"The presidential election matters massively for non-Americans, too."

I'll buy that.

"The domestic divide" - well, the Europeans aren't going to see a replication of their problems here (not to the same degree).

But using the word 'collective' - that is just too much. Time for an errant F-117 overflight of the Guardian.

"realize it's more like a 60-40 than a 50-50"

Depends entirely on the issues dominating public debate.

Were it not for the WoT,Bush would probably be heading back to Crawford next Jan.,which is why his decision to push for open borders(very unpopular with 83% of people)could be seen as a not good idea,as opposed to pushing national security where he's seen as far stronger than the Dems.

Fuel conservation and environmental concerns are also weaknesses that may have a negative effect. He has a lot on the plate that may stick in some craws. It worries me.

Not sure if you caught the "taxation without representation" bit -- i.e., the dastardly actions of the US is a tax on an aggrieved world which, darn it, has no ability to induce national suicide (other than through the election of a Democrat to the WH). This is just precious. And, by the way, forget about any election showing them wrong to the tune of 60:40. The average European (opinion maker-opinion haver) is essentially a concentrated mixture of New York arrogance, San Francisco "effeteness", and Hollywood values. To them the current 53, the possible 60, means nothing but "flyover country rantings".

I've read that the DNC is proposing that ballot boxes be strategically located around the earth so that all those folks are not disenfranchised from The American vote.

However, the DNC will continue to refuse to count votes from US military stationed overseas. (That's to prevent voter fraud.)

M:

I think 9/11 and the war is more a hindrance than a help.

Just why does an American President need to win over "non-voting international electorate"? I guess I must have overlooked that part of the Constitution, where non-citizens/non-residents get to vote.
Ditto the part where the President is responsible to anyone besides American citizens.

They really don't get it, do they?

OJ,9/11 and the war are about all W has going for him,without that he's:

the guy who rolled on A.A

signed the Ted Kennedy education bill

is spending more money on welfare than Clinton

gave us the biggest new enetitlement program
since the sixties

and keeps pushing an amnesty program and open border policy that is hugely unpopular,even with Dems,latinos,(especially)blacks and immigrant groups

and his new open border proposal just reminded everyone of all that,especially his base,who weren't very happy wiht him before 9/11.

M.:

So, you gonna vote for Dean ?

Exactly.

Which is why the President feels he can do those things.

The "Ted Kennedy Education Bill", btw, is causing so much heartburn in the education establishment that it MUST be doing good.

In a nutshell, we have the grand EUtopian schemes - you pay for them.

And stop making us look so bad.

CBS was bleating on about Bush's poll number drop to 50 percent today, and I'm sure their poll will be a major part of the Sunday news shows. But I'm also fairly certain that the approval rating drop comes from weakened support on the right, not in the center, due to people angry about the immigration reform plan. This mirrors the Bush-Rove strategy from 1998, when GWB irked some Texas conservatives with a few of his polcies, but in the end they weren't going to let Clinton buddy Garry Mauro get elected (the possibility of a Bush presidency over Al Gore serving the same role of shoring up support in Texas in 1998 as the war of terror does for him nationally in 2004).

Were election day on Feb. 2, the anger over the immigration plan would be a potential problem for Bush. But that plan may be scuttled by Congress before the fall and as Michael noted above, the Democrats will have to nominate a candidate that will, at the very lest, be inoffensive enough to those opposed to those plans (or Medicare, or "No Child Left Behind") that they would avoid going to the polls on Nov. 2. If someone like Dean, or even the Clinton-backed Clark, is the nominee, only the true masochists on the right of the Republican Party would avoid going to the polls to keep them out of the White House.

"So, you gonna vote for Dean ?

Exactly."

So,if this is the major issue come Nov.,how many will stay home?

Exactly.

Michael,the average person is not a policy wonk,all they remember is that Young Teddy was the man given credit for the bill and W happily signed it.

John,

"Were election day on Feb. 2, the anger over the immigration plan would be a potential problem for Bush. But that plan may be scuttled by Congress before the fall"

Which could potentially be worse for Bush,having angered Blacks,the Blue-collar crowd and the party base,to be accused of cynical,ham-handed pandering.That will keep the above groups angry and have the added beneifit of angering latino's who will think they were played for suckers.

Yep,alienate blacks and blue-collars,demoralize the base and p*** of latino's by promising something you can't deliver and give Dems ammo th attack him.
He's really got them where he wants them,doesn't he?

M.:

Yes, he does.

For instance, since you're completely correct about the average voter not being a policy wonk, why do you believe that: a) most voters will even be aware that the Education bill exists, b) it will be any kind of major issue to the majority, and c) George Bush won't get credit for it, since he claims it every chance he gets, and the Dems who attack it, including TED KENNEDY, claim that it's his, and that he's not funding it.

Wait until the Dems choose their candidate, and then take a look at the polling, before getting too worked up over Bush's failures. Bush will win reelection.

Although, that's not really your issue, is it ?
I sense that you'd rather have a different Republican in the White House.

M:

Yes, in the absence of 9-11, you've got the voucherizing of Education and the privatization of Medicare for conservatives plus pumping money into them for the Left.

The only thing maintaining partisan hatreds at this point is war.

THX and OJ.

The education bill was one example of many.Before 9/11,more than one stripe of Republican was losing interest in Bush,not just those far right purists Buchananeers.

"The only thing maintaining partisan hatreds at this point is war"

Excuse me?!?The left hates Bush beause he's Bush,for many he's merely a symbol,a focus and an excuse for their lack power and rejection by the voters.Look at the bitterness spat at the voters in CA. over Davis' recall.Hating him is a salve to their stinging egos,NOTHING he does will win their approval.

"you've got the voucherizing of Education and the privatization of Medicare for conservatives"

Which is buried in the biggest new entitlement program in over 30 yrs,which they know they will have to pay for.

"plus pumping money into them for the Left"

And the only credit they give him for this is to attack over the irresponsible budget deficits this is causing.

"and the Dems who attack it, including TED KENNEDY, claim that it's his,"

Now you've confused the voters.

"and that he's not funding it"

But you clear it up,the President who hasn't vetoed a single spending bill needs to come up with more money.More money for government programs always plays well with the Republican party.

"Wait until the Dems choose their candidate, and then take a look at the polling"

Depends on the candidate and the issues they choose to run on,doesn't it?

"Although, that's not really your issue, is it ?
I sense that you'd rather have a different Republican in the White House"

I would,I didn't care for him as Governor,but at this point there is no alternative,is there?I have no power to influence him,but I can choose not to endorse him.It's petty,but at least I can say my hands are clean.OJ,on the other hand,risks ending up like the Feminists,who backed Clinton all the way,and are now left with little influence and so despised even trendy-left,upscale women reject the feminist label.

To return to the original point,Bush is vulnerable on a number of issues,like it or not.
He will probably be re-elected,if it's angry Dean hitting the war and national security,Bush walks away with it.
If it's another,and the issues are outsourcing of jobs,budget defcits,etc.,and the far right carps about his big spending and open borders proposal,he probably still wins with a much narrower margin.
Even national security may not be that big a deal,as the people have,frankly,been complacent for a while now.

M:

The President was just as popular prior to 9-11 as he is now, and that was without the economic upswing which would be further underway had 9-11 not happened. Moreover we'd be at peace. No incumbent president loses a re-election bid in a time of peace and prosperity.

M:

Granting a lot of what you say, here are my problems:

1. For me, the war is the issue and the President seems to be the only person running for president who seems to realize that we are at war. Dick Gephardt, probably the sanest of the Democrats on the war, was just on Meet the Press. He likened our relationship with France and Germany to his marriage. He and his wife don't agree on everything, but they talk it over with love and commitment, and that's how he would treat our allies. If that weren't bad enough, Russert then zinged him with "and then you do what she decides" and he agreed. That's exactly how he would deal with France: discuss it with them lovingly and then do what they want. So I have no choice but to vote for Bush.

2. Otherwise, I'm a pro-roadblock, divided government kind of guy, but that still means I prefer a Republican president because what really matters are judicial appointments and the political excutive appointments two or three tiers down the hierarchy.

3. Even getting past that, I can't hope for a Democratic senate or house because, first, a Republican house is locked in for at least the rest of the decade and, second, the Democrats might be going insane.

4. I think that OJ is right about the education bill and the more I look at the immigration bill the more I like it.

5. The Medicaid bill is bad and CFR is worse and the President deserves to take a hit for them. But both are very popular in the country, both were passed by congress and CFR was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. No one running for president is going to run against either of them. Even if my vote was up for grabs, no one will get it on those grounds.

6. Bush is convinced that his most important role is to fight the war, and he's willing to do anything else necessary to get reelected in order to do so, and I agree with him.

David:

And, of course, he ran on both Medicaid reform and signing CFR.

OJ: Yeah, although he was forced into both positions. But what we probably didn't appreciate in 2000 but have no excuse for not knowing now is that the more specific the President is about promising something, the more committed he is to actually doing it.

Also, rereading my penultimate comment, I realized that Lieberman is the sanest Democrat on the war, but Gephardt is close.

M

Barring a miracle Joe Liberman recovery in the Democratic presidential campaign or John Edwards disavowing his trial lawyer connections, you're for all intents and purposes arguing the 2008 Republican presidential race right now. All those issues will come to the forefront, especially with no front-runner on the horizon.

For this year, between Dean and Clark's foreign policy rantings, Gephardt's plan for a 100 percent repeal of the tax cuts and Kerry's all-around disingeniousness about his own votes in Congress, it's really tough to see a huge number of voters on the right saying, "Four years of (insert candidate's name here) is better for the country than four more years of GWB."

John:

But there will always be a small % of people for whom the failure to adhere to their own ideology is a disqualifier for any elected official. You're right though that they aren't ufficient to matter.

"The President was just as popular prior to 9-11 as he is now, and that was without the economic upswing which would be further underway had 9-11 not happened. Moreover we'd be at peace. No incumbent president loses a re-election bid in a time of peace and prosperity."

I was going to dig for links,but why bother?
Let me turn that back on you,OJ.

A major tax cut,2 successfull wars and a booming economy and he barely cracks 60%?

"But there will always be a small % of people for whom the failure to adhere to their own ideology is a disqualifier for any elected official."

Republican voters have been let down so often,they simply don't trust the party.
They either act like Democrats or bungle the issues.Bush 1 ran as the heir of Reagan,then dismantled the Reagan coalition,dimissed the base,ignored the Reaganites,etc.
Until '92 of course and by then it was too late.

"You're right though that they aren't ufficient to matter""

If that were true,we would be talking about President Gore,wouldn't we?

DAvid:

Granting a lot of what you say, here are my problems:

"1. For me, the war is the issue and the President seems to be the only person running for president who seems to realize that we are at war. Dick Gephardt, probably the sanest of the Democrats on the war, was just on Meet the Press. He likened our relationship with France and Germany to his marriage. He and his wife don't agree on everything, but they talk it over with love and commitment, and that's how he would treat our allies. If that weren't bad enough, Russert then zinged him with "and then you do what she decides" and he agreed. That's exactly how he would deal with France: discuss it with them lovingly and then do what they want. So I have no choice but to vote for Bush."

I agree,I never said otherwise.The Dem field is underwhelming,which only helps Bush.I just don't believe the 50 state blow-out scenario.

"2. Otherwise, I'm a pro-roadblock, divided government kind of guy, but that still means I prefer a Republican president because what really matters are judicial appointments and the political excutive appointments two or three tiers down the hierarchy."

Bush left his appointments to twist in the wind,refusing to spend any politcal capital to fight for them.To OJ,this is smart,to the base it's proof he was just pandering to them.

"3. Even getting past that, I can't hope for a Democratic senate or house because, first, a Republican house is locked in for at least the rest of the decade and, second, the Democrats might be going insane."

Sadly true,which expalins in part my pessimism.

"4. I think that OJ is right about the education bill and the more I look at the immigration bill the more I like it."

He may very well be,if so I will apologize loudly.People by 83-17 don't agree opening the amrican job market to anyone in the world with a minimum wage job offer is a very good idea.If,like OJ,you think a Brazilionized nation of garders and janitors will make the world tremble at our awesome might,so be it.Myself,I will live in fear that China might embargo buckets,mops,lawnmowers and leafblowers.That would devastate the economy and leave us with dirty floors and shaggy lawns.Hopefully,they'll still send us their laundry.

"5. The Medicaid bill is bad and CFR is worse and the President deserves to take a hit for them. But both are very popular in the country, both were passed by congress and CFR was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. No one running for president is going to run against either of them. Even if my vote was up for grabs, no one will get it on those grounds."

The medicaid bill is popular with present and future recipients,not nearly so much with younger voters who will have to pay for it.
I never mentioned CFR,though some are disturbed by the 1st amendment inplications.

"6. Bush is convinced that his most important role is to fight the war, and he's willing to do anything else necessary to get reelected in order to do so, and I agree with him."

Here we disagree.OJ thinks Bush has some breathtaking vision of a "New America".I think Bush,like Clinton,will do whatever is opportune,just as he did as governor.I think his eagerness to get out of Iraq is both smart and proof that he doesn't give squat about democracy there.He doesn't care what happens after we leave,as long as it doesn't screw with his re-elction.
I approve of his handlimg of the war to date,but but I see pragmatism where many of his supporters see a crusade.
Lot's of people,OJ included,have been projecting onto Bush things that aren't really there.Bush does not back open borders because he thinks,like OJ,that whites are damn useless and the sooner they're replaced the better,his big business donors like cheap labor,that's all.
Neo-cons think he share's their crusade to bring utopian vision of democratic capitalism to the world,not hardly,he don't,as we say in TX.
Theocons think he wants convert the world(or at least California).
Bush is basically a politician from a privaliged backgroud who has some ideas he likes a lot and some ideas not so much.

And I admit I could be wrong about all of this.

M:

Democracies have a healthy tendency to vote parties and presidents that take them to war out of power (at least once the war ends):

WWI: Congress in '18, Presidency in '20

WWII: Congress (virtually) in '42

Korea: Presidency in '52

Vietnam: Presidency in '68

Iraq: Presidency in '92

OJ,

In the case of Korea and Viet Nam the war was still on and the vote was to get us out.
In both cases we weren't "taken" to the war but stumbled into them through diplomatic error for the former and naively stepping onto a slippery slope in the other.

60/40 projections are premature now ... and dangerous to boot.

genecis:

Did the Democrats win or lose as a result of the wars?