Posted on 10/25/2004 2:01:39 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The presidential race continues to be on knife's edge. In 15 polls taken since the third debate on Oct. 13, President George W. Bush has had an average lead of 49 percent to 46 percent over Sen. John Kerry. Bush's percentages of support ranged between 46 percent and 52 percent, Kerry's between 42 percent and 49 percent. In Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire -- states Bush carried in 2000 -- and in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico -- states Al Gore carried in 2000 -- different polls show both candidates ahead.
It was no accident that last week the presidential and vice presidential candidates made 53 of their 59 campaign stops in these states, plus similarly close Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The overall picture is a little more favorable to Bush than to Kerry. But any Bush margin that exists now could disappear by Election Day.
We have had close elections before, but not usually ones attended by such bitterness and anger. The 1968 race between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, and the 1976 race between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter turned out to be very close, closer indeed than expected. But few partisans on the losing side considered the winner unacceptable. That's not the case today.
In the debates, John Kerry recalled that Bush campaigned in 2000 as a unifier, not a divider, and criticized him for dividing the nation as president. Yet the harshest rhetoric of this long, long campaign season has come, not from Bush and the Republicans, but from Kerry and the Democrats. Democrats have called Bush and Dick Cheney unpatriotic, not the other way around; Democrats have charged that Bush was "AWOL" in the Texas Air National Guard; Democrats have claimed that Bush "lied" about Iraq. The Democrats are the opposition party, and as such can be expected to attack the incumbent. But they are not conducting a campaign that will make it easy for them to unify the country if they win.
Nor have they been conducting themselves in a way that will make it easy for them to govern. One of the hardest things in politics is to come up with campaign proposals that will help you win the primaries, help you win the general election and help you govern. Bill Clinton did a good job of this in 1992, though he made a detour on health care in 1993-94. George W. Bush also did a good job of this in 2000, although the Sept. 11 attacks led him to refashion foreign policy as no other president has done since Harry Truman in the Cold War.
John Kerry has not done such a good job. Never much absorbed in policy issues in the Senate, he has had a weak policy shop. His major domestic initiative, on health care, has features that helped in the Democratic primaries but will be problematic if he is elected. Bush has innovative positions on Social Security and health savings accounts, but it's not clear that he's given them enough emphasis to get them enacted.
But those are not the things that are likely to drive voters' decisions. This is an election about foreign policy and basic values. It would be easier for the winner to govern if he could win an unambiguous and uncontested majority. Can that happen?
There are two theories about how voters could break toward one candidate or the other candidate. One, held by Democrats, is that most voters have rejected Bush and are just waiting to make sure Kerry is an acceptable alternative, as voters decided to go with Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in 1980. But Bush's job rating is higher than Carter's.
Another theory, held by some Democrats as well as Republicans, is that voters will decide not to switch presidents in time of war and will surge toward Bush. Possibly spurring such a reaction is the increasingly vitriolic tone of the Kerry campaign and the 527 organization ads against Bush.
The Kerry campaign deliberately tried to avoid that tone at its convention and sounded it again only in September, after Bush built up a post-convention lead. But there can be a backlash to vitriol, as Minnesota Democrats discovered after the bile unleashed at Paul Wellstone's funeral in 2002. Democrats, living in a cocoon where Bush hatred is universal and unexceptionable, failed to anticipate that. Have they made the same mistake again?
Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
Smartest man in politics, bar none. IMO
If there's a break, it'll come in the last two or three days before the election. Until then it looks like a week long case of PEA disorder.
A very good post. This fellow is one of the most prescient analysts out there. He suggests that it's likely that trends are and will be breaking our way. Four more years.
Don't forget all the polls called it a tight race for John Howard earlier this month. One even predicted a victory for his opponent. We all know how the election turned out in Australia.
If you have not made a second contribution, would you please provide us with this support today.
We must purchase our final ads on Tuesday morning.
We know we are asking a lot, but you also know that our message is critical to our nation's future.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
This Florida thing is kind of puzzling like your Oz example. Surely Bush should have that one in the bag. You'd think.
The mainstream media is messing around with our heads trying to drive GOP turnout DOWN. Let's send em a message they'll remember for the nexr four years.
LOL! Well this is one time you wont need to take the Viagra. If the missus has taken it, it may be a long while before you're posting on FR again.
Is the Viagra a Hungarian Cold War motor vehicle similar to the East German Trabant ?
What? There's going to be an election? When? O_o
(Just kidding!)
Add to that the Gray Davis Recall, goldstategop.
Barone is a very sharp analyst.
Jack.
We'll find out in a day and a week, won't we? After that, I'm relieved its over for another four years.
Could be they also want to make sure every penny in both coffers are spent before all is said & done. While we all think about where it's coming from, we don't think about where much of it is going.
One thing I've heard the media is complaining how costly the election is. This from the same folks who complain we're not spending enough on entitlements.
Get rid of 527s and Campaign Reform. It's been an unmitigated disaster so far.
Have both parties create websites for donations. Make donations with either checks or credit cards. Post your name and address. Keep contributions within CONUS borders. No money from outsiders.
Have the FBI monitor the amounts to keep it legal.
What's the big deal?
Jack.
We know there were at least 2.9 million voters for whom Al (Earth in the Balance) Gore was not green enough. They could not vote for Gore or Bush so they voted for Nader. With Nader off the ballot in many states, and getting next to no publicity on his issues, the protest vote will mostly say home. Those voters are 3 of the 4 percent who are undecided voters.
This election will be won by turn out. It is obvious that Democrats are having trouble with its base. Kerry has flipped and flopped and the media in an attempt to help Kerry have presented him as for more conservative than he is. The Kerry campaign has gone to great lengths to present him as a strong warrior, who would win the war that Quote Bush is losing. That will win few if any Bush voters, but it will drive away Democratic base.
So Kerry with his flip flop campaign has managed to cool the passions of the left. They are where they were in May of this year. They hate Bush and are indifferent to Kerry. They are at the anybody but Bush stage.
Jonathon Rugman is a British ITN reporter covering this election for the most popular network in Britain.
He told me his networks polling showed Americans have always gone to the polls to vote FOR someone. He told me a month ago, that unless Kerry found a reason to vote for him, that resonated with voters, the democratic base turn out would likely be much lower than in 2000.
The fact that Kerry and all his helpers are still trying to win the black vote, tells us they are in some degree of trouble.
But if bush wins this election 52 to 47, then it will be because the Democratic base did not vote in the numbers required to win. It also will require that the Republican base turn out in 2000 like numbers.
One final note
I agree..when this guy is on Fox, I watch and listen.
Whats the weather forcast for election day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Click here to donate by secure credit card.