As President Bush continues his initial campaign trips across the United States, including Georgia, Democrats are beginning to feel the pressure to develop a Plan “B” to the 2004 elections. Hopes of a repeat of 1992 appear to be fleeting as the President’s initiatives both domestically and abroad seem to be paying dividends.

It has not gone unnoticed by Democrats that there are growing signs that the economy may be recovering from its prolonged slump. The stock markets appear to be making steady gains in recent weeks. And, as consumers feel steadier based on stabilized, if not improved, retirement accounts, spending seems to be picking up and that has been good news for the long term prospects for economic growth.

In 1992, it was the failure of the first Bush Administration to appreciate the direct impact of a sluggish economy that lead to President Bill Clinton’s unexpected electoral victory. Without a faltering economy to convince Americans of the need for a change in direction in 2004, a repeat of 1992 appears all but impossible. President Bush’s success in Iraq and the growing possibility of peace in the Middle East virtually eliminates the prospects for a campaign based on the need for change.

Instead, Democrats are confronted with a more likely prospect of a repeat of 1984 (when President Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale) or 1972 (when President Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern). But, the fallout from a repeat of either election in 2004 could be disastrous for Democrats. Yet, neither appears beyond the realm of possibility in this election cycle.

In 1984, following on the heels of a sustained economic recovery, Ronald Reagan ask for four more years. Voters gave him a landslide of historic proportions. The implications for such a landslide in 2004 are enormous. With twenty of the thirty-three seats in the United States Senate up in 2004 being Democratic seats, a GOP Presidential landslide could dramatically increase the number of Senate Republicans to filibuster-proof proportions. It would also virtually guarantee continued control by Republicans in the United States House of Representatives.

In 1972, Richard Nixon faced the ultra-liberal George McGovern. The result was much the same. With the possibility of a Howard Dean nomination lurking in the background, President George Bush could similarly face a true liberal opponent in 2004 with likely the same result. Worse yet, such an election would force many moderate Democrats to either distance themselves from their nominee (as many southern Democrats did with Michael Dukakis in 1988), or face the real risk of defeat.

With these daunting potential outcomes within the realm of possibility, there has been growing discussion among some of a “minimize the loss”, Plan “B” option. This strategy involves selecting a nominee who most will concede can not win, but who can hold key states. States like California, Illinois, New York, and Michigan could be at play with a “go for the win” strategy. President Bush’s strength could make such a gamble simply too risky for Democratic political insiders and traditionally Democratic interest groups to bet the farm. As a result, if the economy continues its upward turn, look for the safe nominee to emerge as a hedge against a big GOP win.