November prediction

Eric Lindholm, also known as Viking Pundit, refuses to succumb to optimism. He says, "Even I, a hopelessly partisan conservative, thinks Jayson Javitz is a tad too sanguine in his latest post of political predictions," as he points to this prediction for November.

The Kerry campaign is imploding right before our eyes. It is now becoming a legitimate question whether he even can match Michael Dukakis' electoral vote count. On the popular vote end of things, it now is becoming a legitimate question whether he could fall below 40 percent; thereby into the realm of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. For now, here are my predictions:

Bush - 57
Kerry - 42
Nader - 1

If Kerry does not stop the bleeding -- soon -- and, more importantly, if he continues to show signs of being unwilling or unable to handle the day-to-day stressors of a national general election, I will revise these numbers: downwards, for Kerry, and upwards, for Bush.

I think I can explain this hesitancy. The Viking is a fellow New Englander. Think of Bucky Dent. Bill Buckner. Grady Little. You understand. There are some things so important that you just can't risk believing they'll come true. It's tough when you're from New England. No matter how bright the outlook, we know the cloud is there waiting. Maybe it hasn't even reached our horizon, but we know with a certainty that it's out there, it will arrive, it's only a matter of time.

But since this is not baseball, I'm going to go ahead and be optimistic. In fact I'm going to take this opportunity to crassly broadcast my own daring prediction, which I made in this comment to a post by Daniel Drezner. This was in October 2003, well before I started this web log and began mouthing off under my own banner.

I’ll make a prediction. When 2004 rolls around, few people will care about all the claims of contradictory statements and all the manufactured scandals. People will remember that Saddam Hussein was evil, and that Iraq is better off without him, and that Bush, Blair, and company actually did something about it, while the rest of the world, including all but one of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates, was willing only to lament the situation. Nobody is going to think that we would be safer, or that the world would be better place, with Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq. It’s Bush in a landslide in 2004.

posted by: Tom Bowler on 10.08.03 at 11:33 AM

How can I be so optimistic in spite of the New England history of tragic collapse?

I have only to contemplate the qualities of John Kerry. Can there be a more pathetic candidate? Who would ever have believed the Democrats would come up with someone so overcome by narcissism? How can anybody think the conflicts between his actual record and the new and improved campaign version of his record, would all be overlooked, except someone who is truly self-absorbed?

According to VFW magazine from April 1997, 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam from January 1, 1965 to March 28, 1973, and of those, between 1 and 1.6 million either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack. Is it realistic for the Kerry campaign to hope that so many people will simply forget he accused them of "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." That Senate testimony in April 1971 was his spring board to national prominence. Now he is asking all those Vietnam Veterans to forget that their reputations were trashed for the benefit of his. Now he wishes he had "found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.”

What sort of decision making skill is on display, by either Kerry or the Democrats, when they choose Vietnam as the centerpiece to this presidential campaign. There were about a million Vietnam combat veterans. That's a large number of people who could have a bone to pick with John Kerry over his 1971 testimony. How is it possible that Kerry could think none of them - not one - would have any emotional stake in this, as they watch him drag up Vietnam and parade it around for another go at boosting his career? By making Vietnam the focus, Kerry and the Democrats have set themselves to play defense from now until November. It's not going to go away.

It's true that Lord Kerry hadn't arrived on the scene as the presidential candidate in October '03 when I made my bold prediction of a Bush landslide. It's also true that I underestimated the lengths to which the mainstream media would go to unseat a president. But I also underestimated the Democrats' capacity to pick a miserable candidate, and John Kerry is perhaps the most miserable, pathetic candidate I have ever seen. This effort by the mainstream media is the only thing keeping this campaign close.

Comments

[Warren]

I have a perfect track record (so far) at predicting the presidential winners since Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968. I even refused to call the last election because I thought it was too close.

I'm predicting Bush! :-)

[Tom Bowler]

That makes it a lock, Warren!