posted on May 10, 2004 12:00:53 PM new
Released: May 9, 2004
The Election Is Kerry's To Lose
By John Zogby
I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.
Have you recovered from the shock? Is this guy nuts? Kerry's performance of late has hardly been inspiring and polls show that most Americans have no sense of where he really stands on the key issues that matter most to them. Regardless, I still think that he will win. And if he doesn't, it will be because he blew it. There are four major reasons for my assertion:
First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.
In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.
Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.
Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters - 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry's lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.
The President's problem is further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that are out of his control. While the economy is improving, voters historically do not look at indicators that measure trillions and billions of dollars. Instead, their focus is on hundreds and thousands of dollars. In this regard, there is less concern for increases in productivity and gross domestic product and more regard for growth in jobs and maintaining of health benefits. Just 12 years ago, the economy had begun its turnaround in the fourth quarter of 1991 and was in full recovery by spring 1992 - yet voters gave the President's father only 38% of the vote because it was all about "the economy, stupid."
The same holds true for Iraq. Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? Will Iraq be better off by then? Will the US be able to transfer power to a legitimate and unifying authority? Will the lives lost by the US and its allies be judged as the worth the final product? It is difficult to see how the President grabs control of this situation.
Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry's campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possibly positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can't spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean's message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: "I'm a veteran", "I have the experience", and "I can win". His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one former his Vietnam War colleague of told a television correspondent in Iowa: "John always knows when his homework is due."
Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President's side).
We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose.
posted on May 11, 2004 06:09:26 AM new
Interesting. Zogby has had some stellar wins, including his prediction of Gore carrying the popular vote, and Clinton's win to the exact number. I'd like to say he's right, but I'm afraid something is going to happen accidentally at just the right moment which will cause people to vote by their fear..
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
[ edited by profe51 on May 11, 2004 06:09 AM ]
posted on May 11, 2004 06:46:15 AM new
..."but I'm afraid something is going to happen accidentally at just the right moment which will cause people to vote by their fear.."
When zogby predicted the outcome, he probably failed to consider the ruthless nature of the Bush administration. Using fear is one possibility. Enforcing Marshall law may also serve to disrupt a possible Kerry victory.
posted on May 11, 2004 09:52:19 AM new
Incredible the election is this close with no VP named yet. Nader has also failed to get enough signatures to be on the Texas ballot. I can see Zogbys point.
posted on May 11, 2004 10:10:01 AM new
Bill Clinton as VP might be a great idea
Can't be done. If Kerry was elected and Bill Clinton was the VP, Clinton would not be able to take over as President if something happened to Kerry. Clinton already served his 2 terms as President and can't serve any more.
Re-defeat Bush
posted on May 11, 2004 10:23:52 AM new
I believe that one can not be elected to the office more that twice. However, in the event of the circumstance you mentioned, he is not elected as president.
posted on May 11, 2004 12:00:54 PM new
Inside the numbers: Zogby's numbers
Matt Towery
It's rare for an organization that conducts nonpartisan political polling to even acknowledge another pollster, much less to question their results, analyses or predictions. I'm certainly out on a ledge by choosing to challenge someone with the name identification and skill of pollster John Zogby. But in the name of early election season fairness, if nothing else, I feel compelled to discuss his written analysis from earlier this week that predicts, "John Kerry will win the election."
I understand what Zogby is trying to say. Our own InsiderAdvantage survey in April showed Kerry leading the president by a slim margin. But as readers of this column will note, the Bush-Kerry race is bouncing back and forth in our regular polling, with neither candidate demonstrating a marked ability to take and sustain a lead. Yet John Zogby has decided to already declare that this race is "John Kerry's to lose." With all due respect to Zogby and his strong organization, let's examine the particulars upon which he has based his premature opinion.
First, Zogby notes that only 43 percent of those he surveyed believe President Bush should be re-elected. That would imply "curtains" for an incumbent president running against "someone new" who received 51 percent. But based on my experience in past elections as a strategist and a candidate, a so-called "re-elect" number under 50 percent can no longer be considered a definitive indicator of a probable election loss, as it generally could be in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Case in point: An InsiderAdvantage survey from the summer of 2002 showed the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, with a re-elect percentage well below 40. Yet he won re-election only a few months later.
Second, Zogby contends that most of the electorate has made up its mind on the presidential race, with only 5 percent still undecided. He also says this is an unusually small percentage, considering the election is still nearly six months away -- an observation I share. So much so that I firmly believe his 5 percent number is off base. Our last InsiderAdvantage survey showed about 15 percent of respondents to be undecided. That's much more in line with the usual patterns for a presidential race this far out. Indeed, the undecided number may shift month-to-month and perhaps shrink before November. But I believe polls showing virtually the entire nation has already made up its mind suggest a degree of political focus and partisanship more in line with the opinions of political insiders than that of an electorate now more interested in the outcome of "The Apprentice" and "American Idol" television programs.
In truth, consideration of InsiderAdvantage and most other polls allows only the judgment that the presidential contest is very tight and may remain so to the wire. But already Kerry's to lose? No way. The reason is that where Zogby sees Kerry with an already overwhelming advantage on most issues, our surveys show neither candidate having emerged with a genuine advantage.
Take the economy. Zogby contends the economy is the most important issue to most Americans, and that they concentrate most on matters related to growth in jobs and health benefits. He notes that among those in his recent survey who cited the economy as their top issue, Kerry leads the president 54 percent to 35 percent. That's cute. But those who let economic issues guide their votes base that vote largely on the state of their own pocketbooks, and not on economic indicators or broad-based statistics. Again, our April InsiderAdvantage survey asked respondents if their personal finances were getting better, worse or were about the same. The outcome was virtually even among those who said better and those who said worse.
This is a pattern. On virtually every head-to-head question that can be asked of voters, opinion is split evenly. Here's another example (a highly relevant question, even though most people are loath to admit it has anything to do with their final choice for president): Which presidential candidate do voters find more likeable? The April InsiderAdvantage survey found Kerry and Bush neck-and-neck.
Even back when Bush was clearly a very popular president, I maintained the 2004 contest would be a tight one, regardless of the Democratic nominee. And I must admit it was John Zogby's shocking poll in Iowa that first suggested Kerry was leading the race there, when just days before he had been polling sluggishly. Zogby's poll catapulted Kerry into a leader's role for the nomination, and he has never relinquished it.
But I believe Zogby underestimates the power of incumbency, the number of undecided or yet-to-become-focused voters and the constantly shifting nature of this titanic battle. Perhaps his opinion will -- like Iowa -- create a self-fulfilling prophecy. But for now, it's off base.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 11, 2004 12:17:53 PM newCan't be done. If Kerry was elected and Bill Clinton was the VP, Clinton would not be able to take over as President if something happened to Kerry. Clinton already served his 2 terms as President and can't serve any more
It sure can be done. If for any reason the VP can not serve, the position goes to the Speaker of the House.
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Clinton from serving as VP, or even Speaker of the House.
posted on May 11, 2004 12:53:09 PM newElection is Kerry's To Lose
and I have NO doubt he will lose it.
----------------
I was surprised at this question in the article though: Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? I have *never* read we were ever expecting to LEAVE by the end of June. Only that will be when control is turned over to the Iraqi's.
posted on May 12, 2004 04:30:32 PM new
probably because a) it is a big step-down in position, and b) they'd have toworry about him "taking over" or people turning to him instead of them for leadership
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 12, 2004 04:59:23 PM new
I always get a laugh out of reading James Tarantino...WSJ.
Here was his answer to Zolby's statement/article.
"Out on a Limb"
This column doesn't usually issue predictions, but we're going to make an exception, because, frankly, we're jealous of all the buzz pollster John Zogby has been generating with an essay he posted on the Web over the weekend called "This Election Is Kerry's to Lose."
We disagree with Zogby.
In our view, this election is Bush's to lose. That's right, we predict that George W. Bush will win the election, unless he loses it.
posted on May 12, 2004 05:23:46 PM new
I was reading several articles today, but I do agree with zogby. If bush is doing so bad now, it will be almost impossible for him to win. Kerry at this point should not be doing so well, and has yet to pick his VP. Another shocker are the tied polls in AZ,LA,MO,CO. Should be quite interesting this fall.
posted on May 12, 2004 05:46:33 PM new
But from a historical point of view.
Consider: Between 1972 and 1996, six incumbent presidents sought re-election. Three of them--Nixon, Reagan and Clinton--were polarizing figures, intensely loathed (for a variety of personal and ideological reasons) by partisans on the other side, but solidly supported by their own party. All three won.
The other three--Ford, Carter and the elder Bush--spurred much more tepid opposition from the other party (is the idea of a "Ford-hater" even imaginable?). But all three faced challenges for their own party nod, and Carter and Bush saw third-party candidates drain away their support in November. All three lost.
Bush is clearly in the Nixon-Reagan-Clinton mold rather than the Ford-Carter-Bush one. That doesn't mean he's a shoo-in, but the "anybody but Bush" vote is not going to be sufficient to carry Kerry to the White House. If you don't already hate George W. Bush, it's unlikely that you will develop such a passion between now and November.
From the same article quoted by Linda.
Best of the Web Today / James Taranto 05/12/04
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 12, 2004 05:55:55 PM newIf bush is doing so bad now, it will be almost impossible for him to win.
But....we have plenty of recovery time. Things can change in a flash....why just two weeks ago many online newspapers where talking about how poorly kerry's doing and that maybe the party should as least think about nominating someone else. Those were dems saying that....not Bush supporters.
From what I've read...most who support kerry, at this time, are only the any-one-but-bush people....they're not choosing him because they agree with his positions.....heck...how could they know where he REALLY stands on the issues. He says one thing, but he has voted differently. They don't know what they'll get..
