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.
