Sunday, April 04, 2004
I Voted for John Kerry, Before I Voted Against Him
A few weeks ago, if you listened to the political pundits and read the public opinion trends, a future Kerry presidency seemed almost inevitable. His lead had grown to 8-10 points over President Bush, the press coverage on the Bush administration was relentlessly negative (sometimes even from Fox!), and Clarke's tell-all book and damaging anti-Bush testimony was given 24/7 attention for more than a week.
And then something funny happened. Bush started regaining lost ground in the polls. He began to tie with Kerry again. His approval ratings went back above 50%. As of this writing, he's leading Kerry by three points (46%-43%-5% with Nader) in the Associated Press poll, and by four points in the CNN/USA Today poll (51%-47%, or 49%-45%-4% if Nader is included. As a side note, this last number is somewhat striking, for it goes against the conventional wisdom that Nader only draws support away from Kerry -- in this poll, at least, he pulls evenly from both candidates and doesn't affect the final spread.)
Now, as Bush's father knows perfectly well, being ahead in early April doesn't necessarily help in November. But it can sometimes be a good indicator: Bush and Gore were tied in polls exactly four years ago and essentially tied in the general election, and in April 1996 Clinton led 49%-39% over Dole and ultimately won 49%-42%. Sure, it's likely that Kerry and Bush will bounce back and forth in the coming weeks, but with all the relentless anti-Bush coverage and sentiment lately, how has Bush even tied things up, much less be back in the lead?
The reason, as I see it, is two-fold. First, as Dole found out in 1996, you can't simply run as "not the other guy." Dole was experienced, intelligent, and by all accounts a good man, but didn't seem to have (or was unable to articulate) a vision for the country. Though many of his economic predictions now seem prophetic (Dole insisted that the economy was not as good as it seemed, and would collapse in a few years if targeted tax cuts were not implemented -- exactly what happened, right before Bush took office), he devoted nearly all his commercials, interviews, and speeches to criticizing the incumbent. Although those tactics may rally the base, it doesn't win over many independents. Similarly, Kerry hasn't been able to articulate much of what he'd do differently than Bush (bolstering Nader's claim that it doesn't matter which of them wins, anyway), and simply repeats over and over, on issue after issue, that whatever Bush is doing is wrong, and he'd do something right.
Second, and perhaps more devastating for Kerry's election chances, is that everything the Democrats have tried to slay Bush on hasn't exactly worked out. During the early primary debates, each candidate railed on Bush for not being able to capture Saddam. Then Saddam was captured. So it became all about the economy's lack of growth. Then every economic indicator became not only solid, but growth and productivity rates became the strongest in 20 years. More recently, the assault was against the one area of the economy that wasn't rebounding as strongly: the unemployment numbers (always the last to turn around after a recession). Now even this area has started a huge rebound, with 800,000 new jobs added in the last seven months, with more on the way. This is simply the wrong year to challenge the President on the economy, just as 1996 was the wrong year for Dole to challenge Clinton on the economy (even though some of Dole's predictions turned out to be right in the end.)
This is why nearly every Democratic pundit on TV and in print is predicting, again and again, that Bush will pull Osama out of a hat right before the November elections. I am stunned at how often I'm hearing this claim in recent weeks. Even the most fanatical anti-Bush zealot can't possibly believe that the administration has Osama already, or wouldn't reveal him tomorrow if he was found. With morale waning and tensions rising in Iraq, surely from a political perspective capturing Osama would be better now than in October. Yet the pundits have to suggest it anyway, because they fear Osama will be captured, and this way they can still say "I told you so." They've set it up so that if Osama is unearthed between now and the election, the idea that the timing was politically motivated, regardless of the logistical improbabilities of such a feat, might dampen any positive effect Bush gets out of it. On paper, it's win-win -- if Bush doesn't find Osama, they can blame him for not finding Osama, and if he does find Osama, they can claim he had him all along and saved him for an election year gimmick. Of course, there's just no intellectual possibility that so many people (and different nations) would be in the necessary collusion for this conspiracy to function. Kerry and his team are therefore relying on a staggering level of gullibility on the part of the American people, to say nothing of the unethical moral failings of being the side that hopes the mastermind behind 9-11 isn't speedily captured (at least not on someone else's watch.)
Dean was the candidate the Dems really wanted. Smart, ambitious, energetic, and not afraid to speak his mind without worrying about sounding too politically correct. But the supporters got scared at the last minute when they realized Dean's maverick personality might keep him unelectable, and so they latched (out of nowhere) onto Kerry's near-death campaign instead. Kerry, like Dole, looks the best "on paper" to defeat a popular but troubled incumbent: an undisputed war hero, decades of service, a great name, and so on. But no one's excited about Kerry. I never see Kerry pins the way I saw Dean pins, or see passion or interest build in a person's eyes when Kerry comes up in conversation. Dole won the nomination in 1996 because he was safe. He didn't have any skeletons, and was well respected. But he wasn't exciting, in style or substance, and didn't have any original ideas. Kerry too seems devoid of original ideas, and everything he says is a retread of boring Democratic talking points. That might work on people who would vote for Kerry anyway, but in a divided nation, the independents have the final say. And independents need someone to vote for, not just against. Even with all the anti-Bush passion across this country, a campaign of "I'm not him" still won't be enough. Though April polls might not always be useful come November, a 3-4 point Bush victory sounds just about right.
A few weeks ago, if you listened to the political pundits and read the public opinion trends, a future Kerry presidency seemed almost inevitable. His lead had grown to 8-10 points over President Bush, the press coverage on the Bush administration was relentlessly negative (sometimes even from Fox!), and Clarke's tell-all book and damaging anti-Bush testimony was given 24/7 attention for more than a week.
And then something funny happened. Bush started regaining lost ground in the polls. He began to tie with Kerry again. His approval ratings went back above 50%. As of this writing, he's leading Kerry by three points (46%-43%-5% with Nader) in the Associated Press poll, and by four points in the CNN/USA Today poll (51%-47%, or 49%-45%-4% if Nader is included. As a side note, this last number is somewhat striking, for it goes against the conventional wisdom that Nader only draws support away from Kerry -- in this poll, at least, he pulls evenly from both candidates and doesn't affect the final spread.)
Now, as Bush's father knows perfectly well, being ahead in early April doesn't necessarily help in November. But it can sometimes be a good indicator: Bush and Gore were tied in polls exactly four years ago and essentially tied in the general election, and in April 1996 Clinton led 49%-39% over Dole and ultimately won 49%-42%. Sure, it's likely that Kerry and Bush will bounce back and forth in the coming weeks, but with all the relentless anti-Bush coverage and sentiment lately, how has Bush even tied things up, much less be back in the lead?
The reason, as I see it, is two-fold. First, as Dole found out in 1996, you can't simply run as "not the other guy." Dole was experienced, intelligent, and by all accounts a good man, but didn't seem to have (or was unable to articulate) a vision for the country. Though many of his economic predictions now seem prophetic (Dole insisted that the economy was not as good as it seemed, and would collapse in a few years if targeted tax cuts were not implemented -- exactly what happened, right before Bush took office), he devoted nearly all his commercials, interviews, and speeches to criticizing the incumbent. Although those tactics may rally the base, it doesn't win over many independents. Similarly, Kerry hasn't been able to articulate much of what he'd do differently than Bush (bolstering Nader's claim that it doesn't matter which of them wins, anyway), and simply repeats over and over, on issue after issue, that whatever Bush is doing is wrong, and he'd do something right.
Second, and perhaps more devastating for Kerry's election chances, is that everything the Democrats have tried to slay Bush on hasn't exactly worked out. During the early primary debates, each candidate railed on Bush for not being able to capture Saddam. Then Saddam was captured. So it became all about the economy's lack of growth. Then every economic indicator became not only solid, but growth and productivity rates became the strongest in 20 years. More recently, the assault was against the one area of the economy that wasn't rebounding as strongly: the unemployment numbers (always the last to turn around after a recession). Now even this area has started a huge rebound, with 800,000 new jobs added in the last seven months, with more on the way. This is simply the wrong year to challenge the President on the economy, just as 1996 was the wrong year for Dole to challenge Clinton on the economy (even though some of Dole's predictions turned out to be right in the end.)
This is why nearly every Democratic pundit on TV and in print is predicting, again and again, that Bush will pull Osama out of a hat right before the November elections. I am stunned at how often I'm hearing this claim in recent weeks. Even the most fanatical anti-Bush zealot can't possibly believe that the administration has Osama already, or wouldn't reveal him tomorrow if he was found. With morale waning and tensions rising in Iraq, surely from a political perspective capturing Osama would be better now than in October. Yet the pundits have to suggest it anyway, because they fear Osama will be captured, and this way they can still say "I told you so." They've set it up so that if Osama is unearthed between now and the election, the idea that the timing was politically motivated, regardless of the logistical improbabilities of such a feat, might dampen any positive effect Bush gets out of it. On paper, it's win-win -- if Bush doesn't find Osama, they can blame him for not finding Osama, and if he does find Osama, they can claim he had him all along and saved him for an election year gimmick. Of course, there's just no intellectual possibility that so many people (and different nations) would be in the necessary collusion for this conspiracy to function. Kerry and his team are therefore relying on a staggering level of gullibility on the part of the American people, to say nothing of the unethical moral failings of being the side that hopes the mastermind behind 9-11 isn't speedily captured (at least not on someone else's watch.)
Dean was the candidate the Dems really wanted. Smart, ambitious, energetic, and not afraid to speak his mind without worrying about sounding too politically correct. But the supporters got scared at the last minute when they realized Dean's maverick personality might keep him unelectable, and so they latched (out of nowhere) onto Kerry's near-death campaign instead. Kerry, like Dole, looks the best "on paper" to defeat a popular but troubled incumbent: an undisputed war hero, decades of service, a great name, and so on. But no one's excited about Kerry. I never see Kerry pins the way I saw Dean pins, or see passion or interest build in a person's eyes when Kerry comes up in conversation. Dole won the nomination in 1996 because he was safe. He didn't have any skeletons, and was well respected. But he wasn't exciting, in style or substance, and didn't have any original ideas. Kerry too seems devoid of original ideas, and everything he says is a retread of boring Democratic talking points. That might work on people who would vote for Kerry anyway, but in a divided nation, the independents have the final say. And independents need someone to vote for, not just against. Even with all the anti-Bush passion across this country, a campaign of "I'm not him" still won't be enough. Though April polls might not always be useful come November, a 3-4 point Bush victory sounds just about right.
