Henry Hanks had a short item today about liberal/leftists crowing about this Quinnipiac University poll which has the not surprising result that it if George W. Bush is put up against an unnamed Democratic candidate, that Bush loses 48 to 44. But, as Hanks notes, the Democratic Party won’t be allowed to run an unnamed candidate and it has a major problem in that its named candidates, at this point, perform very poorly again Bush.
In November 2002, Quinnipiac University asked people about three prospective races with real individuals, and here’s what people said:
Bush 53, Gore 41
Bush 55, Clinton 38
Bush 54, Lieberman 37
This is obviously very early, but clearly Bush is likely to remain a popular president unless either a) the war in Iraq goes very badly, b) there is another major terrorist attack on American soil, or c) the economy noticeably worsens.
Based on his performance during the last election, I think Lieberman will prove to be a disaster and I can’t imagine he can capture the nomination without being forced to turn even further left (and then have his contradictions turned against him).
A Hillary Clinton vs. Bush campaign would be awesome to see, but Clinton says she’s not interested in running in 2004 (probably because, given the current situation, she would likely lose). But if the war with Iraq goes bad or the economy starts to worsen, I can’t imagine she would really want to sit out 2004 given how weak the rest of the Democratic field is (does anyone really believe, for example, that Gephardt or Kerry vs. Bush wouldn’t simply be Reagan vs. Mondale all over again?)