 |
Conventional wisdom has it that the 2004 U.S. Presidential election will be extremely tight. But history shows that an election with an incumbent president tends to function as a referendum, which could mean a big win — or a big loss — for Democratic hopeful, Massachusett’s Senator John Kerry.
In a column written for The Washington Monthly, editor-in-chief of the National Journal’s Hotline, Chuck Todd, suggests the race for President may not be as close as most pundits believe. In fact, writes Todd …
“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 a prescient BBC article, published in December 2002, correspondent Paul Reynolds compares the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, offering an analysis of what brought Carter down.
Although Reynolds suggests that George W. Bush intended not to be burdened by the same problems — the economy and foreign policy — that defeated Carter, in fact, given the events of the past few months, if you contrast the problems that plagued the Carter administration with those of the Bush White House, the current president’s tenure would seem uncertain, indeed, based on recent U.S. political history.
