98 days and counting...
Tue Jul 27, 2004 at 01:38:00 PM PDT
The democrats should have a significant advantage in this election compared to 2000. Motivation is much higher, meaning turnout should be higher. Bush has revealed his true neocon nature, lessening his appeal to conservative dems and independents. Those who previously voted for Nader should have realized the consequences of their mistake. Thus, by this attempt at "deductive" logic, the Democrats should win, but horse race polls show a tie or a slight edge to Kerry. Electoral vote estimates are highly variable. How can this apparent paradox be explained?
Ideal deductive logic proceeds inexorably from premise to conclusion, and I admit that this is not true of the argument above. There are a number of possible answers to this horse race paradox, and like most every complex situation, more than one of them is playing a role. Which are the most important factors, and what are the implications for Kerry's campaign strategy?
Possible factors include:
1. Many voters have yet to "tune in."
This is probably true of the more apathetic segments. After all, it is unusual for the challenger to be even with the incumbent at this stage. A rise in Kerry's numbers as the election approaches would be consistent with this; however, so far there has been little change since the spring. The conventions and then the debates should do much to bring attention to the forefront.
2. The reasons why Democrats should lead are countered by the advantages of incumbency.
Incumbents do have an advantage, but it should be possible to neutralize much of Bush's. Jimmy Carter's speech was an excellent step in this regard. Talking points from his speech that gracefully but strongly imply the failures of Bush's leadership can turn Bush's occupancy of the White House against him.
3. The Democrats are still perceived as weak on national security/fighting terrorism.
Poll internals are generally consistent with this, although Kerry appeared to pull just about even for a moment recently. The convention appears to be emphasizing this issue and even running to Bush's right in some ways. I would encourage promoting the idea that Kerry has some specific plans for problem areas like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine; the problem is that Iraq is changing rapidly enough that Jan. 20 is effectively a long time away.
4. Negativity toward Bush has turned off some potential swing supporters.
Again, the convention is attempting to deal with this. I hope that the upcoming speakers can maintain the tone of the first night, when the speakers maintained an upbeat tone while nevertheless delivering (IMHO) devastating criticism of the current administration.
5. Republicans have successfully tarred Kerry enough to nullify his advantages.
I am not that well placed to comment on this, as the attacks I am aware of have in my mind not held water at all. The most obvious response is to be positive.
6. Voters are turned off by Kerry's aloofness in contrast to Bush's folksiness.
As Hillary said, serious times call for a serious leader (paraphrased). This has the benefit of implicitly criticizing Bush while turning a potential weakness of Kerry's into a strength.
7. Too many voters think, "taxes are bad and Democrats are pro-taxes."
The facts are our friend. Bill Clinton's economic arguments are the way to go. Jobs trump taxes and the jobs issue should be shouted from the rooftops, again in the positive way of emphasizing how successful Democratic presidents have been.
8. Voters think that the commander in chief should not be changed in the middle of a war.
See above re Carter.
9. Most polls report numbers based on 'likely voters,' which may introduce systematic errors, particularly if (as expected) Democratic turnout is particularly good in this cycle.
I have a gut feeling that this is likely part of the case. The few polls I've seen based on registered voters have shown Kerry to have a larger lead than likely voter polls. GOTV efforts and making sure there is no funny business during the election will be critical.
10. Increases in Democratic support have occurred but are counterbalanced by increases in Republican support.
It's hard for me to believe anyone could like Bush more now than in Nov. 2000, but I do live in Berkeley, so I'm not well placed to analyze this. I have to say that it's hard to believe the Republicans could match the degree of unity and determination present on the Democratic side.
Some of these conflict, but still may be valid for different demographic segments or individuals.
Permalink | 9 comments