The campaign as I see it: it all comes down to Iraq
A few weeks ago, pollster John Zogby predicted that "as of now, the election is Kerry's to lose." This is bad news for two reasons. First, despite an inclination on the part of Republicans to distrust Zogby (yes, he is a Democrat, and makes no bones about it), he is consistently the pollster whose numbers in national elections come closest to the actual result.
Second, sadly, his logic in making this analysis is sound. In elections generally, and in presidential elections in particular, the voting, more than anything else, is a referendum on the incumbent. Moreover, since the incumbent is generally the better-known of the candidates, the majority of the undecided vote generally goes to the challenger. Currently, according to Zogby's latest poll, if the election were held today, Kerry would receive 47% of the vote, President Bush 42%, and Ralph Nader three percent, with seven percent undecided.
Moreover, only 42% of potential voters approve of President Bush's job performance, compared with 58% who disapprove. This paints a grim picture for the Good Guys. In order to be in good shape in this particular campaign, President Bush would have to be ahead by one more percentage point than whatever number represents half the undecided vote. It isn't happening, and at this point it even coming close to happening.
Even more worrisome, Zogby's latest poll has Kerry with a slight lead over the President in the so-called "battleground states." Meanwhile, he reports that at this point about twenty percent of Republicans are not solidly behind the President's re-election.
While political analyst Jeff Crouere of Political USA takes the data in that last poll and says nothing more discouraging than that the President's chances are "fifty-fifty at best," things are in fact not going nearly that well at the moment. While high gas prices are one factor, the underlying reason for the President's troubles clearly is Iraq. By a margin of 64 to 36%, with one percent undecided, Americans, according to Zogby, disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war. Moreover, for the first time, more Americans (50%) say that going to war in Iraq was not worth the price than say that is was (47%).Three percent are undecided. There is hope, however, in another, rather paradoxical finding: 55% nevertheless support the war in Iraq, 51% believe that "the U.S. can achieve progress toward Democracy (sic)" in that country, and 30% say that "the United States should stay in Iraq until the job is done, no matter how long."
While I suppose that it's refreshing to have a campaign where both candidates are in positive numbers, 55% have a favorable opinion of Kerry, while only 52% have a positive opinion of President Bush.
Incredibly in a time of unprecedented economic boom, Kerry leads Bush among those (31%) for whom the economy is the most important issue, 52% to 39%. Three percent pick "other" (presumably Nader), while seven percent are undecided. Interestingly, Kerry's lead is actually slightly smaller (52%, 39%, three percent, and six percent) among those for whom the war in Iraq is the most important issue.
There is one hopeful set of numbers for the President. When it comes to the question of which candidate the voters believe can best lead the war on terror, Mr. Bush crushes Kerry, with a whopping 64% to a mere 26% for the challenger, with two percent for "other" (Nader) and nine percent undecided. The bad news is that, at the moment, only nine percent of the electorate see the war on terror as the most important issue.
But with five months to go before the election, these numbers are hardly cause for despair among we who support Mr. Bush. For one thing, the closeness of the "battleground states" means that a repeat of 2000, in which victory in the Electoral College goes to Mr. Bush even while the Democrats win the popular vote- is a real possibility. And counterbalancing the negative polling numbers for the President, the polarized and therefore somewhat "frozen" nature of the electorate, and the "downside" of incumbency (i.e., the degree to which the "undecideds" tend to break in the challenger's direction) is the strange disconnect between voter perception and the actual state of the economy, and the extreme mutability of the issues which seem, at the moment, to be the President's Achilles' heel.
Iraq, in fact, isn't the disaster the media have portrayed it as being- and perceptions can change. While the President's father wasn't helped by a similar situation, the economy is, in fact, booming at the moment- and as we draw closer to the election, this fact will become harder and harder for voters to ignore. Despite unhappiness with the way the war is being handled and doubt about whether it all has been "worth it," a majority still support the war. And despite everything else, the American people tend overwhelmingly to favor the President over Kerry when it comes to matters of national security.
Partisan advantage aside, we all pray that there is not another major terrorist attack in the United States ever again, much less before Election Day. But if there is, the numbers, I believe, would turn around instantly. Anything that makes the threat of terrorism more real makes George W. Bush the better bet in the eyes of the voters, and this need not necessarily involve another 9/11. The more seriously the electorate comes to take the threat of terrorism, the more the President benefits.
Moreover, George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and John Kerry is John Kerry. It's hard for me to believe that the American people are going to retain their positive impression of Kerry, and that as the campaign progresses- especially as the electorate has an opportunity to see Mr. Bush and Kerry side by side, as for example in the debates- that the result will not be a shift in the President's direction. He is more likeable, better at inspiring confidence- and frankly much, much less irritating. I simply do not believe that Kerry's dry style, his transparent arrogance, and the melodramatic, Charles-Middleton-as-Ming-the-Merciless tremolo in his voice while intoning the first-person singular pronoun are going to wear very well over the course of the campaign.
And then, there's the inevitable fact that the longer the campaign goes on, the more the electorate will discover, to its horror, that John Kerry is every bit as bad as the Bush campaign has been saying all along.
But it seems to me that the key to this election is Iraq. The handover of power to the interim Iraqi government on June 30 may well be the hinge on which this election turns. By all logic, the President should be leading on all of the issues on which he is behind in Zogby's polls. The economy is, in fact, growing faster than at any point in the fabled "Clinton recovery" (misnamed for the president who inherited it from the current President's father- an especially ominous precedent at the moment). The skewed reporting on the war in the media, coupled with Abu Ghraib and the rising (though, as wars go, still incredibly small) casualty numbers have created a totally false impression that what has, on balance been a militarily (if not diplomatically) successful war is instead a disaster.
I do not believe that the media's campaign to defeat George W. Bush is going to subside, and a change of perception on the part of the voters is therefore going to have to come from events themselves. Things in Iraq are going to have to improve so dramatically that the media can't conceal it. That's why I'm so discouraged by the decision to yield so little actual power to the transitional Iraqi government. Every time the word "puppet" is used of that government, especially by an Iraq with no obvious axe to grind, the President's chances of re-election decrease slightly.
American policy is going to have to be made clear to, and come to be taken at face value by, Americans and Iraqis alike. President Bush's recent speech on Iraq failed to accomplish this. It isn't simply that, as the white-flag brigade whined, there was "nothing new" in it (by which they meant, "Bush didn't set a date by which, no matter what, our troops will come home"). To be sure, some sort of a provisional, heavily-qualified timetable might become necessary, with the understanding that everything depends on the smoothness of the transition of peacekeeping responsibilities to Iraqis, the safety of our troops and of American and other civilian nationals in Iraq, and the preservation of civil order. But things are going to have to get radically-and, more important, obviously, since the President's troubles over Iraq have to do more with perception than reality- better after June 30 if the President is going to be re-elected.
If that happens, perceptions of his handling of the war will obviously improve, and he will get due credit for his remarkable achievement in turning around the decaying economy he inherited from Bill Clinton. But everything comes down to events in Iraq after June 30. If the transition and the aftermath go smoothly, I believe that the President will be re-elected. If they don't...well, we have a long, dangerous, and ill-led four years ahead of us as a nation.
One more thought: to a far greater degree than I'm comfortable with, President Bush's prospects for re-election may well lie in the hands of al Quaeda. Osama's crowd can be expected to do its best to keep Iraq in turmoil after June 30 even if the domestic political situation- never as bad as the media has portrayed it- improves to a degree that cannot be denied. There are matters such as these which are simply not in the President's hands. But John Kerry is an eminently beatable opponent, and George W. Bush has, regardless of the polls, been one of the best presidents of my lifetime.
But as I see it, what used to be said of Maine now holds true for Saddam's old haunts: as Iraq goes, so goes the nation.
Second, sadly, his logic in making this analysis is sound. In elections generally, and in presidential elections in particular, the voting, more than anything else, is a referendum on the incumbent. Moreover, since the incumbent is generally the better-known of the candidates, the majority of the undecided vote generally goes to the challenger. Currently, according to Zogby's latest poll, if the election were held today, Kerry would receive 47% of the vote, President Bush 42%, and Ralph Nader three percent, with seven percent undecided.
Moreover, only 42% of potential voters approve of President Bush's job performance, compared with 58% who disapprove. This paints a grim picture for the Good Guys. In order to be in good shape in this particular campaign, President Bush would have to be ahead by one more percentage point than whatever number represents half the undecided vote. It isn't happening, and at this point it even coming close to happening.
Even more worrisome, Zogby's latest poll has Kerry with a slight lead over the President in the so-called "battleground states." Meanwhile, he reports that at this point about twenty percent of Republicans are not solidly behind the President's re-election.
While political analyst Jeff Crouere of Political USA takes the data in that last poll and says nothing more discouraging than that the President's chances are "fifty-fifty at best," things are in fact not going nearly that well at the moment. While high gas prices are one factor, the underlying reason for the President's troubles clearly is Iraq. By a margin of 64 to 36%, with one percent undecided, Americans, according to Zogby, disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war. Moreover, for the first time, more Americans (50%) say that going to war in Iraq was not worth the price than say that is was (47%).Three percent are undecided. There is hope, however, in another, rather paradoxical finding: 55% nevertheless support the war in Iraq, 51% believe that "the U.S. can achieve progress toward Democracy (sic)" in that country, and 30% say that "the United States should stay in Iraq until the job is done, no matter how long."
While I suppose that it's refreshing to have a campaign where both candidates are in positive numbers, 55% have a favorable opinion of Kerry, while only 52% have a positive opinion of President Bush.
Incredibly in a time of unprecedented economic boom, Kerry leads Bush among those (31%) for whom the economy is the most important issue, 52% to 39%. Three percent pick "other" (presumably Nader), while seven percent are undecided. Interestingly, Kerry's lead is actually slightly smaller (52%, 39%, three percent, and six percent) among those for whom the war in Iraq is the most important issue.
There is one hopeful set of numbers for the President. When it comes to the question of which candidate the voters believe can best lead the war on terror, Mr. Bush crushes Kerry, with a whopping 64% to a mere 26% for the challenger, with two percent for "other" (Nader) and nine percent undecided. The bad news is that, at the moment, only nine percent of the electorate see the war on terror as the most important issue.
But with five months to go before the election, these numbers are hardly cause for despair among we who support Mr. Bush. For one thing, the closeness of the "battleground states" means that a repeat of 2000, in which victory in the Electoral College goes to Mr. Bush even while the Democrats win the popular vote- is a real possibility. And counterbalancing the negative polling numbers for the President, the polarized and therefore somewhat "frozen" nature of the electorate, and the "downside" of incumbency (i.e., the degree to which the "undecideds" tend to break in the challenger's direction) is the strange disconnect between voter perception and the actual state of the economy, and the extreme mutability of the issues which seem, at the moment, to be the President's Achilles' heel.
Iraq, in fact, isn't the disaster the media have portrayed it as being- and perceptions can change. While the President's father wasn't helped by a similar situation, the economy is, in fact, booming at the moment- and as we draw closer to the election, this fact will become harder and harder for voters to ignore. Despite unhappiness with the way the war is being handled and doubt about whether it all has been "worth it," a majority still support the war. And despite everything else, the American people tend overwhelmingly to favor the President over Kerry when it comes to matters of national security.
Partisan advantage aside, we all pray that there is not another major terrorist attack in the United States ever again, much less before Election Day. But if there is, the numbers, I believe, would turn around instantly. Anything that makes the threat of terrorism more real makes George W. Bush the better bet in the eyes of the voters, and this need not necessarily involve another 9/11. The more seriously the electorate comes to take the threat of terrorism, the more the President benefits.
Moreover, George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and John Kerry is John Kerry. It's hard for me to believe that the American people are going to retain their positive impression of Kerry, and that as the campaign progresses- especially as the electorate has an opportunity to see Mr. Bush and Kerry side by side, as for example in the debates- that the result will not be a shift in the President's direction. He is more likeable, better at inspiring confidence- and frankly much, much less irritating. I simply do not believe that Kerry's dry style, his transparent arrogance, and the melodramatic, Charles-Middleton-as-Ming-the-Merciless tremolo in his voice while intoning the first-person singular pronoun are going to wear very well over the course of the campaign.
And then, there's the inevitable fact that the longer the campaign goes on, the more the electorate will discover, to its horror, that John Kerry is every bit as bad as the Bush campaign has been saying all along.
But it seems to me that the key to this election is Iraq. The handover of power to the interim Iraqi government on June 30 may well be the hinge on which this election turns. By all logic, the President should be leading on all of the issues on which he is behind in Zogby's polls. The economy is, in fact, growing faster than at any point in the fabled "Clinton recovery" (misnamed for the president who inherited it from the current President's father- an especially ominous precedent at the moment). The skewed reporting on the war in the media, coupled with Abu Ghraib and the rising (though, as wars go, still incredibly small) casualty numbers have created a totally false impression that what has, on balance been a militarily (if not diplomatically) successful war is instead a disaster.
I do not believe that the media's campaign to defeat George W. Bush is going to subside, and a change of perception on the part of the voters is therefore going to have to come from events themselves. Things in Iraq are going to have to improve so dramatically that the media can't conceal it. That's why I'm so discouraged by the decision to yield so little actual power to the transitional Iraqi government. Every time the word "puppet" is used of that government, especially by an Iraq with no obvious axe to grind, the President's chances of re-election decrease slightly.
American policy is going to have to be made clear to, and come to be taken at face value by, Americans and Iraqis alike. President Bush's recent speech on Iraq failed to accomplish this. It isn't simply that, as the white-flag brigade whined, there was "nothing new" in it (by which they meant, "Bush didn't set a date by which, no matter what, our troops will come home"). To be sure, some sort of a provisional, heavily-qualified timetable might become necessary, with the understanding that everything depends on the smoothness of the transition of peacekeeping responsibilities to Iraqis, the safety of our troops and of American and other civilian nationals in Iraq, and the preservation of civil order. But things are going to have to get radically-and, more important, obviously, since the President's troubles over Iraq have to do more with perception than reality- better after June 30 if the President is going to be re-elected.
If that happens, perceptions of his handling of the war will obviously improve, and he will get due credit for his remarkable achievement in turning around the decaying economy he inherited from Bill Clinton. But everything comes down to events in Iraq after June 30. If the transition and the aftermath go smoothly, I believe that the President will be re-elected. If they don't...well, we have a long, dangerous, and ill-led four years ahead of us as a nation.
One more thought: to a far greater degree than I'm comfortable with, President Bush's prospects for re-election may well lie in the hands of al Quaeda. Osama's crowd can be expected to do its best to keep Iraq in turmoil after June 30 even if the domestic political situation- never as bad as the media has portrayed it- improves to a degree that cannot be denied. There are matters such as these which are simply not in the President's hands. But John Kerry is an eminently beatable opponent, and George W. Bush has, regardless of the polls, been one of the best presidents of my lifetime.
But as I see it, what used to be said of Maine now holds true for Saddam's old haunts: as Iraq goes, so goes the nation.
Comments