QandO

August 03, 2004

Kerry's McGovern bounce
Posted by McQ

There's a lot of head scratching going on in the Kerry campaign and in the media concerning the lack of bounce coming out of the Democrat convention. Of course you'd expect the Kerry/Edwards crew to tell everyone they're exactly where they expected to be:

''We're extremely pleased with where John Kerry and John Edwards are,'' Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, said Monday.

Ummm, where's that Mary Beth, Detroit?

Of course the other side is equally as pleased with where the Democrat ticket is at the moment as well.

Republicans were delighted. Bush strategist Matthew Dowd dubbed it an oxymoronic ''negative bounce.''

Polls are obviously pretty mixed and depending upon the one you consult you might see anything from a small Kerry lead to a small Bush lead as a result.

Of course its obvious to most that the Democrats are doing a little whistling past the graveyard as they spin this, but what's also obvious is they're aware of what this bodes historically:

Since polling became a routine part of politics, the only other candidate who failed to see any improvement in his standing after the convention that nominated him was George McGovern in 1972.

Not exactly the ghost of elections past you want haunting your election run.

So what happened?

Well, Susan Page of USA Today has advanced these following theories among the pundocracy as to the "why" this might have happened.

There's the "There's no one left to persuade" theory which says we've all decided by now and no one will get a bounce out of their convention, to include the Republicans. Sorry ... don't buy this one. There is and always has been a segment of the population which aren't politically engaged, haven't tuned in yet and won't until just before the election, say about debate time.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, bounce-wise, after the Republican convention.

Theory two holds that "Republicans responded more than Democrats."

After the convention, the number of Republicans who said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting spiked by 11 percentage points, to 62%. For Democrats the increase was 5 points, to 73%). Political observers couldn't remember another time when a convention excited more loyalists in the other party than in its own.

While mildy amusing and mildly surprising again, I'm not convinced. My guess is had they stayed true to form, i.e. thrown the red meat to the lions, they'd have seen a bounce. If it is true that Kerry and Edwards inspired the Republicans more than the Democrats, I have wonder if Karl Rove is going to issue Kerry and Edwards invitations to speak at the Republican convention.

Which brings us to theory three: "There wasn't enough red meat on the menu."

I have a feeling this is more the reason than the others. Who got the loudest cheers? Dean and Sharpton. Dean because he better reflected the mood and beliefs of the delegates (and those who have been paying attetntion to all of this up to this time on the left) and Sharpton because he disregarded the ban on bashing and took off after Bush.

Republicans already have made it clear they won't repeat the Democratic strategy. Criticism of Kerry, especially of his career in the Senate, is expected to be a major component of the Republican convention, though that approach carries its own risks.

I agree. There are two edges to that sword. Do it just enough and it can be effective. Do it too much and you have the Paul Wellstone memorial. And we know what happened there.

Theory four: "Bush fares better by comparison".

Again, I have to agree. I think there's some substance in this one. Kerry asks to be judged by his record, but when one does so, there's no "there" there. His attempt to portray himself as tough and a hawk just fall flat when compared to his Senate record as a dove and a wimp when it comes to national defense.

Theory five says "Kerry failed to specify what he would do about Iraq."

A 52% majority still says that Kerry doesn't have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, down only slightly from 56% before the convention. Just 38% say Kerry has a clear plan, compared with 42% for Bush. That makes it more difficult for Kerry to capitalize on the political vulnerabilities Bush faces stemming from the war.

Kerry now says he has a 'secret' plan for Iraq which will significantly downsize our military footprint there. The Nixonian plan obviously depends on his charm in enticing reluctant "allies" France and Germany to support the effort in Iraq by sending troops. But if he thinks those two leaders, facing elections themselves, are suddenly going to support him to their own electoral detriment just because he won, well he's going to be sorely disappointed.

The seventh theory is simply an exercise in denial. "The poll is wrong."

Well maybe. But then that means all the other polls may be wrong as well and all this polling is an exercise in futility, which, by the way, I think is true much of the time. I think this is more wishful thinking than a valid theory as to why there was no bounce.

The last, and certainly the least among the theories? "The bounce will come later."

Uh, not from the Convention it won't. And that's what we're talking about.

Savvy politico Dick Morris is of the opinion that the Democrats essentially staged a 9/10 convention the first three nights and then tried an "oh by the way" about how tough and strong they were in the War on Terror department on the 4th night, and it just fell flat:

In the first three nights, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards made the right decision and focused on the domestic concerns. As one listened to their speeches, the issues that predate 9/11 got larger and terror got smaller as a key issue for November.

They said, in essence, that terror is something you read about in the papers or see on TV. But drug prices, health insurance, wage levels and schools are the reality you see every day in your own life. As with State of the Union messages, terror and foreign policy had a place in these speeches, but not overshadowing the rest.

Then came the uniforms. Old ones to be sure, but Kerry chose to showcase his Vietnam record to the virtual exclusion of anything else on the convention's final night. His old shipmates, Max Cleland and his salute on taking the podium all served to remind voters that we are, indeed, at war and that Kerry is running for the post of wartime — not peacetime — president.

In that one night, Kerry gave all of the gains of the previous three days back to the Republicans. (Rasmussen's daily tracking poll actually has Kerry dropping two points in the aftermath of his Thursday speech).

Despite those in the media who have claimed Kerry hit a homerun with his speech, I'm of the opinion that he just didn't meet the expectations of his base or the undecided. He didn't sell himself and his ability to do better when that was his theme. Its not good enough to repetitiously repeat "we can do better and help is on the way" unless you can clearly outline how you'll do it better and what help is on the way.

He did neither of those. Then coupled with the schlock "reporting for duty" bit and the whole Vietnam gig, and I think most folks were simply bored or turned off ... especially those who were leaning toward him but wanting a positive real and visible differentiation between he and Bush. As Morris says:

Kerry compounded the problem by venturing no information about his public career in the Senate for the past two decades. He did nothing to refute three months of negative ads labeling him as an ultra-liberal, big spender. He did not tell us what the Kerry Bill was or the Kerry Amendment or the Kerry hearings. As far as we know, there wasn't any.

Voters don't want a lieutenant for president. They want a commander-in-chief. After all, why did Cleland lose despite his heroism? Why did draft dodger Clinton beat war hero Bob Kerrey in 1992 primaries? Why didn't Bob Dole win in 1996?

Voters want a president with brains, not just guts, and all they saw was a warrior telling his old tales on Thursday night. And it wasn't enough.

And I think he's right. Too much Vietnam, too liberal a record, too much vague "we can do better and help is on the way" and not enough substance or differentiation.

In order to differentiate the ticket, Kerry may have to look at the "red meat" diet again. If he does he may reenergize the left but that old double-edged sword will again be in play, and frankly I think Kerry stands to come out worse in a battle of records than does Bush.

We've seen "reinventions" before in these contests, and the lack of bounce has got to have Democrat political strategist looking at precisely that. It will be interesting to see how the Kerry/Edwards campain decides to address the lack of a convention bounce.

Maybe earthtones?

TrackBack