With dreary regularity we read comments from people who say they won't support Kerry or Gore in 2008 because they already lost once. This diary is prompted by the most recent work in this genre, Senator Kerry: Shove it!.
Personally, I could support either Gore or Kerry in 2008 and am intrigued by the thought (day-dream?) of a joint ticket, Gore-Kerry or Kerry-Gore. IMHO, however, it's much too soon to decide.
Gore needs no defense from me:
- he got more votes than George Bush; and
- was robbed of Florida, and hence the presidency, by a partisan Supreme Court majority.
Accordingly, this diary considers John Kerry. Relying on analysis by David Gopoian at
Donkey Rising, I conclude that the 2004 election is
not a reason to oppose a Kerry candidacy for the nomination, much less to (self-defeatingly) refuse to support Kerry should he be the nominee.
continued below the fold
Gopoian's core points are that:
- Kerry took a Party totally demoralized by 9-11 and Bush's foreign policy dominance and came within one state of dethroning the incumbent, war-time president.
- In that state of Ohio - with a Democratic Party organization in name only - he ran the best Democratic campaign in four election cycles, since Clinton carried the state in 1996. No Democratic candidate since 1996 got as much as the 48.7% Kerry gathered. The last statewide Ohio Democrat who carried the state was John Glenn in 1992.
- Unlike Gore in 2000, Kerry left no doubt by any objective, and most subjective, criteria about who won the three debates with Bush.
- According to candidate trait data from the 2004 American national Election Study data, Kerry matched Clinton's 1992 performance on each attribute measured among Democratic identifiers (cares about people like me, provides strong leadership, knowledgeable). In short, Kerry appealed effectively to the Democratic base.
- Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gopoian's multivariate analysis of the 2004 election indicates that a sizeable chunk of Kerry voters voted for him precisely because they admired Kerry's personal traits, not despite them. Controlling for all other voter predispositions, Kerry's persona, no matter what the pundits suggest, was a plus - not a minus.
Gopoian also considers, and after consideration rejects, the claim that "any number of other Democrats would have defeated Bush handily in 2004." Gopoian uses "thermometer scores" as a proxy for voter intent. "These scores ranged from 0 degrees to 100 degrees, where 100 represented extremely warm feelings toward the political figure and 0 represented extremely cold feelings. A mid-point score of 50 represented neutral feelings."
According to Gopoian, "In 2004, for the weighted sample of 787 respondents who did vote for president, 49% gave Bush higher thermometer scores, 46% gave Kerry higher thermometer scores, and 5% gave identical thermometer scores to each candidate. (Note: that 5% split their actual votes 57%-43% in favor of Bush.) These findings illustrate that thermometer score comparisons do provide an accurate prediction of vote intentions. Overall, thermometer scores provided correct vote predictions for 93% of all respondents in 2004, including the 5% with no Kerry-Bush thermometer score differences."
To make the case that some other Democrat could have easily defeated George Bush, the data would have to show an advantage in thermometer score comparisons versus Bush for that Democrat. In other words, the 49%-46% advantage that Bush enjoyed in thermometer score comparisons to Kerry would have to shift at least a few points to demonstrate a Democratic advantage that eluded Kerry.
The data, however, do not sustain this anti-Kerry claim.
Rather than demonstrating that Kerry's candidacy was a dud, these findings illustrate the limited potential personal impact of any Democratic nominee in 2004. . . . The unmentioned element in each of these assessments was the unwavering loyalty to George W Bush from the Republican base circa 2004. Bush's average thermometer score among Republican identifiers was the highest recorded from a partisan following- besting Ronald Reagan's status among Republican voters at the height of his popularity in 1984.
Here are the comparisons:
Bush-Kerry
Bush Rated Higher Than Kerry: 49%
Both Rated the Same: 5%
Kerry Rated Higher Than Bush: 46%
Bush-Hillary Clinton
Bush Rated Higher Than Hillary: 48%
Both Rated the Same: 5%
Hillary Rated Higher Than Bush: 46%
Details show that 43% preferred both Democrats over Bush and 44% preferred Bush over both Democrats. An additional 1% remained tied in both scenarios.
In short, about 12% of voters' preferences would have shifted if Hillary, rather than Kerry, were the Democratic nominee. But as Comparison #2 demonstrates, the net effects of such movements would have been minimal. Here are the reasons why.
Among those neutral in a Kerry-Bush match-up (5% of all voters), 80% would have taken sides in a Bush-Hillary contest. But they would have divided evenly - 2% from neutrality to a preference for Hillary and 2% switching from neutrality to a preference for Bush.
Among those with a Kerry preference in a Kerry-Bush comparison, 7% would have shifted to a Bush preference in a Hillary-Bush match-up. And 10% of those with a Bush preference in a Kerry-Bush match-up would have shifted to a pro-Hillary position in a Hillary-Bush contest. The ultimate effects of all these shifts in sentiment would have generated a net gain of one percentage point for Hillary Clinton versus Bush compared to Kerry's status versus Bush.
Arguably (I suggest), this net one percentage point gain for Hillary may overstate what actually would have happened because Kerry, not Hillary, was the focus of Republican hate, smear, and slime campaigns.
Bush-Edwards
Bush Rated Higher Than Edwards: 53%
Both Rated the Same: 5%
Edwards Rated Higher Than Bush: 42%
Edwards would have fared worse than Kerry. Only 42% rated Edwards higher than Bush, 53% rated Bush higher than Edwards, and 5% rated each candidate identically. Again, 88% would not have been affected at all, but the shifts that would have occurred demonstrate that Kerry held a stronger position than Edwards against Bush.
One Democratic candidate's thermometer score suggests he would have done significantly better against Bush than Kerry did. This candidate was battle-tested. He also was Constitutionally prohibited from running.
Bush-Bill Clinton
Bush Rated Higher Than Bill Clinton: 46%
Both Rated the Same: 5%
Bill Clinton Rated Higher Than Bush: 49%
Again, most voters (87%) would not have been moved across party columns whether Kerry or Bill Clinton were the Democratic nominee. For the remaining 13%, mobility would have been active in both directions in a Bill Clinton-Bush contest compared to a Kerry-Bush contest. But President Clinton would have had most of it flowing in his direction, resulting in a net gain of about 6 percentage points relative to a Kerry-Bush match-up.
For additional analysis by Gopoian, please see Kerry Campaign Performance in Swing States.