One for Elkgunner

[Nemont]

The Election Is Kerry's To Lose

By John Zogby

I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.

Have you recovered from the shock? Is this guy nuts? Kerry's performance of late has hardly been inspiring and polls show that most Americans have no sense of where he really stands on the key issues that matter most to them. Regardless, I still think that he will win. And if he doesn't, it will be because he blew it. There are four major reasons for my assertion:

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters - 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry's lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

The President's problem is further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that are out of his control. While the economy is improving, voters historically do not look at indicators that measure trillions and billions of dollars. Instead, their focus is on hundreds and thousands of dollars. In this regard, there is less concern for increases in productivity and gross domestic product and more regard for growth in jobs and maintaining of health benefits. Just 12 years ago, the economy had begun its turnaround in the fourth quarter of 1991 and was in full recovery by spring 1992 - yet voters gave the President's father only 38% of the vote because it was all about "the economy, stupid."

The same holds true for Iraq. Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? Will Iraq be better off by then? Will the US be able to transfer power to a legitimate and unifying authority? Will the lives lost by the US and its allies be judged as the worth the final product? It is difficult to see how the President grabs control of this situation.

Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry's campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possibly positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can't spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean's message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: "I'm a veteran", "I have the experience", and "I can win". His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one former his Vietnam War colleague of told a television correspondent in Iowa: "John always knows when his homework is due."

Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President's side).

We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose.

http://www.zogby.com

 

[Ithaca 37]

I was surprised to see polls in the last few days indicating the race is a dead heat! I figured Dubya was ahead, but maybe that's because I was paying too much attention to what the "blindly devoted" SI posters were saying!

 

[feclnogn]

Polls dont mean shit right now. The time to start watching polls will be after the Dem convention and the Rep convention. I do agree with the what Zogby says. Bush just sort of seems to be floundering around like a lost little puppy right now. If we keep adding jobs and the economy continues to grow it will be harder for Kerry to win. If Iraq melts down it will be almost impossible for Bush to win.

Who knows how this is going to shake out. I will tell here and now though, whom ever wins will do so by a substantial electoral margin. I don't think we will see a replay of 2000. The pendulum will swing big one way or the other.

 

[feclnogn]

Polls dont mean shit right now. The time to start watching polls will be after the Dem convention and the Rep convention. I do agree with the what Zogby says. Bush just sort of seems to be floundering around like a lost little puppy right now. If we keep adding jobs and the economy continues to grow it will be harder for Kerry to win. If Iraq melts down it will be almost impossible for Bush to win.

Who knows how this is going to shake out. I will tell here and now though, whom ever wins will do so by a substantial electoral margin. I don't think we will see a replay of 2000. The pendulum will swing big one way or the other.

 

[Hangar18]

It's based purely on who's reading the data, not necessarily what the data says.

From the WSJ's Opinion page yesterday (1st item)
Link -> Best of the Web - May 11, 2004

Part of what was written:

...Clearly all the bad news out of Iraq is having an unfavorable effect on people's impressions of President Bush. So why can't Kerry seem to get ahead of him? Here's our speculation:

</font>

• Bush's base is stronger. "Intensity of support among Bush voters is much stronger than support for Kerry," according to Investor's Business Daily. IBD's poll finds that "while 68% of Bush's supporters say they support him strongly, only 38% of Kerry's supporters say the same for him." (IBD's poll gives Bush a 47% to 44% lead in a two-man race.)</font>
• Kerry is a weak candidate. IBD's 38% "strong support" number shouldn't be that surprising, given that voters in primaries consistently said they were supporting Kerry on the ground that he could beat Bush, not because of his own merits. But if Dems don't like Kerry, why should we expect anyone else will, especially when we hear things like this, from the Associated Press: "The Massachusetts senator also sought to dispel the notion he was aloof, asking one television interviewer: 'Have you had a beer with me yet? I like to have fun as much as the next person, and go out and hack around and have a good time.' "</font>
• The Dems are overplaying their hand. Kerry responded to the Abu Ghraib revelations by calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as defense secretary. Few agree. Less than a third of Gallup's poll subjects think Rumsfeld should either quit (31%) or be fired (29%); more than 60% think he should stay in the job. Some of Kerry's fellow Democrats are saying even more outrageous things. Ted Kennedy: "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)</font>

We suspect Bush's current numbers in the mid-40s represent a solid base of supporters, and thus this number is a floor. Kerry's floor is probably a bit lower, since he isn't yet well-known, much less well-liked, and he could lose some anti-Bush or antiwar voters to Ralph Nader.

That would seem to give Bush an advantage, though obviously one that Kerry could surmount. To do so, Kerry would have to convince a large number of independents and swing voters that (a) Bush is as incompetent as the Dems have been insisting for years, and (b) Kerry would do a better job.

Will Kerry be able to do this? It's not unimaginable, but the peevishness of the e-mails we get from Kerry supporters leads us to think that he hasn't exactly inspired confidence in them.

And more from today (3rd item)

Link -> Best of the Web - May 12, 2004

...It's not Bush vs. Kerry but Bush vs. anti-Bush. Our sense is that this bodes well for Bush.

Consider: Between 1972 and 1996, six incumbent presidents sought re-election. Three of them--Nixon, Reagan and Clinton--were polarizing figures, intensely loathed (for a variety of personal and ideological reasons) by partisans on the other side, but solidly supported by their own party. All three won.

The other three--Ford, Carter and the elder Bush--spurred much more tepid opposition from the other party (is the idea of a "Ford-hater" even imaginable?). But all three faced challenges for their own party nod, and Carter and Bush saw third-party candidates drain away their support in November. All three lost.

Bush is clearly in the Nixon-Reagan-Clinton mold rather than the Ford-Carter-Bush one. That doesn't mean he's a shoo-in, but the "anybody but Bush" vote is not going to be sufficient to carry Kerry to the White House. If you don't already hate George W. Bush, it's unlikely that you will develop such a passion between now and November.

Convention has it that when a president seeks re-election, the vote is a referendum on the incumbent. He might lose if voters see him as tainted by scandal (Ford), incompetent (Carter) or out of touch (Bush père). The challenger also has to convince voters of his own superior merits: Carter's honesty, Reagan's optimism, Clinton's compassion. The Dems may yet find a winning formula, but our sense is that "Bush is evil and Kerry served in Vietnam" won't do the trick.