Would the Republicans have a better chance of winning without Bush?

[mrsimperless]

OK, I'm not by any means what you would call a "political and stuff" person and I don't associate with any one party. If anything I could be labelled a libertarian, but I rarely vote for them. I usually vote for whoever I think will do the better job. Yes, I voted for Bush and helped to elect him and I now see the grievous errors of my ways. However, I'm not too excited about voting for Kerry either, although I probably will.

What I'm wondering is would the republicans have a better chance at keeping the white house if they ousted Bush and inserted a different candidate? I know that there is no way this would happen, but I don't think that Bush is too popular right now with the Iraq war, Farenheit 9/11, etc. etc. Is this something that could even be done if Kerry were a lock? (80-20 in the polls or something like that) Could another candidate be voted in by the Republican party?

Actually now that I think of it wasn't Bush already voted in BY the party in the Republican primaries? (Shows you how much I pay attention) But regardless, do you think someone else would have a better shot against Kerry, or are there really people out there that think he is in fact doing a good job?

[Franklinnoble]

First of all, I don't think a party would EVER nominate anyone who wasn't the incumbent, given the choice. Being the incumbent is worth a ton of points in the election right off the bat.

Second, there's every reason to believe Bush will indeed win re-election. Kerry looks very weak.

Even if the Republicans thougth Bush was totally unelectable, who would they nominate instead? There's really no one "slam dunk" candidate within the party right now.

[Arles]

Not really. Most of the left that hates Bush wouldn't vote for any other republican. And, contrary to what you may hear on the media, people that are actually open to changing their mind often don't view Bush in all that negative a light.

In fact, if you believe the polls, Bush is in about the same spot (50% approval) that both Reagan and Clinton were leading up to their second-term election.

If you are worried about going for a lesser partisan candidate, you often get a guy (or girl) that doesn't instil much passion in the base. So, while you may pick off more independents, you will have more indifferent people that traditionally vote for you. You need only look at Bush 41's second term and Dole in 96 for evidence of that.

In the end, people have to be passionate about their candidate in order for him to win (in most cases). And, in order to do that, the other side will often have passion against him. W, Clinton and Reagan are all examples of this.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First of all, I don't think a party would EVER nominate anyone who wasn't the incumbent, given the choice. Being the incumbent is worth a ton of points in the election right off the bat.

Second, there's every reason to believe Bush will indeed win re-election. Kerry looks very weak.

Even if the Republicans thougth Bush was totally unelectable, who would they nominate instead? There's really no one "slam dunk" candidate within the party right now.

agree on all counts.

I do think that Bush would have a much better shot if he dumped Cheney and went with...oh, just about anyone.

[Bee]

yes. I'll be voting for a Democrat for President for the first time ever because of Bush.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the decision to go with Cheney as VP. However, I can't think of any examples of a President switching VP's for a second term (barring death or criminal conviction).

[Dutch]

Dick Cheney, like all VP's, is irrelevant to the equation.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

...
If you are worried about going for a lesser partisan candidate, you often get a guy (or girl) that doesn't instil much passion in the base. So, while you may pick off more independents, you will have more indifferent people that traditionally vote for you. You need only look at Bush 41's second term and Dole in 96 for evidence of that.

In the end, people have to be passionate about their candidate in order for him to win (in most cases). And, in order to do that, the other side will often have passion against him. W, Clinton and Reagan are all examples of this.

You aren't insinuating that Dole was a "less" partisan candidate are you? I'll agree one hundred percent if you are making the point that he lacked the ability to get folks passionately behind him.

I am sorely disappointed in the Dem's choice this year. I would have absolutely voted for Lieberman, and possibly would have voted for Clark. I am not exactly pleased with Bush, but for everything he does that I do not like, I fear Kerry might do something I equally despise. My unequivocal vote for Bush is a vote for the devil I know.

To answer the question asked. If John McCain were to have won the republican primary in 2000, Gore would likely have gone down in the greatest defeat of modern political history. I think it goes further. If McCain were on the ticket this time around, Kerry gets roundly bounced. As it is, I am rooting for Bush, but I don't think he can pull it off.

[clintl]

If the polls were something 80-20 in favor of Kerry, I'm sure there would be some influential Republicans telling Bush to go pull a Johnson.

As it is, though, with the polls almost even, the Republicans would be stupid to replace Bush on the ticket.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wouldn't think so, even if there were no reason other than what franklinnoble pointed out, the significant benefit of being an incumbent.

As to whether it'd be "possible" -- yes, there's nothing that would prevent it from happening (aside from practicalities like the one above). He could be beaten in primaries, which dictate many of the convention delegates votes, etc., etc.

But that's the sort of challenge that you don't really see above the state level, and even then it's pretty unusual to see a high-ranking (say Gov. or U.S. Senator) incumbent beaten within his/her own party.

[ScottVib]

Originally Posted by Arles

Not really. Most of the left that hates Bush wouldn't vote for any other republican. And, contrary to what you may hear on the media, people that are actually open to changing their mind often don't view Bush in all that negative a light.

In fact, if you believe the polls, Bush is in about the same spot (50% approval) that both Reagan and Clinton were leading up to their second-term election.

I'd disagree... there is one republican who would sweep to victory above Bush or any of the other candidates.

John McCain.

He would have won in 2000 without the Florida mess too.

Edit - Oops Glengoyne already said it.. oh well.

[Swaggs]

Getting back to the subject matter, I think the other huge, huge factor is the amount of money both candidates have already raised. If Bush were to back out now, I don't think any Republican candidate would be able to raise enough money to get organized on a state by state level.

[JPhillips]

Glengoyne: As a moderate Dem myself I am curious why you would vote for Lieberman or Clarke but not for Kerry. What are the differences that change your vote?

As to the topic, no Bush can't be removed in a practical sense. For the incumbent party to dump the President is a clear signal that the policies of the party, whom the President leads like it or not, have failed the country. A party may lose with the incumbent, but I can't imagine a scenario where they would win by ousting the sitting President. The best modern example is 1968 where Humphrey was colored by Johnson's failures. Maybe Kennedy could have changed things, but we'll never know.

[Arles]

I like McCain a lot, voted for him in the 2000 primary and have even helped work for his re-election. That said, I think this all reminds me of "Let's make a Deal" where the allure of door number 3 is often more than the contents inside of it.

You put McCain on a republican ticket and it will be open season on him by the democrats. And, as much as I do like the guy, he does have some skeletons that would pop up in a presidential election. Not to mention that many on the right would probably look at him like they did with Bush 41, thinking "my choices are essentially two democrats".

[clintl]

The McCain political transformation has been quite amazing. Up until the 2000 primary season, he was regarded pretty much as hardcore conservative in the Barry Goldwater tradition.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glengoyne: As a moderate Dem myself I am curious why you would vote for Lieberman or Clarke but not for Kerry. What are the differences that change your vote?

As for Clark. He was a bit of a wild card for me. He was a millitary man without a history in Washington. That alone held quite a bit of appeal to me. I would like to have seen how he and his positions would have stood up to a presidential campaign.

As for Lieberman: He is on the very short list of senators that I have long respected. I admit I did lose a little respect for him in the aftermath of the 2000 election, but realized that he was doing his duty to the ticket. He has held one of if not the most reasonable positions on the war in Iraq in the democratic party. He is pretty much a democrat that shares my opinion on a variety of topics. I am a registered Dem that hasn't ever been able to wholeheartedly cast a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. I do hope to someday though.

I was a huge Gore fan in '88. I was disappointed he didn't run in '92, and sincerely wished he lead the ticket then. I was actually leaning toward Gore in 2000, until the debates that was. Gore lost me in the debates, much more so than Bush won me over. Bush didn't win me over until the days after 9/11, though he has done much to irk me since.

[JPhillips]

Fair enough. I was a Clark supporter during the primaries and never warmed to Lieberman. I think he's a good guy, but possibly the worst choice for national office because he is such a weak campaigner. I'll never forget his terrible performance against Cheney. He's just not cut out for national office.

For me more than any policy issue I'm against Bush because he seems to believe he is above the law. It's not just Abu Ghraib, it's using tax money to pay for political ads, barring officials from truthfully testifying to congress, adding pro-Bush slogans to Treasury documents, and many others. Kerry isn't perfect for me, but Bush seems to want to be my King and I won't stand for that.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Fair enough. I was a Clark supporter during the primaries and never warmed to Lieberman. I think he's a good guy, but possibly the worst choice for national office because he is such a weak campaigner. I'll never forget his terrible performance against Cheney. He's just not cut out for national office.

For me more than any policy issue I'm against Bush because he seems to believe he is above the law. It's not just Abu Ghraib, it's using tax money to pay for political ads, barring officials from truthfully testifying to congress, adding pro-Bush slogans to Treasury documents, and many others. Kerry isn't perfect for me, but Bush seems to want to be my King and I won't stand for that.

Even if I agreed with your view on Bush (I don't), after eight years of Clinton, I'd have to say its simply a little Republican tit for Democratic tat (or in Clinton's case vice-versa -- tat for tit)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Speaking only for myself as a left-leaning moderate with a libertarian streak, I don't like Lieberman, I have an impression that he's too pro-censorship as regards the entertainment industry.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First of all, I don't think a party would EVER nominate anyone who wasn't the incumbent, given the choice. Being the incumbent is worth a ton of points in the election right off the bat.

Second, there's every reason to believe Bush will indeed win re-election. Kerry looks very weak.

Even if the Republicans thougth Bush was totally unelectable, who would they nominate instead? There's really no one "slam dunk" candidate within the party right now.

Read about a standing president named Tyler if you believe that a party would not nominate a sitting President. Guy stood up to his own party, and they responded by not nominating him.

-Anxiety

[cuervo72]

John Tyler was president a LONG time ago though...

[Bee]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

John Tyler was president a LONG time ago though...

Was that before or after he was a wideout for the 49ers?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by clintl

The McCain political transformation has been quite amazing. Up until the 2000 primary season, he was regarded pretty much as hardcore conservative in the Barry Goldwater tradition.

Which is pretty liberal in many ways. Goldwater was for gay rights, for example. Take a look at Goldwater's senatorial speeches and votes while he was in office with McCain and see if you do not see parallels. Both placce civil rights on a higher plateau than the Bush version 2 people do. That's a pretty liberal spin on classic conservativism.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

John Tyler was president a LONG time ago though...

Nevertheless, it remains a valid point. Frankinwhasthisname said that he couldn't see a party not nominating a sitting Preisdent, I pointed out a situation where it already had. Vice-Pres becomes Pres early in term, fights for what he believes in against his own party, is not nominated for President. Ergo, incumbant not being nominated. Seems like the same scenario could happen today, too.

-Anxiety

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Which is pretty liberal in many ways. Goldwater was for gay rights, for example. Take a look at Goldwater's senatorial speeches and votes while he was in office with McCain and see if you do not see parallels. Both placce civil rights on a higher plateau than the Bush version 2 people do. That's a pretty liberal spin on classic conservativism.

-Anxiety

I disagree with you to a certain extent there. I know Goldwater opposed much of the social agenda of the "New Right." But Goldwater is the one that represented classic conservatism, which more in line with what's now thought of as libertarianism. Reagan is the one who made social conservatism a big part of Republican Party doctrine. McCain, on the other, hand has drifted to the left on some economic issues as well as social issues, which Goldwater never did.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Arles

In fact, if you believe the polls, Bush is in about the same spot (50% approval) that both Reagan and Clinton were leading up to their second-term election.

Not quite. He is hovering right at and below 50%.

The average job approval rating for the years in which presidents have sought re-election since World War II is 54%. Truman had a 48% approval rating in 1948, Eisenhower had 72% in 1956, Johnson had 73% in 1964, Nixon had 56% in 1972, Ford had 49% in 1976, Carter had 38% in 1980, Reagan had 56% in 1984, Bush had 41% in 1992, and Clinton had 56% in 1996. Of these presidents seeking re-election, Ford, Carter, and Bush eventually lost the elections in those years, and it is noteworthy that all had averages below 50%.

Bush is right in between the two sets of incumbents. All with higher approval ratings since WWII have won, all with lower have lost.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Nevertheless, it remains a valid point. Frankinwhasthisname said that he couldn't see a party not nominating a sitting Preisdent, I pointed out a situation where it already had. Vice-Pres becomes Pres early in term, fights for what he believes in against his own party, is not nominated for President. Ergo, incumbant not being nominated. Seems like the same scenario could happen today, too.

-Anxiety

Dude, Tyler was a member of the Whig party and served from 1841-45.

Is that really a fair comparison? Since the Civil War, the US has been a two-party system, and comparisons to politics that long ago are trivial, at best.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Not quite. He is hovering right at and below 50%.

Bush is right in between the two sets of incumbents. All with higher approval ratings since WWII have won, all with lower have lost.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll (July 22-25)

George W. Bush:
54% favorable, 43% unfavorable, 3% undecided

So, he's a 54%, which is within the margin of error to where both Clinton and Reagan were (56%). It's also a pretty far cry from Carter (38%) and his dad (41%).

[Huckleberry]

Right. And Rasmussen has it at 51% today.

The point is that my quoted pieces comes from a use of the average approval rating throughout the re-election year. Not the highly fluctuating daily poll where people can pick and choose which poll on which day to reference.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Right. And Rasmussen has it at 51% today.

The point is that my quoted pieces comes from a use of the average approval rating throughout the re-election year. Not the highly fluctuating daily poll where people can pick and choose which poll on which day to reference.

Your method also ignores trends. Right now, Bush has seen an increase of an average of 8% in approval since March in most polls. That's certainly more encouraging than the Carter situation where he had lost 8% leading up to the fall.

There's a good chance that after the RNC Bush will be up in the 55-60% range, exactly like Clinton and Reagan were. In which case, all this is moot.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Speaking only for myself as a left-leaning moderate with a libertarian streak, I don't like Lieberman, I have an impression that he's too pro-censorship as regards the entertainment industry.

That is why we have a supreme court. To stand up to presidents that would otherwise abridge our rights.

[Subby]

I think if Colin Powell were to run in place of Bush I would strongly consider voting for him.

I also think that ditching Ashcroft and Rumsfeld would sew up the election for Bush *right now*.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think if Colin Powell were to run in place of Bush I would strongly consider voting for him.

I also think that ditching Ashcroft and Rumsfeld would sew up the election for Bush *right now*.

The problem is that the people that cry the most about Ashcroft are the people that would never considering voting for Bush to begin with. What you are saying is akin to have Kerry make some concessions to Ann Coulter in hopes of getting her vote. It makes little sense.

Plus, a Wash Post poll said 70% of Americans feel Rumsfeld should not resign and continue as Sec of Defense.

Both of these moves spits in the face of the party's base and does little to gain future votes as their biggest critics would rather vote for Saddam than Bush to being with. And, polls have shown, that the people on the fence for the election care little about Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. Their choice will come down to Bush vs. Kerry regardless of who each will potentially have in their cabinet.

[Subby]

You may be right about Rumsfeld, but I completely disagree with you about Ashcroft. He is completely divisive and I can't imagine many Log Cabin/Rockefeller Republicans are all that enthralled with the guy.

And the party's base is gonna vote for Bush either way...I am talking about swing voters here.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Dude, Tyler was a member of the Whig party and served from 1841-45.

Is that really a fair comparison? Since the Civil War, the US has been a two-party system, and comparisons to politics that long ago are trivial, at best.

Actually the US has always been a two party system with only a few exceptions(Washington's 1st term,Monroe's 2nd term in 1820, 1824 when there where 4 candidates all in the Democratic party, etc.), but in 1840 only 2 parties existed, the two partys being the Whigs and the Democrats (possibly Democrat-Republican, I don't remember when that name change occured.)