QandO

May 05, 2004

Wishful thinking
Posted by McQ

Conventional wisdom, at least at the moment, seems to say that November's election will be a close one, with the winner, whoever that is, squeeking out a tight win. An observation with which I agree says elections are always referrendums on the incumbents.

That brings us to a bit of wishful thinking, in my opinion, by Chuck Todd in "Washington Monthly":

But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.

That's the premise. Now to the nut of the argument. Todd looks at the political landscape and says "Aha, this is like Carter/Reagan ... with Bush playing Carter." Todd is convinced its 1980 all over again:

That year, the country was weathering both tough economic times (the era of "stagflation"--high inflation concurrent with a recession) and frightening foreign policy crises (the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Indeed, this year Bush is looking unexpectedly like Carter. Though the two presidents differ substantially in personal style (one indecisive and immersed in details, the other resolute but disengaged), they are also curiously similar. Both are religious former Southern governors. Both initially won the presidency by tarring their opponents (Gerald Ford, Al Gore) with the shortcomings of their predecessors (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Like Carter, Bush is vulnerable to being attacked as someone not up to the job of managing impending global crises.

Are the differences obvious on the face? Well lets see:

We were coming off of 20+% interest rates ... interest rates today are at about 5%. The difference is substantial. Not only that, the recovery is well under way prior to the election, which wasn't the case in Carter's era.

Secondly, Carter won not by tarring his opponent, but because of the nation's disgust with Nixon and anger at Ford for pardoning him. Lyndon Larouche would have won had the Democrats run him.

Bush may indeed be vulnerable as someone "not up to the job of managing impending global crises", but there's little evidence, at least to this point, that his opponent is.

Todd then says:

Everyone expected the 1980 election to be very close. In fact, Reagan won with 50.8 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 41 percent (independent John Anderson won 6.6 percent)--which translated into an electoral avalanche of 489 to 49. The race was decided not so much on the public's nascent impressions of the challenger, but on their dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

True, the public was indeed dissatisfied with the incumbent. In fact I think a vast minority of them pined for Nixon. And there is no question there is dissatisfaction with the present incumbent. But I don't see, hear or feel that level of dissatisfaction which was present during the Carter years. In those years, both sides were dissatisfied with Carter.

I'd also point out that John Anderson's campaign took more from the Carter side (many Dems couldn't find it in themselves to vote for Reagan although they knew Carter was a disaster ... so they went for the moderate Anderson) than the Regan side. In this election, Nader will take almost exclusively from the Democrat side.

Todd then further explores one of the keys to his thesis that Kerry will win in a landslide:

Nearly twice as many Democrats turned out for the 2004 Iowa caucuses as they had for those held in 2000. The turnout in New Hampshire for the Democratic primary was also extraordinarily high, up 29 percent from the previous turnout record set in 1992--the year Bush's father lost his reelection bid.

The Democrats' recent enthusiasm at the polls may in part be because this year's primary featured nine candidates, and Howard Dean's unusual campaign mobilized many new voters--both for and against him.

And there he discovers the fly in the ointment. The early enthusiasm was because there were 9 candidates, some of whom (Dean) stirred real excitement. And it was fun trying to push your candidate to the front of the line. But when it became obvious that Kerry was going to win the nomination, the 'enthusiams' waned quickly. The question is, would there have been as much enthusiasm early if Kerry had been one of only two or three candidates? My guess? Probably not.

Todd then gets into a variety of different polls and their significance. My opinion: still too early for polls to tell us very much of significance. So while Todd pins his hopes on these early results, I'm thinking he's essentially reading tea leaves at this point in time. To much can change in the world between now and election day to give polls much credence at this point and time.

Todd then gets to the best analysis in his article:

For all the fallout from his policies, Bush still appeals to many Americans because of his seeming decisiveness, straight talk, and regular-guy charm--not qualities that John Kerry prominently displays. The historical pattern may strongly suggest that if Kerry wins, it will be by large margins--but that is hardly fated. It will only happen if Kerry successfully highlights Bush's failings while showing himself to be an appealing alternative. Otherwise, the senator could see himself losing an electoral rout, not winning in one. In fact, the second most likely outcome of this election is a Bush landslide. With just one exception, every president to win a second consecutive term has done so with a larger electoral margin than his initial victory. The least likely result this November is another close election.

Note this line: "Bush still appeals to many Americans because of his seeming decisiveness, straight talk, and regular-guy charm--not qualities that John Kerry prominently displays."

This is precisely why Bush is not this election's Carter. If you lived through the Carter era you remember that no one, not even Carter, believed he'd win reelection. It was the unspoken but foregone conclusion. Add to that the positive energy Reagan brought to the contest, his ability to connect with the voters and the siphoning off of votes by Anderson, not to mention the Iranian hostage situation (which dominated the news of the time) and its amazing that Carter polled as well as he did.

To this point, Kerry has been most unsuccessful in highlighting Bush's failures. Instead, the Republican machine has defined Kerry. And unlike Reagan, who came out of the governorship of the country's largest state which gave him some "leadership" credentials, Kerry has only a very liberal and checkered Senate record to put forward.

Nope. I'll have to disagree with the possibility Todd seems to think has a chance ... that of a Kerry landslide ... at least at this juncture. That doesn't mean things can't change. However, at this juncture, the comparison I'd make would be to the 1996 election. In that election, a bland war hero and senator named Bob Dole ran as the "I'm not Clinton" candidate, allowed the Democrats to define him and lost to a man who despite all his failings and problems, was well enough "liked" by the people to reelect him quite handily.

No, as I've been saying since the beginning ... if there's any comparison to be made at this time, I think the more valid one is the Dole/Kerry comparison. And we all know what the result was in 1996.

TrackBack