A formidable task

Here's what the Democratic nominee for President must overcome in order to win election over Bush:

1. Bush's incumbency--not its effects, which are discussed below, but the mere fact of incumbency. Although incumbents don't always win (Carter, Ford, Bush I), they usually do (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton).
2. Bush's campaign chest. Nuff said.
3. Bush's clever handlers. Rove, of course, but also terrific speech writers, who've created for Bush's persona a delivery of brief, simple bursts that carry brief, simple messages. He's become a good public speaker now and will have slick, effective ads, displayed round the clock.
4. A resurgent economy, even if it's not real, and even if it unfairly distributes its largesse. The media and the markets have fallen in love with the rebound and that's all that matters, apparently, even though family income continues to fall.
5. A compliant media, plus a baldly supportive Fox-TV network. Not only do these sources trumpet Bush's achievements, he (and his minions) know how to manipulate them. Did anyone not wince when Tribune Bremer let out, "We Got Him," knowing full well that his announcement was tailored to fit across banner headlines?
6. A favorable Congress, willing and able to bury scandals, to time their deliberations and effect enactments to assist his re-election.
7. Bush's control of events. Not just a huge "October surprise," which I long ago predicted would be his announcement of a major withdrawal of troops from Iraq in the month before the election, but mini-surprises along the way. Because the media and the public are able to carry only a fixed amount of news at a time, Bush (or Rumsfeld, or Condi, etc.) can drop an announcement or create a situational crisis whenever it suits them to override some unfavorable development. Witness, for example, the announcement of domestic "alerts" whenever an untoward event (such as the shooting down of helicopters) arises.
8. The "Nascar dad" syndrome, about which I blogged some weeks ago. This is the notion--borne out, I believe, by the election of Schwarzenegger in California--that white workingstiff males are experiencing an anger fueled by their loss of status and income that translates into support for macho, angry male politicians. (A 1970's version of this syndrome could be seen in the TV series, "All in the Family," with Archie Bunker as its protagonist.) Bush portrays his war on terrorism to feed just such anger, and he's got overwhelming support among this group of voters. An adjunct of the syndrome is, I believe, seen in what I call the "Oakland Raider dad" in California, carried by Latino males.
9. Bush is a "war president." Of course he both declared it to be a war and controls its duration, in in the sense that so long as he decides it's ongoing, it is. But no matter, it engenders the fear and resistance to "change horses" that a real war does.
10. Bush's character myth. This excellent article lays out this concept, frighteningly. It's the product of media, polish, cunning and swagger, cloaked in God-phrasing.
11. Corporate support. In addition to the massive infusion of campaign funds, corporations and the wealthy who've fared so well under Bush are also influential in more subtle ways. They can suggest, through their ads and presence, that all is well with America and that thus the status quo should be maintained. They do this daily, by casting out images of a prosperous, well-functioning America, not calling attention to the gross disparities of wealth and benefits.
13. Voter turnout. Always favors the Republican candidate.
14. Luck. The guy's just blessed, let's face it. He's truly a miserable failure in all his endeavors and yet he always lands on his feet--ten rungs up the ladder from where he fell. It's the story of the "fortunate son," this time as President.

There are doubtless more reasons why Bush is favored in 2004. If you have any additions, please submit them via Comment.

The foregoing makes you wonder why we even bother.
Because, quite simply, we must.