by acclamation? Well, I guess that's pretty much what they did in 1956.

To Gideon and Sandy...

I'm sure that all those Nader voters felt really good about themselves as they walked out of the voting booth. They "knew" they were doing the right thing.

I wonder how they feel right now? (By the way, if I haven't remembered to thank them for their pro-Bush efforts, allow me to do so now.)

G. & S.
Better not to vote than to vote in protest for one of the alternatives; but you may be sorry.

OJ
A little discipline please. I think GW will win, but it may not be the landslide some predict. Euphoric predictions are not helpful to the President for the effect they might generate among the lazier voters or novoprotestistas who may think they don't have to get out there on election day. I'd prefer to see a more cautious but hopeful rhetoric throughout the campaign, particularly toward election day ... you know, a bit more conservative. I really want him to win with a credible margin to vindicate the Florida debacle; that would be enough for me. A win is what we need ... let no vote be left behind.

genecis:

Oddly enough, the opposite is true. When presidents win in huge landslides, studies show that folks who don't even particularly support them join in the landslide because they want to be with the winner.

Casey:

Except for two major factors:

(1) Clinton lost to Dole/Perot.

(2) You're comparing a Democratis win to a Republican one. For at least the last fifty years, Republican re-election landslides are huge, Democrats' minor (with the exception of post assassination LBJ).

And landslides mean little, without the wisdom to use the perceived power and to really govern. Two of the last three major landslides (LBJ, Nixon) did little to change the fortunes of the winner - LBJ left office with a huge cloud over his head (Vietnam and other unrest), Nixon resigned and would have been removed. For Reagan in '84, he did nothing to help his party and subsequently lost the Senate in '86, which cost Bork a seat on the court.

While a resounding victory would erase the 2000 questions in some minds, for most on the left, a Bush win of even 62-38 over Howard Dean would just enrage them more (although I agree it would also suck the strength right out of them).

At least we know Bush will fight for the party, which means probably 4-6 more Senate seats and possibly as many as 10 more House seats. That is where any landslide will have consequence - like 1932 (which led to the results in 1934) or 1980, which started the ball rolling for today.

Orrin:

If the Dems nominate Gephardt, their version of non-threatening Robert Dole, Bush should win by my 8-10 point margin. If the Dems drink the kool-aid and nominate the Short Angry Guy, Bush could start to get up toward Reagan's 18-point margin in 1984.

BTW, there's no law that Repubs are entitled to landslides. No Repub since Reagan has won the presidency by more than eight points.

Casey:

Gephardt would keep anti-war voters home and lose just as badly. Every Republican president since Hoover, except for Bush Sr., has won re-election in a landslide.

Orrin:

By election day Iraq will be as relevant as Afghanistan is now. The hard-core Dem vote will turn out against Bush no matter who the Dems nominate.

As always, the difference is the indies. Howie comes across as a fire-breathing true believer who would scare indies towards Bush in droves. Gephardt doesn't scare anybody. Like Dole he bores everybody. More indies would feel comfortable voting for him. He would snooze to a comfortable loss against Bush.

The numbers for Repub presidential incumbents since Hoover:

Eisenhower +15 points
Nixon +22
Ford -2
Reagan +18
Bush -6

Three landslides, two losses. The Repubs have lost the popular vote in each of the three last presidential elections. There is no constitutional guarantee of a GOP landslide.

But luckily for Bush, there is no chance of a primary challenge, no chance of a third-party candidate siphoning off Repub votes, and every chance of good economic numbers next year.

Buchaneers?

David:

I don't know, I like it but aren't you afraid that the Tampa football reference will cost Pat votes on Florida's east coast?

OJ

Win projections by the media on election night have had the effect of closing the polls for some voters. Why go if others have already voted your candidate in. Perhaps, especially the Indies. Hope you're right. I'd hate to spend four years with Hilary or Howie by default.

CASEY:

THE WAR ITSELF doesn't matter, it's being anti-war that does. Ford's was not a re-election, but an election. Bush Sr. is the anomaly.

While the election may be closer than a lot of people think, what you have to ask yourself right now is if Howard Dean is the nominee, what state(s) will he carry that Al Gore didn't in 2000, and then you have to assume that Dean will be able to hold every single state Gore won three years ago to get the victory.

Given Dean's apparent desire to produce as many "scare quotes" and bitter musings about Bush as possible, it's hard to see that secnario playing itself out. The idea of Gephardt doing it is much more plausable, since he could at least put Missouri into play (the anti-war group's estrangement from Gephardt is a possible negative, but I think the "broken glass Democrats" would remember Nader in 2000 and vote for Dick if they thought he had a serious chance of winning).

ORRIN:

You'll notice I didn't say Ford was running for re-election. I said he was an incumbent. (Sorry, but I saw that one coming.)

But there is a pattern that I thought you would pick up. Every time the Dems ran a Northerner against a Repub incumbent, they got slaughtered. Every time they ran a Southerner against a Repub incumbent, they won.

Now what would you call Howie?

There's only one example though, and he got 43% of the vote in '92.