President Bush is going to win this November. Not only is he going to win, he’s going to win by a big margin. At least as big a margin as President Clinton won by in 1996 or his father won by in 1988. We might even be on the way to an LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan-style landslide for the President. I know that some will find this prediction absurd but remember: six months ago many of you were taunting me about the inevitable election of President Howard Brush Dean III.

Think about it for a second. Really think about it. The economy is booming: even the media can no longer deny it. By November the economy looks like it will be stronger than it was in either 1996 or 1984. Remember, there’s a great deal of lag time in the economy. The recession which began in October of 2000 wasn’t felt until a few months into 2001. In 1992 the recession was over by the time Election Day arrived, but the people didn’t know it. Nothing short of a Stock Market Crash or other, similar, calamity will cause enough damage to the economy so that the people will feel it before Christmas. And, in any case, the economy shows few signs of serious trouble. Increases in interest rates will eventually slow growth a bit, but not until long after we’re into President Bush’s second term.

John Kerry’s stopped talking about “Benedict Arnold CEO’s”, one of the more popular applause lines of his primary campaign. Now he blames his speechwriters for it. When he talks about the terrible economy now he just sounds silly, a lot like the California Democrats last year marching under their “No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante” banner. Most of modern politics, of course, is simply a form of artful lying. However, for those lies to be successful, they at least have to have the feeling of plausibility.

Last December the Democrats were all explaining how the election would have nothing to do with the war- it would all come down to the economy. Now they’re claiming that it’s going to be all about Iraq. But Iraq is fading as an issue as well. While much of the media and left-wing political establishment would like for it to be the new Vietnam, it simply isn’t. The people don’t feel that way. There are no mass demonstrations. No angry rioting. The anti-war movement, such as it is, consists of a mob of second-tier movie stars, angry hunch-backed communists handing out newspapers in flannel jackets, and drug-addled college students.

In the end, I think, the Abu Ghraib “torture scandal” will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. While, in the short term, some were so repulsed by the pictures as to begin to question their support for the war (and therefore their support for Bush) the contrast in reactions between that of the President and his opponents provided a helpful distinction that will stick in the minds of many voters. The President responded with indignation, yes, but also with steady leadership. The offenders were prosecuted and things went on. Everything was kept in perspective.

Compare this with the reaction of hysterical Democrats who tried to lynch the man who is widely-regarded as the best Defense Secretary in memory and who then compared the “torture” pictures to the September 11th attacks. While most Americans don’t exactly approve of torture, they didn’t feel too badly for the “tortured” terrorists either. The overreaction of the Democrats made them look weak and it made them look incapable of providing the sort of resolute leadership needed to win the war. By November no one but the sort of ultra-partisan Democrats who ramble on about their “MIHOP” and “LIHOP” scenarios will give a damn about Abu Ghraib, but they will retain their doubts about Democratic leadership in wartime.

Four other factors mitigate the potential political downsides of Iraq.

First, the transition to a new civilian government appears likely to go off in a relatively smooth fashion. While it is certainly likely that bombings and other attacks will continue, the swift action taken by US forces in April and May against both the terrorists in Fallujah and the militias of Moqtada al-Sadr seem to have forestalled any general uprising against the new government.

Second, the United States has lined up substantial international support behind the end of the occupation effort. The US mission in Iraq is now UN-sanctioned. This defuses the complaints of many moderate Democrats who focused almost their entire opposition to the war on this single point. With the French and everyone else onboard for the continuing mission the “we-should-have-done-this-with-the-international-community” crowd will either have to shut up, line up, or sign up with the “no-blood-for-oil” folks. Since virtually all of John Kerry’s plan for Iraq has been to “internationalize” the mission, this renders many of his complaints moot.

Third, there’s a real sense of Iraq fatigue out there. People are interested in what’s going to happen in the future, but they’re not so interested in what happened in the past. The Democrats have already shot their wad on the “no WMD” and “no al-Qaeda links” departments. Any developments in these areas, therefore, are likely to favor the President (IE, any development likely to get wide play now would be the discovery of additional WMD or a public airing of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda).

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, John Kerry has nowhere left to move on Iraq. His single big idea (to “rejoin” the international community) has already been co-opted. He can’t move to the right of Bush, because he’ll lose his base. He can’t run too far to the left, because he’ll drive moderate Democrats into the Bush camp. He can’t run too close to Bush either, since he’ll anger his moody and unpredictable base by doing that as well. The best he can do is what Al Gore called for in his recent MoveOn.org speech: refuse to give specifics on the grounds that “the situation is too fluid” and intimate that he has some Nixonian “secret plan.”

To add to all of this, John Kerry’s got the additional headache caused by his remaining in the Senate. If he resigns his seat now, after the Republican Governor has called for him to do so, the story will be that he was “pressured” into resigning due to his failure to represent the state he was elected to represent. If he doesn’t, the Republican Senate Leadership is going to schedule votes on every issue of importance, forcing Senator Kerry to either put himself on the record or to remain AWOL from the Senate.

Senator Kerry is having Vice Presidential problems as well. This is very well demonstrated by his extended effort to woo John McCain. After the very public speculation that he’d choose the Senator (the media’s favourite American politicians), anyone short of Hillary Clinton (and she’s not going to accept) is going to be a let-down. While the conventional wisdom holds that he’s going to take one of his primary opponents- someone like Gephardt, Clark, or Edwards, I expect he’ll roll the dice and go for something a little out of the box. My guess? He’ll either opt for former Senator Max Cleland (the war hero whose “patriotism was questioned” by evil Republicans) or Georgia Congressman John Lewis who would, of course, be the first black Vice Presidential nominee. Of course, remember the fate of the last Presidential candidate who made a truly wild pick and choose the first woman for Vice President and, as for Cleland, I truly doubt that his newfound Ron Kovic act would play very well outside of partisan Democratic circles.

Kerry has a final problem, one that can turn a possible defeat into an utter humiliation: Ralph Nader. Think about this scenario. Kerry stumbles through the Summer, falling steadily behind the President after the end of the Democratic convention. President Bush comes out of New York in September with a ten point lead in the polls (say 52% to 42% with 5% for Nader). John Kerry’s fall campaign can’t seem to close that gap. Despite the repeated urging of partisan Democrats, he doesn’t move further to the left on Iraq. What happens next?

It’s obvious to me that if a Kerry who’s playing for the centre in October and behind by a fairly large margin will be defeated by an even larger margin. Why? Because the ultra-leftist wing of the Democratic Party will begin shrieking that Kerry is losing because he hasn’t moved too far to the left and then will switch to Nader in an attempt to “teach Democrats as lesson.” Such a scenario would be self-reinforcing. Leftist Democrats move to Nader, which causes Kerry’s numbers to drop, which leads more Democrats to shift to Nader on the grounds that Kerry’s numbers are dropping. Such a scenario might result in a final result with Bush scoring 55% of the vote to 35% for Kerry with 10% or more for Nader. A best-case scenario, to be sure, but not an impossible one. I expect to see something more like 48% for Bush, 42% for Kerry, and 5% for Nader.

I may well be wrong. We’ll see. But I don’t think so. If January 20th, 2005 isn’t the day of George Bush’s second inaugural, I’ll give $50 to Greenpeace in John Kerry’s name. That’s how confident I am.