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. http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html
...and lose it he shall... Does any liberal think this is good news for Forbes Kerry? The man is a *horrible* politician. Horrible.
I disagree with Zogby. The race is George W. Bush's to lose. He has set the tone of the race and he has set the major issue....the war in Iraq. And lose he shall.
If Kerry can't beat a man who has proven to be incompetent in virtually every aspect of his presidency, he *shouldn't* be president.
Blah blah blah... wait you know what... that categorization is not even accurate. It should be just blah. You followed an article that actually gave analysis that backed up the writer's opinion with simply a "Nuh-uh" with your fingers stuck firmly in your ears and your opinion that Kerry is a horrible politician. Simply brilliant.
This is so true. In both this election and the last one, if the Democrats had fronted a sharp, reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidate they would have won, probably in a landslide. As it was, Gore couldn't even carry his own state and Kerry is virtually neck-and-neck with the President. President Bush is more polarizing than Clinton ever was and, even if you have no idea of his record he can't speak to save his life - yet the Democrats can't even find a good candidate to run against him. My guess is the primaries. The Democratic primaries are so focused on the liberal base of the party that it's probably not possible for a middle-of-the-road candidate to emerge (Clinton being the exception and probably only because he could come across as a liberal in the primaries yet not have a voting record to pin him as one in the general election). With many Democrats supporting their candidate simply because "he's not Bush" you would have thought they could have found someone not nearly as pathetic.
Agreed for the most part, except for Clinton being "middle-of-the-road." He was more slanted to the right than any Democrat of the past, say 20 years, but I surely wouldn't call him a centrist. Perhaps a lukewarm liberal? Until the Democrats realize that there is a whole other base of people they neglect by veering so far left, they are doomed unless they use their little ballot-box padding tricks to the Nth degree. It worked for Kennedy in Chicago!
Get used to it liberals! George W. Bush is a great man, and is going to win the election in a landslide. He may not be the best president, and may actually be the worst ever, but that dang Kerry is a flip-flopper! And he's rich too, damn rich people! George W. Bush is just like me. He's an ordinary, down-to-earth guy who loves freedom, and hates those dang liberals. Dang liberals!
ZRB, this satire stuff would be pretty good if TJ hadn't beat you to it. Keep it up if you like, but know you'll never be better than second best.
I have no need to be the best. Just showing how easy it is to imitate a moron. Do you think that TJ is actually a closet liberal, creating a never-ending parody of an ideology he actually despises? It honestly wouldn't surprise me. He is too disturbing to be real.
Just funnin you ZRB. As for TJ, I've given up guessing. I'm glad he's around though. Nine out of ten times I find him totally entertaining. The board isn't the same when he's not around.
Zogby's stuff is interesting. I tend to follow the type of trends they talk about - blue states, red states, etc. They are pretty indicative. It's still way early, though. Election season doesn't kickoff officially until Labor Day even in the presidential race and despite all the current activity. If the Zogby numbers hold into October, Bush can then start to worry. For now, it's just too early.
It's too early to call the election for anyone. The last few weeks have marked the first time during Bush's presidency that he's really been pounded by the media. So his numbers will take a hit, but his numbers aren't that bad right now. Speaking of "red" and "blue" states, I saw a map the other day showing states as they really vote -- not red and blue. Most states are actually very purple, especially in places with higher population density. Thought that was pretty cool.
