All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Monday, April 05, 2004

National Scurity as an Issue in the Election


If the election were held today Bush would be reelected. It wouldn’t be a landslide, but he would win.

No matter how vigorously the media pound out a negative message on Bush's policies. No matter what examples of outright incompetence and corruption are exposed. (Did everyone see the mine safety story on 60 Minutes on Sunday night? Good God!) No matter that we are in the middle of a seemingly never ending war. No matter how strongly Democrats hate Bush's guts. No matter...well, none of these things are likely to have much impact on Bush’s reelection.

In particular, why am I unimpressed by negative stories about terrorism and war policy?

I am unmoved because the voting public just doesn’t care about this. More importantly, people just don't vote based on these factors. They never have and they aren't going to start now. Unless there is some catastrophic horror such as 12 years of grinding war in Vietnam (and even here Nixon got reelected), foreign policy issues will have no effect on the election. Even today, most voters couldn't find Iraq on a map. Sad, but true.

Let me give you an example of why I think the Clarke story is bad news for Democrats.

New York is a lock for the Dems. On the other hand, Washington State is a Democratic leaning toss-up state, so I have been witness to the Bush campaign at work in a way that most people have not. And I suspect that most national reporters don't live in areas where these ads are being shown 4-5 times a day. They don't really feel the impact. I don't watch that much TV, but in the last 3 weeks I have seen somewhere between 40-50 Bush ads on TV. I kid you not. And they are not the same ones every time; I have seen 8-10 different commercials. Whatever he is paying his ad people, it isn't enough. His commercials are brilliant: clear, very negative and often quite funny. Factually they are complete nonsense. But do you remember "It’s Morning in America" -- facts have got nothing to do with good political ads.

During this period Kerry's nationwide numbers have taken a slight fall due to this media blitz. In states like NY and CA Kerry has either gained or stayed the same. But in the swing states that are seeing these commercials his poll numbers are crashing. At a time when Kerry should be making gains he is instead losing ground. It is quite clear that taking a vacation at this time was a really stupid idea.

That is one of the reasons why I am furious about Clarke's nonsense. It is a pointless distraction that Democrats cannot afford. Every moment Clarke spends preening himself on TV, or some pundit goes on at length defending or attacking Clarke, this is time that is taken away from Kerry’s campaign. This is not a neutral effect. Clarke eating up the public discourse hurts Kerry. Over the last few weeks it has been killing him. Read the polls. Clarke's issues aren't reaching the voters. It is just too complicated and difficult to grasp. It is way too much "tone and nuance".

Put yourself in the place of a typical swing voter. This voter thinks very simply about these issues. Let's ask him some questions.

Q. Is Bush weak on terrorism?
A. No way.
Q. But Bush did this wrong, and Rumsfeld made this bizarre comment, and some smart and experienced guy said Bush wasn't doing a good job!
A. Wow, really?
Q. So now that you've heard this, how do you think Bush is doing on national security?
A. Bush is a hard-ass. I like that.

It doesn't matter if Clarke's story is true. To the average swing voter it just doesn't sound true. It sounds like nonsense.

Playing up Clarke's issues is not just ineffective. In fact it is a net negative. The Average Swing Voter just doesn’t get enough in-depth news, or have the time needed to assess it. For Average Swing Voter, issues have to be simple: defense-strong, taxes-lower, gay marriage-no, health care-more and cheaper, corrupt CEOs-crack down hard, etc. To these crucial voters, accusing Bush of being weak on terrorism makes the accuser sound like a total fool. It just does not compute with Average Swing Voter’s perception of the real world, and there is no practical way to convince him otherwise.

The only way Kerry can gain any traction on national security policy is the same way it has always been done. Kerry has to go Super-JFK on Bush. He has to be MORE hawkish than Bush, not less.

If Kerry argues:
"Bush is doing a bad job on security. Clarke and the other critics have made some good points about the Bush administration foreign policy. The Bush administration screwed up and now they are lying about it. Elect me and I will be more reasonable and steadfast on national security."
Average Swing Voter will respond:
“YAWN. Really? Good for you. What's on TV tonight?”

If instead Kerry argues:
"Bush isn't doing a good job because he is not doing enough. We need to really crack down on the terrorists. I am going to spend more on Homeland security. I am going to build up the size of the Army. I am going to spend a zillion more on intelligence and really cut loose on covert ops. I am going to CLOSE THE MISSILE GAP AND TURN BACK THE COMMUNISTS HUNT DOWN EVERY LAST TERRORIST AND MAKE AMERICA STRONG AGAIN!"
Average Swing Voter will respond:
“Wow! What a hard-ass. I like that.”

As policy it may be infantile. But as politics, it is the only way national security issues can have a positive impact for the Democrats.

Otherwise, every time Kerry mentions national security he reminds the public that Bush is a "War President". He winds up helping Bush without doing himself any good.

Kerry won't be able to gain points harping on national security issues. The voters don't vote on these issues. For Kerry the war is a losing issue. Terrorism is a losing issue. Homeland defense is a losing issue. Even a massive failure such as a big terrorist attack just before the election will only make Bush's margin bigger.

Back in the real world, Kerry has a lot of work to do. While Kerry's war record immunizes him on the charge of being weak on defense, it also doesn't help him much either. The fact is that Kerry is in trouble. I am not even sure how he can run on the economy (excepting for outsourcing and corporate malfeasance). Look at the big numbers that people know about. Unemployment is low (5.7%), interest rates are low (5%), and inflation is nearly non-existent (2%). In this case, unless people are personally unemployed, know someone who is unemployed, or thinks they are going to soon be unemployed; it will be very difficult to reach them. And the polling numbers on job uncertainty have been going down steadily for a year now.

Kerry needs to start building a big lead NOW! This is urgent because if Kerry doesn't hold at least an 8-10 point lead by the end of the Boston convention, he will have zero chance of beating Bush in November. But instead of covering Kerry's return to the campaign trail, this week's news will be all about Rice's testimony. This is a vital opportunity wasted. Kerry just can't afford to waste his precious media time on Clarke's megalomania.
Posted by: Zayphar / 4/05/2004 08:41:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home