I suspect that, absent a Ross Perot (and the Nadar-Gonzo ticket don't count), that 'W' would be reelected, despite his abysmal record.
Thank goodness for Term Limits.
-P
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
PHLemingo |
Dubya's third term, or Term Limits is working |
Lead | |
|
So, what do ya think the chances of George W Bush being reelected? Think he'd defeat the O-man? Think the Christians would defect the way they're
leaving McNuke? Is the economy, or the war, bad enuf that people are willing to elect a Senator with no executive experiance?
I suspect that, absent a Ross Perot (and the Nadar-Gonzo ticket don't count), that 'W' would be reelected, despite his abysmal record. Thank goodness for Term Limits. -P |
|||
KenKnows |
|||
|
George W. Bush has been so completely discredited that he could not be reelected even if there were no term limits. His popularity rating says it all.
|
|||
westside progressive |
|||
|
Well I actually agree with Ken -what's that, twice in a week?
I don't believe that a guy with approve/disapprove numbers hovering at around negative 40% (Bush) would do better against Obama than a guy who's at around positive 20% (McCain). The math just doesn't compute. The only reason this is even close is because of term limits. |
|||
PHLemingo |
the Devil you know ... | ||
In other words, we would have 'W' running for reelection if there were no term limits, despite his lousy popularity and performance. Hmmm. Kinda makes the point about the incredible power of incumbency, doesn't it. That someone so discredited, so despised, so ... unfit for the job, would be here sans the saving grace of term limits. And that becasue we have term limits, there is now a s omewhat viable two-party race for office. Even if there were no term limits, its possible 'W' wouldn't run. Heck, we may have still had Bill Clinton. Except that we wouldn't, cuz we'd still have had senile ole Ronny. Bill Clinton would have gotten no purchase at all. Heck, people would still be voting for Reagan, even if he were dead. (dead voters voting for dead candidates!) Sure, there's the argument that a good candidate ought to be allowed to ... do his good. Except the opposite also applies -- the bad apple continues to rot in the barrel. I think the advantage of 'balance' in the system outweights the benefits of any particular actor on the stage. Others seem to long for the Divine Right of Kings (and hope for a good one). I thought Bill Clinton was a pretty good pres. But he didn't do enough to ensure the work he started kept going. (I guess he secretly wanted the opportunity to shift to Hillary, so sabbotages with ennui the campaign of Gore. Guess he wasn't the good a president after all. -P |
|||
westside progressive |
|||
|
I think the so-called incumbency advantage is overrated.
There are several factors I can think of why an incumbent would be favored over a non-incumbent, none of which have to do with the fact that they're the office-holder per se: 1. Political skills. Maybe the same skills that got the candidate elected in the first place make them an electable candidate in subsequent elections 2. Demographic advantages. If a moderate latino wins office in a moderate latino district, they'll be more likely to win re-election in the same district again -not because they're the incumbent, but because they're still a good demographic match for the district. 3. Money. Incumbents have a fundraising advantage. A big part of the reason incumbents win is not because they're incumbents, but they have more money. 4. They actually deliver for their constituents in some way, either through good consituent service or because they're a good ideological match to their constituents. These and other factors are all aspects of what we think of as the "incumbency advantage." Well, there's no way to control for 1 and 2. #3 can be cured by public financing. And I wouldn't want to get rid of #4. Term limits are a blunt instrument. They sweep away the good with the bad, and sweep away voters' democratic choices with the along with the incumbents. There are plenty of ways to limit the "power" of incumbency without limiting the power of voters as well. Two reforms that I can think of immediately include public financing, and proportional representation, which makes elections about ideas rather than personalities. |
|||
antfaber |
Only one sitting president was demied his party's nomination when he ran for it. | ||
|
Do you know who?
|
|||
PHLemingo |
|||
|
Roosevelt.
|
|||
antfaber |
Nope. | ||
|
Any other guesses?
|
|||