[BRussell]

I thought this was a pretty good article summarizing some of the issues that are thought to play a role in presidential elections. Different indicators predict different outcomes. To summarize:

1. The economy: It's doing well enough that according to a model from Yale, Bush should win in a huge landslide. One exception in history: George H. W. Bush in 1992.

2. Incumbent approval rating: Incumbents don't win if their job approval ratings are below 50%. Here's a website that tracks all the different polls and keeps an average. Current average: 45%. And the trend has been downward over the past several months, another indicator.

3. War: Presidents have always been re-elected during a war. Of course, LBJ didn't run because of Vietnam, so he's not counted.

4. Ohio: The Republican has to win Ohio to win the general election. Bush won 50-46 over Gore in 2000. It appears to be about the same as back then as I post this.

5. Southern Democrat: After Kennedy, Democrats have to be from the South to win. And southern running mates don't help (Dukakis). Being a southerner doesn't guarantee a win - LBJ the southerner dropped out, Carter the southerner lost re-election, Gore the southerner lost - but no Democrat from outside the South has ever won.

6. Height: Taller candidates win, in all case but Gore, who was taller than Bush (though he won more popular votes). Kerry is 6'4", Bush's height is said to be 5' 11 3/4" .

[CreepingDeth]

Article wasn't bad. But I don't really care how tall anyone is. It'd just be weird if we had another 1980 election all over again.
If Kerry were President, and we were bagging terrorist assholes left and right, we had no attack since 9/11, and the economy was doing okay, I wouldn't exactly be jumping up and down for the challenger, unless of course he was going to do something like eliminate the IRS. I'm hesitant to turn over in the middle of a war.
But Kerry is none of those things.