One of the many things which amaze me about politics is the unerring capacity for self-delusion evident in some folks. I'm speaking now of the flurry of articles we're now seeing that suggest the next presidential election is pretty much over. They come from all sides. You have your Bush bashers who are staking out their seats at the inauguration of President Dean. You have your Bush supporters explaining how the Democrats have no chance, no how. I think all of these folks are seriously full of bovine excrement.
You'd think that after last time, when we didn't know who was going to be prez for weeks after the election, they'd be a little reticent to decide it's over before one primary vote has been cast. And in truth, I think a lot of folks know it's wide open, and they're just saying what they're saying to (a) boost their guy a little, (b) torture the other side and (c) maybe try to convince themselves.
A lot can happen between now and Election Day. Osama could be captured. There could be another terrorist attack. Someone in the Halliburton or Enron scandals could roll over and testify against someone powerful. The economy could rebound beyond anyone's dreams or plunge to unforeseen depths. We could find those elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction that, as hard as Bush's guys try to pretend otherwise, are the reason much of America got behind the war. If and when Saddam Hussein goes on trial, God only knows what he's going to say. Today, the political sites seem to be buzzing with rumors that the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame scandal is going to indict Karl Rove. If that happens, who can say how that will affect the election? And we can all sit here and name another hundred maybes, any of which could change the dynamic of the election.
It's a long time 'til November. Today, a number of political sites are making that point by linking to this article which appeared much closer to the '92 election than we are now to the '04 one. It basically explains how unlikely it was that Bill Clinton could possibly beat George Bush. More to the point, I recall a Saturday Night Live sketch that appeared in November of '91. It had SNL cast members playing the various Democratic candidates debating over which of them should be the guy to lose to Bush. The skit was built on the premise that no Democrat could possibly win and, of course, one did. (The sketch was so premature, they didn't even have Clinton in it. Phil Hartman played Mario Cuomo, instead.)
Today, a Time/CNN poll says that if the election were held today, Bush would beat Dean by 5%, Lieberman by 6%, Kerry or Gephardt by 9%. That's not much of a margin, given that the poll has a 3 point margin of error, and all those Democrats could still enhance the ticket with a good choice of running mate. If you go state by state, figuring who's likely to get which electoral votes, there are an awful lot that are too close to call.
I may not pay much attention to the election for the next few months. It's going to be too much of a roller coaster ride, and I have the feeling that something is going to happen later this year which will make it a brand new ball game. But I know I'm not going to pay any attention to those who tell me that the election result is predestined, even if…make that especially if they tell me what I want to hear.