Keeping up with the latest polls, the Zogby poll, which leans Democratic, has President Bush up by 3 against John Kerry. If Zogby says Bush is up by 3, it’s guaranteed that he’s up by more than that.
Personally, I’m guessing based on the polls that Bush is right around 50% with Kerry anywhere from 42-46% – which is what the Real Clear Politics poll averages indicate. Kerry’s support will likely not get much lower, although if many Democrats defect to Nader on principle, it might. However, Kerry’s sudden left-ward lurch on Iraq is specifically designed to keep the possible Nader defectors in his camp. Expect Kerry to hit Iraq hard this week, and I’m guessing we’ll hear him call for a pullout from the country immediately.
Expect also for this to not move Kerry’s numbers one bit. In every wartime election, the dovish candidate loses. If Kerry embraces the Howard Dean position on Iraq, the security moms and the 9/11 Democrats will leave him in droves. Even if Iraq continues to be as bad as it is (or even somewhat worse), advocating surrender will not fly with the American electorate. Our mission is to bring some kind of democracy and stability to Iraq and the only time we should consider withdrawl is when that job is complete. Anything else will be handing another Mogadishu to the terrorists, this time on a nightmare scale. A defeat on that magnitude will be the best terrorist recruitment message Osama bin Laden could wish for. It would prove his thesis that handed a few casualties Americans will run, and that America has no more will to fight. Such a message would be beyond disastrous.
Kerry is clearly trying to find some position on Iraq, and if he goes for the Howard Dean defeatism that will keep his fracturing Democratic coaltion together, this race will be virtually over. Even in the darkest days of Vietnam, Richard Nixon handily trounced his peacenik Democratic opponent – Kerry’s message is that Iraq is another Vietnam. What he fails to understand in that analysis is that makes him another George McGovern.
UPDATE: MSNBC has more on Kerry’s plans. By focusing on national security (Bush’s strongest issue) rather than domestic issues (where Kerry has the advantage), Kerry is shooting himself in the foot. Had Kerry done this clearly earlier (like at his convention in Boston) he might have had some traction on this issue. However, anytime voters are reminded that we’re at war, it gives a benefit to Bush. If Kerry pursues this strategy of courting surrender in Iraq, it will only continue to show why the he is profoundly wrong on national security issues.
There are times if I wonder if the Kerry campaign isn’t being secretly run by Karl Rove…
In terms of national polls, Zogby is perhaps the most credible, a point reinforced by a recent interview where he cited his samples are being more in line with party affilation rates than many of his “liberal media” competitors who are using models feigning massive 5-7 point Republican voter registration advantages that don’t exist in the real world. From what I’ve heard, Zogby was closer than anybody else in 2000, particularly your incompetent buddies at Gallup who predicted Bush by 13. (The Star Tribune’s Minnesota Poll, which was only off by 8 points, seems downright trustworthy in comparison).
Do you honestly believe Kerry is gonna call for a pullout from Iraq? Do you mean an immediate pullout or simply setting a random date for the distant future? If you’re implying the latter, you may be right. If you’re predicting the former, it’s hard to take anything else you say seriously. Putting your credibility in even further doubt, you are now suggesting Howard Dean advocated retreating from Iraq. Please provide a citation for when Dean made such a statement.
Nobody outside of Dennis Kucinich is going to challenge the foolish pride of Americans, who will always be more than willing to put up with the indefinite slaughter of other people’s children before they’ll cry uncle in the face of a military quagmire brought upon by their own hubris and mindless “patriotism”. Kerry and Dean (along with many Republicans) would both probably like to pull out of Iraq now that failure is inevitable (for many of us, success never seemed a likely option for this mission….we told you so!), but they also want to get elected. You are correct in assessing that the dove never wins in wartime, so don’t expect John Kerry to play that role, much as you try to talk yourself into believing he will. Surrender will never be an option in an election year….a lesson learned the hard way in 1972. But 2005 is not an election year, so failure will be a more tempting option then no matter who wins this November. As Iraq lapses into the civil war its critics predicted it would back when you guys were busy waving your flag and bulldozing your Dixie Chicks CDs, public sentiment will turn towards withdrawal and either Bush or Kerry will proceed down those lines, arbitrarily ending one of the darkest and most embarrassing chapters in American foreign policy history.
Personally, I see it as another sign that the Clintons are behind it. Let’s all keep our eyes open for Hillary ’08, and try to find a good candidate for the next election. (Here’s praying someone can talk Condi into running! Dear lord how that would freak the dems out.)
Condi? You’ve gotta be kidding me. Her “nobody could have ever imagined terrorists would think of using airplanes as missiles” remark alone ensures that she is either mind-blowingly incompetent or a liar. She’d be lucky to get another four years as National Security Advisor if Bush is re-elected, given her disastrous performance. Hillary would not be able to beat very many Republicans, but Condi Rice might be the one person the GOP could nominate that Hillary could beat.