Landslide?

Brendan Miniter of the Opinion Journal is predicting a big win for Bush in November. He doubts that Kerry will even get as many votes as Dukakis. Like a similar forecast I linked to a while back (21 Reasons Bush will win, by the same entity that does the election projection site) this article lays out some thinking point by point. Here are some of them:

Central to Mr. Kerry's campaign is his promise to raise taxes. Walter Mondale had a similar idea, and he went down in a landslide defeat at the hands of the last Republican president to be re-elected. Similarly, the last Republican president to lose his re-election bid, George H.W. Bush, lost partly because he raised taxes. When skeptical voters--otherwise known as independents--are worried about taxes, they are looking for an unequivocal position. They know that promises to only tax the "rich" almost always morph into taxes on the middle class. Mr. Bush is already capitalizing on this. In his speech Thursday night, he noted that Mr. Kerry is "running on a platform to increase taxes--and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps."

And the electorate does know where Bush is on taxes.

Americans may be the most highly scrutinized and studied electorate in the world, but there's still plenty of activity going on under the radar. Voter turnout is going to be crucial to this election. Indeed, presidential adviser Karl Rove is banking on it. As many as four million evangelical Christians--a group that overwhelmingly supports Mr. Bush--sat out the 2000 election. Getting them to the polls will likely make the difference in several key states. Meanwhile perhaps another 80 million eligible voters didn't cast ballots in the last presidential election. After a close election in 2000 and a sense that this year will be a "historic election" because it will decide whether the nation aggressively pursues terrorists, many are predicting a record turnout in November. Mr. Kerry may be hoping for an anti-Bush surge, but concern for national security is a better motivator for new voters.

The Bush campaign back in '02 used special teams that went into action in the last 72 hours before teh election. By all accounts, they were very effective. They will certainly be in use in November.

Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are swing states with strong unions, but many of the union members there are actually Republicans or are the kind of Democrats who will find it hard to pull the lever for Mr. Kerry. These are the union Democrats who drink beer, watch Nascar and own guns. They have no cultural affinity for a Northeastern liberal who spends his time on the Idaho ski slopes outside one of his billionaire wife's many mansions or windsurfing off Nantucket. Pennsylvania's Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, picked up on this and told a reporter: "I might have gone windsurfing--you certainly have a right to clear your head. But I'm not sure I would have taken the press with me." Look for all three states to show up red on election night.

Ohio and West Virginia are already in the Bush side of the ledger, as are Wisconsin and Missouri. Pennsylvania is a statistical dead heat.

Which brings us to the final reason Mr. Bush is probably going to walk away with the election: Mr. Kerry is not a very good politician. He's cultivated a reputation as a fighter, a good "closer," because of his last-minute surge past William Weld to win re-election in 1996. But that was in Massachusetts. Why was a two-term Democratic senator having trouble beating a Republican challenger in the only state George McGovern carried? One reason is that unlike Ted Kennedy, Mr. Kerry is not seen as a man who can get things done. No significant legislation bears his name.

Interesting stuff, as is the list of 21 - still relevant after all these months.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 6

§ 6 Comments

1

I find it amusing that Bush's promises to lower taxes morph into tax cuts for top income folks. Those, of course, are paid for my stealing the social security surplus instead of giving it back to the poor and middle class people who paid it.

If we stop pretending that payroll taxes aren't just general taxes in disguise, we'd recognize that the 87k upper limit shouldn't be there. If we take that away, we replace the 6.2% * 2 social security tax with a 4.8% * 2, staying revenue neutral.

What does that mean? For the average taxpayer, who makes about 35k a year, his taxes will go down $980 immediately. If you make 75k a year, your taxes go down $2100. If you make 150k a year, your taxes go up $6048. Boo hoo. This gives an immediate, fair tax cut to almost 99% of the population. This is no $300, one-time bullshit (as an aside, the $300 was the only fair tax cut Bush introduced).

2

I have no problem with reforming social security. And your point about the nature of the ss taxes is certainly true - they are taxes. And there is no social security surplus. That money, like all government tax revenue, is spent as soon as it reaches the treasury.

However, Bush's tax cuts were in fact tax cuts. I got a tax cut. Everyone who pays income taxes got a tax cut. And after it all, the highest income brackets are paying a higher percentage of the total taxes.

3

I'm fairly sure I didn't get a tax cut. If I did, it was too small to notice, on the order of say a buck or two a paycheck.

4

That brings up another point - payroll withholding. If you had to write a check every April 15th, you'd notice even a hundred dollars. Payroll deductions is what keeps the populace complacent in the face of what the founding fathers would have considered confiscatory taxes worthy of a revolution.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]