John Kerry is on a roll, for reasons within his control and perhaps more importantly, for those beyond his control. A month ago, Kerry reached his nadir in the polls, trailing on average by 4-5 percent, but down by much larger numbers in individual polls, such as the now infamous CNN-USA Today poll which showed him trailing President Bush by 14 percent. While few anticipated the 2004 presidential race was destined to be a blowout, all the anecdotal evidence and the prevailing political winds after the Republican National Convention in New York suggested the race, close throughout the year, was headed in that direction. But much has happened since mid-September, and politically speaking, none of it particularly good for the increasingly vulnerable President Bush.
Kerry himself was besieged by criticism as the momentum he had steadily gained throughout the spring a summer suddenly came to an abrupt halt in mid-August. It was at that point the Bush camp began to hone its attacks on Kerry, making the case — with the assistance of “unaffiliated” 527 (the number in the tax code covering outside interest groups in political campaigns) veterans groups — that Kerry is an unprincipled equivocator, branding him with the “flip-flop” moniker in an effective campaign to discredit the leadership abilities of the Massachusetts senator. Bush himself was able to recycle the long-forgotten “compassionate conservative” label to appease voters uneasy about his conservative domestic policies, while raising the specter of the war on terrorism — and evoking memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — to boost his own image as commander-in-chief.
The August offensive, which culminated in a heavy rhetorical barrage at the Republican National Convention, was a resounding success, reversing the poll numbers for the candidates. Indeed, if Bush is to lose next month, his Sept. 2 acceptance speech in New York will be considered the high water mark of his campaign. Because since then, it has largely been all downhill for the Republican incumbent.
Kerry understood the perilous situation he had stepped into. Reeling from unrelenting snipping from pro-Bush groups and the Bush-Cheney campaign itself, the Democratic standard bearer reshuffled his campaign staff, reportedly at the suggestion of ailing former President Bill Clinton, the only legitimate Democratic superstar who despite his personal peccadilloes still mesmerizes the American public. As a result, Kerry injected life and vigor into his campaign, spicing up his stump speeches and sharpening his criticism of Bush’s handling of both Iraq and the war on terrorism — including pointing out that the two are mutually exclusive. Kerry’s domestic message took a backseat, a logical tactical shift considering the public’s intense focus on national security.
Perhaps the biggest factor in Kerry’s gain, however, are the events transpiring in Iraq, far beyond his — or at this point Bush’s — control. Despite the insistence of Bush and Vice President Cheney that Iraq is moving in a positive direction, the picture painted in the media, if not on the ground itself, is quite bleak. While Bush idealistically talks of “freedom being on the march” in Baghdad and throughout the Middle East, the American electorate sees mounting US casualties, a growing Iraqi insurgency, and daily reports of suicide bombings that kill scores of Iraqi civilians. Bush’s more positive assessments are ignored in the face of credible and damning evidence — CIA assessments, the Duelfer Report, statements by L. Paul Bremer, comments by prominent Republicans — that pops up each week questing the necessity, management, and result of the US invasion of Iraq.
The two presidential debates have left the president shaken. Kerry has been strong, forceful, and convincing, while Bush has been unsteady, emotional, and unpersuasive, yet still cocksure. Kerry has looked very much like the incumbents — comfortable and steady with the spotlight glaring — while Bush’s performances to date have suggested he is not the leader many thought him to be. Reversing fortunes from just two weeks ago, it is Bush who is now solidifying his base while Kerry targets the wavering and undecided voters who still sit on the fence; more of these are falling in behind the Democrat.
The first debate, in hindsight and with the benefit of media spin, was a solid win for Kerry. The second debate, held last Friday in St. Louis, was a more evenly fought match, but on the balance Kerry was still awarded a narrow victory. At a minimum, Bush did not show voters anything new during the showdown in Missouri (where the state motto is “the show-me state”), and thus was unable to stop Kerry’s momentum. Ironically, during the second debate, Bush’s best points were scored on domestic issues, while Kerry still outdueled Bush on foreign policy. The problem for Bush is that of the 3 cumulative hours of debate thus far, more than 2 hours have been exclusively devoted to global issues.
Bush has not bottomed out, nor should one write his political obituary. In an election as volatile and closely fought as this one, fortunes could again abruptly reverse. And despite Kerry’s gains, averaging the 10 most recent national polls, Bush is tied if not narrowly ahead. Currently, Bush sits at 47.8 percent, with Kerry at 47.4.
While Kerry’s gains in the aggregate national figures are certainly heartening for Democrats and critics of the Bush administration, they do not tell the whole story. For American presidential elections are won on a state-by-state basis, with the Electoral College, not the popular vote, determining who will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Individual state polling data is not taken as regularly as national figures. However, Democrats are boasting that Kerry has taken the lead or tied in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Certainly capturing Pennsylvania — which voted for Gore in 2000 — and either Ohio or Florida would almost certainly result in a Kerry victory. Bush partisans, however, feel their candidate still has the upper hand in several key states won by Gore in 2000, including Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Should the president win any of those states, it would bode as an extremely ominous sign to Kerry.
In the end, the final presidential debate is the last opportunity the candidates will have to enjoy prime-time television audiences. The campaign will not be decided by the final debate alone, but it is crucial for Bush to give a commanding performance, devoid of the arrogance and unsteadiness exhibited in Miami and St. Louis. Kerry must make a more convincing presentation of his domestic agenda. No doubt he will continue to mix in Iraq, but he must prove to be versatile, not a one-trick pony.
— David Dumke is the CEO of the American Middle East Information Network and Principal of the MidAmr Group.
