September 6, 2004
The Most Electable Democrat, Huh?
Well now, isn’t this an interesting turn of events?
The contest between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry changed little, if at all, after the Democratic National Convention, leading analysts (including myself) to explain the lack of movement as a by-product of the heavily polarized electorate.
How stupid do we look now? And what do we say after very preliminary polling suggests a significant Bush bounce?
Either the surveys are wrong (and they could be) or Kerry’s no-bounce convention stemmed more from the Democratic nominee’s own limited appeal -- even with a well managed Democratic convention – than from the electorate’s polarization.
Yes, I’m wary of the Time and Newsweek polls, especially considering the bizarre timing of their telephone surveys. Time conducted its poll during the four days of the GOP convention – what the heck were they thinking when they scheduled that survey? – while half of Newsweek’s poll was conducted Thursday, the last day of the convention.
It makes much more sense to wait until after the convention is over before testing sentiment.
Still, the combination of those polls with other movement toward Bush during the previous two weeks and the new aggressiveness from Sen. John Kerry suggest that the Presidential race has turned toward President George W. Bush’s favor.
Bush’s bounce (whatever it is) is likely to fade over time, but can’t be dismissed. The Republicans appear to have convinced voters that this year’s contest is about picking a commander-in-chief to lead the war against terrorism, and Kerry is at a distinct disadvantage on that question.
While Democrats prefer to be outraged that Republicans attack a medal-winning Vietnam veteran, me thinks that they protesteth too much.
Bush’s campaign has been consistent about praising Kerry’s war record but criticizing his voting record. Maybe the Republicans are distorting Kerry’s record on defense, but are they doing it any more than Democrats distort the GOP position on children’s or senior issues? Republicans say Kerry is “weak on defense” and favors higher taxes, while Democrats say Bush and the GOP don’t care about kids or seniors. Such is the language of politics these days.
Kerry did vote against defense spending, and that plays into Democratic stereotypes. A Democratic governor (such as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton) couldn’t be saddled with a record on military spending that would cripple him in a general election, but a 20-year Senate veteran is stuck with his votes.
Kerry is paying the price of being a senator who has cast thousands of votes during different eras and different presidents. It’s the reason many of us thought that Kerry was a flawed challenger.
Anyway, it’s wise to wait for a few days before assessing the impact of the GOP convention and the state of the Presidential contest. But the Kerry campaign’s decision to bring in new advisors and to begin its counterattack at midnight can’t make grass roots Democrats feel very confident. Desperation may be too strong of a word, but clearly Kerry believes that he has to change the race’s dynamic.
The problem for Democrats is that their convention was focused on positioning Senator Kerry, while the Republicans sought to define the meaning of the 2004 election. If the Republicans succeeded, then it doesn’t matter whether the Democrats did as well.
By Stuart Rothenberg