If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Fifty-four percent polled approved of Bush's performance in the war on terror. However, 44 percent approved of his performance on Iraq, a drop since March, when a slight majority supported his efforts in that country.

I'm really surprised at how close Michigan has been in state polls. I mean, shouldnt that be a slam dunk for Kerry, if he is to have the slightest chance of winning?

Bush also leads in Ohio, figure that one...

Politically, the map of Missouri resembles the nation's: The red-blue divide from the county-by-county map of the 2000 election is marked by blue "coasts" around Kansas City and St. Louis, with a giant, mostly red swath in the middle. The areas outside of the state's two major metropolitan areas are known in politics as "outstate," and just as national politicians in America tend to hail from the South and Midwest, successful statewide politicians in Missouri almost always come from outstate, particularly the southwest. Warren, the former Gephardt pollster, says the perception outstate that Kerry, like Gore, is a "city slicker," could be nearly insurmountable.

But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent - and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls - such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November - it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.

In the last 25 years, there have been four elections that pitted an incumbent against a challenger - 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1996. In all four, the victor won by a substantial margin in the electoral college. The circumstances of one election hold particular relevance for today: 1980. That year, the country was weathering both tough economic times (the era of "stagflation" - high inflation concurrent with a recession) and frightening foreign policy crises (the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Indeed, this year Bush is looking unexpectedly like Carter. Though the two presidents differ substantially in personal style (one indecisive and immersed in details, the other resolute but disengaged), they are also curiously similar. Both are religious former Southern governors. Both initially won the presidency by tarring their opponents (Gerald Ford, Al Gore) with the shortcomings of their predecessors (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Like Carter, Bush is vulnerable to being attacked as someone not up to the job of managing impending global crises.

Everyone expected the 1980 election to be very close. In fact, Reagan won with 50.8 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 41 percent (independent John Anderson won 6.6 percent) - which translated into an electoral avalanche of 489 to 49. The race was decided not so much on the public's nascent impressions of the challenger, but on their dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

Nor was Carter's sound defeat an aberration. Quite the opposite. Of the last five incumbent presidents booted from office - Bush I, Carter, Ford, Herbert Hoover, and William Howard Taft - only one was able to garner over 200 electoral votes, and three of these defeated incumbents didn't even cross the 100 electoral-vote threshold: - 1992: 370 (Bill Clinton) to 168 (George H. W. Bush) - 1980: 489 (Ronald Reagan) to 49 (Jimmy Carter) - 1976: 297 (Jimmy Carter) to 240 (Gerald Ford) - 1932: 472 (FDR) to 59 (Herbert Hoover) - 1912: 435 (Woodrow Wilson) to 88 (TR) to 8 (Taft).

Republican Party
8/11


Democratic Party
5/4