> Thus, the voters who turned out don't seem to have changed much, but
they
> certainly were in a mood to "throw the bum out." And in 2004, the bum
in
> question is likely to be President Bush.
That seems to be wishful thinking that does not take into account the "Barabas factor." In the biblical mythology, Barabas was a thug whom the throng preferred over the Jesus character when it came to saving one of them from a death sentence.
This story exemplifies one of the fundamental operations of collective psychology - if you are in a public visibility / leadership position, the last thing you need is looking like a wimp. Because if you do, the throng will take a great pleasure in pulling you down and humiliating you as much as they can.
Most people love submitting to authority as long as that authority looks like "real" one i.e. has the clearly visible attributes of menacing, ominous power. But if the authority figure looks like a wimp, he will surely get the Barabas treatment.
That was certainly the case of Davis who looked like a wimp and was Barabasized by Schwartz. That can also explains why virtually all "red-blooded Amerikuns" hated Clinton, and why he was almost Barabasized if it were not for his last minute decision to launch cruise missiles on a pharmaceutical plant (which boosted his macho image) and a little help from the Senate. That can also explain why Carter lost to Reagan, and why assorted peaceniks and bleeding heart liberals (cf. McGovern) did not get near any hall of power.
The fundamental rule of any leadership is projecting the image of power at any cost. A leader may be totally clueless - but it is infinitely better for his popularity to take an ostensibly "decisive" and "powerful" action that eventually results in a great harm, than appear indecisive even if his inaction avoids any such harm.
Bush and his handlers understand that logic rather well, while Dean, Kucinich & Co, and their bleeding heart supporters do not. That is why Bush victory in 2004 is almost certain, especially when he orders another military strike shortly after the Labor Day. Remember, you heard it here first.
The masses do not rebel in response to hardship or exploitation, because they do not understand the causes of that hardship and exploitation, except in the most crude and anthropomorphized forms (e.g. "President X singlehandedly saved the economy while President Y singlehandedly ruined it.") . They rebel only if their own position in society seems threatened. Thus, they will eagerly submit to those who seem strong and powerful, but will revolt with vengeance when those who appear weak and inferior are placed in positions equal or superior to theirs. That is why they preferred Barabas over Jesus, why they will forgive Kenneth Lay who stole their pensions, but will demand a harsh punishment to the drug addict who broke into their car, and why they will elect a fascist rather than a wimpy-looking liberal.
BTW, in their botched attempt to impeach Clinton, Republicans grossly miscalculated the conventional imagery of power. Getting a blow job in the White House was a popular image of macho power that Clinton (who looked like a pointy-headed wimp) otherwise lacked. That boosted his popular appeal tremendously, while Starr & Co. looked like a bunch prudes who resented that macho power.
Wojtek