Kos says:
No political reporter nailed 2004 better than the National Journal’s Chuck Todd, hence I have great respect for his analysis.
But here’s Chuck 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.
I like Todd as much as anyone but, at the presidential level at least, he called it quite wrong. And while I very much want his hints at a major Democratic victory in 2006 to be right, I can’t but remember all the political prognosticators who promised us President Kerry in 2004. Or, for that matter, all the pundits who assured us of Democratic pick-ups in 2002. Again, I hope Todd’s right, but I’ve seen too many sure things slip right through our fingers to get excited.
