Pollster John Zogby has an interesting piece on why he believes this is John Kerry’s election to lose. He makes some interesting arguments, but I don’t believe his thesis holds much water.
First of all, Zogby argues that Bush’s numbers are down. He’s right, but that’s not the whole story. Remember that Bush has been the recipient of months worth of negative attacks in the media – the 9/11 Commission, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, etc. After all that anyone would see a dip in their numbers. What is interesting is that dip is not nearly as large as one would expect it to be. Bush has even managed to gain some ground while under unrelenting partisan attack.
By comparison, Kerry’s numbers aren’t great either. Especially his ratings on trust. The American people don’t know a lot about John Kerry, and what they do know often comes from what Bush wants people to think of him. They know he waffles on issues, they know he’s a liberal, and they know he’s a veteran. The latter is what Kerry would like people to know, but past war heroism is no guarantee of political success – it certainly didn’t help Bob Dole in 1996. What does matter is if the American people like you as a candidate – and even the Democrats aren’t thrilled by John Kerry – which is not something that bodes well for him.
Zogby also argues that the economy is a political liability for Bush. To an extent it certainly is, but only to an extent. Bush Sr. got stuck with an economic recovery that was in progress, but hadn’t hit home yet. George W. Bush has the benefit of much better economic timing. The economy has been recovering for months now – but it’s beginning to hit home right during campaign season. Considering that we’ve gained 500,000 new jobs in the past two months, 2 million by Election Day isn’t that far-fetched of an idea. If that comes to pass, the pocketbook issues that effect the electorate will be a benefit for Bush rather than a liability.
The war is another issue that could hurt Bush, but even bad news seems to focus the attention away from Kerry. So far Kerry has yet to elucidate a coherent position on the war (or anything for that matter) that makes him different from Bush. Kerry has said he will supplicate himself in front of the UN – however, the American electorate doesn’t like the UN and realizes that even if we beg France and Germany to join with us in Iraq, they won’t. The war isn’t a winning issue for Kerry, unless things go terribly. If anything, Kerry has to outflank Bush on the right on this issue to gain ground with the small number of swing voters that will decide this race. The problem with that is that doing so could alienate his base and cost him the hard-left anti-war crowd that only supports him because of their visceral hatred of Bush. Kerry is in a lose-lose situation in this regard.
Finally, Zogby argues that Kerry tends to do well late in the campaign. That is certainly true in liberal Massachusetts – but it won’t necessarily be on a national campaign. Kerry faces an uphill battle – the impressions voters have of him are largely negative and certainly not the kind of numbers that support Zogby’s essential thesis. If Kerry can’t define himself soon, he’s going to have to spend critical time doing so. Given that Kerry will have to contend with The Bill Show and the Olympics bookending the Democratic Convention, he has a limited amount of time to make up a lot of political ground before the general election season heats up in the last few months before Election Day.
Can Kerry win? Certainly. Bush is a polarizing figure. A good 35% of the electorate hates his guts. However, Kerry has to define himself early, he has to find a message and stick to it, and he has to delineate what makes him different from Bush. Mere partisan hatred will get Kerry close, but it won’t win over the 10% of the electorate that is going to decide this race.
This election will be close, perhaps not as close as 2000 was, but certainly Bush is going to have a very difficult fight ahead of him. At the same time, it’s hardly Kerry’s election to lose as Zogby claims. Bush has the benefit of a large war chest, the benefits of the Presidential bully pulpit, and a well-organized and run campaign. By comparison Kerry doesn’t even have state offices in some key battleground states.
This is still Bush’s election to lose.
I am concerned that Zogby has been an accurate predicter of past elections. Much worse, the last Presidential election did not take place in the context of a full-court press by the media in support of a Presidential candidate as exists now (In 2000 the media was obviously for Gore, but it seems now they really have dropped all pretense of impartiality.) Maybe the growing impact of the internet might undermine the media’s influence.
“I am concerned that Zogby has been an accurate predicter of past elections.”
Zogby is the single most overrated pollster. Bar none.
Gerry
Zogby was wrong in several key senate races in 2002, and even by his own admission failed to pick up on the late Republican surge.
Zogby is no god; he is not even the most accurate pollster.
Plus, he has admitted to a background as a far left Democrat.
Zogby says so himself. From an article in The American Prospect, a liberal magazine:
“Zogby describes his personal political history as ‘very left Democrat.'”
Plus, Zogby’s brother runs some lefty muslim group.
If you ever see a rather large guy named Zogby on the cable shows demanding that we go back to our pre-9-11 political correctness, that’s the pollster’s brother.
And Zogby the pollster used to be heavily involved in his brother’s lefty group.
Well then screw John Zogby!!
Well, gents, get your flamethrowers ready, I guess. I’m 57 years old, white and male. I suspect many of my views on the justification for the attack on Iraq – which to date has cost you and me three times more than has been spent on “homeland security” – would qualify me as liberal in some minds. Still, I think that English should be the official language of the U.S., that immigration laws are way too liberal and that government pork and its increasing intrusion into our lives is out of hand – not exactly leftist views.
I arrived at this site via Google wanting to get more background on Zogby’s “bungee jump” prediction. (BTW and FWIW, one who predicts is a “predictor”.)
IMHO, Jay Reding’s assessment of Zogby and the election is cogent, concise and spot on.
Regarding someone’s view that the “media” has “dropped all pretense of impartiality,” when was it ever not so? Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly, Will, Krauthammer, Miller, Hume, Safire, Brooks and the dozens of other right-wing TV and radio idealogues are as plain spoken in their biases as are Ivins, Dionne, Krugman, Herbert and the shorter list of left wingers.
All I know is this (and now I guess is when I reveal my “commie” self): if you’re part of the top 0.5%, and have a anverage net worth of $12 -15 million, congratulations for owning about 40% of our nation’s wealth. As part of the class, your piece of the pie is up from 33% twenty years ago. “Neo-conservatism” is paying well. If you’re part of the bottom 40% – which is unlikely, since you likely own your computer -sadly, you own only about 0.2%. Growth: zero. More likely, if you’re like me, somehwere in the middle, you’re getting shafted. Big time. The amount of debt your family and mine has taken on in the last three and a half years is staggering.
As an olive branch, I offer the following from Kurt Vonnegut. Some of you may already have him pegged as a pinko atheist or something. Maybe you don’t know he was present at Dresden during the Allied fire bombing that killed tens of thousands of civilians at time when the Germans were finished. (The suggestion to bomb the hell out of Dresden came from our ally, the Soviet Union. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” eh?) It’s instructive to rememember, Vonnegut survived a war for which post traumatic stress syndrome wasn’t on the psychiatric map. In any case, for the record – and in deference to J.S. Mill – I believe there are many things that justify fighting and sacrificing one’s life. Tragically, and sad to say, the putative democratization of Iraq isn’t one of them. You’ll have to cut and paste onto one line of your browser:
Pax
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that one is not free to post reference URLs at this site. The system seems to have culled that information from my previous posting. The Vonnegut essay, for those interested, can be seen at the “In These Times” website – decidedly liberal.
Still, the Vonnegut piece is worthwhile for those interested in the thoughts of an esteemed elder, even if his views don’t mirror one’s own. You may be surprised.
Erratum: The dropdown feature of my software allowed me to insert an incorrect email address on my second post. For those wishing to lob whatever, kindly use the address info on the first or third posts only. Over and out.