|
Let me put my cards on the table: I'm voting for John Kerry. I have already given Kerry $100. I may very well end up giving him another $100 before the convention. I think Kerry has made a few smart decisions, like opting out of public financing for the primary and picking John Edwards (who I voted for in the New York primary). All of these actions make me less pessimistic than I was a few months ago, but I'd still give Bush a better than 50% chance of winning.
There is where I see the election today. I think at least 45% of the electorate will not vote for Bush under any circumstances. But I also think at least 45% of the electorate will not vote for Kerry under any circumstances. At most, around 10% of the electorate is up for grabs, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if the figure is closer to 6%.
Why am I pessimistic? Well, for one thing, despite all the things that have happened during the past four years, Bush still has the overwhelming support of Republican voters -- close to 90% according to the polls I've seen, which is comparable to the level of support he received in 2000. Bush didn't face a challenger in the primaries. And when was the last time a Republican incumbent who faced no primary challenger was defeated? If memory serves, it was 1932, and sorry, as bad as things may seem to us all, things aren't nearly as bad as they were during the Great Depression. The simple fact is, when Republicans are united, they tend to win (1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988). And even in those rare instances where they lose (1948, 1960), it's usually by a razor thin margin. So any talk of a Kerry landslide is pure wishful thinking in my opinion.
Also, I think nearly all of the ABK ("Anybody but Kerry") voters will end up supporting Bush. But some of the ABB ("Anybody but Bush") voters could still end up voting for Nader, particularly those who feel most strongly against the war in Iraq. Now I fully expect Nader's support to drop as election day approaches, just as it did in 2000. And in the end, Nader may end up taking very few votes away from Kerry. But as he saw in 2000, even if a shift of a few hundred votes can be enough to move a state into the Bush column.
In addition, it appears that Kerry will take federal funds for the general election. Assuming Bush does the same, that means that Kerry will have to stretch his $75 million over three months, whereas Bush only has to make his $75 million last for two months. That's a pretty big gap. Of course the money Kerry raises for the DNC will help close the gap, as will money raised by liberal Section 527 organizations. But the Kerry campaign won't have control over that money.
Finally, there's the matter of an October surprise. The fact is, the election outcome could easily be swayed by events to come. First, there are the things that neither campaign can fully control, like the economy and Iraq. And while it's possible that the economy could tank or Iraq could descend into anarchy, I fear that Bush will once against benefit from the "soft bigotry of low expectations." The economy was so bad for so long, that even middling employment numbers can appear to be good news for the president. And I believe the bar will be lowered for Bush on Iraq too -- even the slightest decline in the rate of American casualties might be seen as progress. And the sad fact is, the people who get to decide whether things are improving on the economic front and in Iraq -- the media -- are still largely on Bush's side.
And what about the things the campaigns CAN control? Well, Kerry has already played his ace in the hole -- he picked John Edwards. Candidates used to be able to count on the conventions to provide an added boost, but with the electorate already badly polarized and the networks limiting themselves to only 3 hours of coverage, I wouldn't counton Kerry getting much of a bounce.
But Bush has yet to play his hand. He still has the option of replacing Cheney, and I certainly wouldn't put it past him if he thinks it will get him re-elected. He also has the anniversary of 9/11, and you can expect him to play the commander-in-chief role to the hilt. And the fact is, as the incumbent president, it's going to be a lot easier for him to manipulate the press than Kerry. He can control the timing of government announcements, be they terror alerts or economic reports. And just as important, he can try to delay release of unfavorable information until after the election.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
