Alex's Outlook

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

More fallout, no movement in Bush's poll numbers


A recent Newsweek poll showed Bush's job approval at a record-low 42 percent, and even the Bush-friendly Washington Times is sounding the alarm, signaling a deepening Republican pessimism.

I don't want to sound like Donald Lambro, but with GIs dying every day to Shiite rebels, the media still playing up Abu Ghraib and voters' lagging awareness of the economic recovery (again, no irony intended), it's incredible how well Bush is doing.

First off, Kerry is dead even with Bush in the most dismal weeks of Bush's presidency.

More importantly, though, are polls from individual battleground states and "blue" states that show major weaknesses in Kerry's candidacy.

Two Oregon polls show a +2 Kerry lead and a +5 Bush lead. Gore won Oregon by .4% in 2000, and Oregon will be a hard-fought contest this year.

The latest poll from Michigan shows Bush leading by 4 points, 48-44.

A California poll by SUSA shows (incredibly) a dead heat between Bush and Kerry in that state, 46-45 Kerry. (Gore won CA by 11 points.) An Illinois poll by Rasmussen shows a Kerry lead of only 5 points in a state that Gore won by 12. And the latest poll of New Jersey shows a Kerry lead of 6 points (43-37) in New Jersey, which Gore won by 15 points. An older NJ poll gave Bush a 4-point lead over Kerry, and a pre-Abu Ghraib poll of Maryland gave Kerry only a 5-point lead in that state.

Individually, I would have discounted all of those blue state poll results. But taken together, they represent a serious weakness in Kerry's candidacy. If he is running that far behind Gore, he has no prayer of winning this election.

The only cloud on Bush's horizon is Ohio, which I think has swung decisively leftward over the past two years. It has been rather badly mismanaged by the Voinovich-Taft one-party Republican regime over the past fourteen years, and it was very hard hit by the manufacturing job losses. Kerry's leading there by seven points. To compensate, Bush would have to win two smaller blue states (New Mexico and Oregon) or a large one like Michigan or Pennsylvania. Considering how poorly Kerry has performed thus far, my money is still on Bush.

Monday, May 10, 2004

Yet another reason for optimism


There's a new CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll out, and the results are encouraging indeed: Bush 48, Kerry 47.

This is the low point of Bush's presidency. Washington is wrapped up in hysteria over Abu Ghraib, and even though the economy is picking up, the Index of Consumer Sentiment hasn't fallen in step yet. In other words, the recovery is not yet apparent to a lot of people. (That wasn't meant to sound funny...) Anyway, barring a full-blown civil war in Iraq, Bush's situation simply is not going to get worse. And Kerry can't even manage a tie.

The $70 million or whatever that the Bush campaign dumped on Kerry was fortuitously well timed. Kerry was essentially defined as a flip-flopping serial tax raiser before the latest round of bad news. Kerry's own $25 million ad buy is not going to dent that. All Kerry's ads say is that he was a Vietnam hero, which was the only thing he (and the media) said during the entire Democrat primary season. It's the only thing Kerry talks about on the campaign trail. He's not going to change anybody's mind by repeating that mantra yet again.

Zogby and GOP despair


As I noted below, Republicans are seriously depressed about Bush's reelection prospects. They were particularly bummed out by pollster John Zogby's assessment of Bush's prospects:

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.

There are a few things Zogby left out, of course. Kerry dumped something like $2.5 million of Tay-ray-za's Heinz money at the last minute against Bill Weld, his 1996 challenger. (They had agreed at the beginning of the campaign to not use more than $500,000 of their own money - they were both filthy rich - in the Senate campaign. Kerry justified it by saying that it was his wife's money, not his.) As for the 2004 primary, Dean was an idiot, and it frankly defied belief that the Democratic base put up with him for as long as they did. I guess Democrats figured that Kerry's War Hero (TM) status made him magnetic to swing voters. They blew that one big time.

More to the point, though, I don't know why Republicans listen to Zogby. I certainly don't trust him. His polling relentlessly favors Democrats, and is consistently the most pro-Democrat that I know of. Everyone talks about how he "called 2000 perfectly" and "called 2002 perfectly." Well, I don't know about 2000, but he sure didn't call 2002.

The race for control of Congress is neck and neck and too close to call, latest Zogby America Poll results show.

In the final Zogby America Poll before the November 5th elections, 51% of likely voters nationwide say they will vote Democratic in the upcoming Congressional elections, and 49% say they will vote for a Republican candidate. The poll, conducted of 1,006 likely voters nationwide between Oct. 26-29 has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

The actual generic was 51-46 Republican.

Zogby even apologized for his failures in the 2002 elections 36 hours after the fact.


As a fan of politics nothing could be more exciting than seeing the unexpected occur again and again.

But as a political pollster, whose reputation is impacted seemingly by every race polled and every percentage point reflected, Election Night was cause for much more grimacing than we at Zogby International have been used to over the last several years.


Republicans really ought to relax, and not listen to Zogby. The market fundamentals point to an economic rebound. Iraq can't get worse unless a full-blown revolt begins, and after we quash al-Sadr I think the chance of that will diminish considerably.





Thoughts on the recent fiasco


The Beltway is full hysteria mode. Conservatives are in despair. With the WMD justification for war wiped out, the Administration shifted to the even more shallow humanitarian justification. (I always thought that both explanations were ridiculous. I have been a hawk because I think that Sunni Muslim extremism can be defeated only by liberalizing the Middle East, starting with Iraq.) The abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib just nullified the humanitarian justification.

Ouch.

I think that is the Bush Administration's rationale - it has been the neo-con position all along - but the Administration was too squeamish to be honest with the American people. Now the Administration is paying the price.

Rumsfeld, a hero to conservatives, has failed abysmally in Iraq. There is no other way to put it. The high command demanded more troops, and Rumsfeld shrugged them off. As a result, when the Sunnis and Shia radicals revolted, the US had to negotiate instead of crush them. As I explained below, negotiating with quasi-terrorists in Falluja (the Sunnis) and al-Sadr's Iranian-funded Shia radicals in Najaf would be inexplicable unless the US did not have sufficient resources to cope with it.

Despite all that, Rumsfeld is going to keep his job. According to Robert Novak, the conservative elite consensus is that Rumsfeld has to go, but I just don't see it happening. It would be a repudiation of Bush's entire foreign policy. And despite Rumsfeld's failures in Iraq, the Iraq war is hardly lost, his performance in Afghanistan was exemplary, and the public is still behind him.

So, now to what really matters...how does all this affect Bush in November? To be more specific, how badly does this hurt him?

The answer: not much. Conservatives are panicking, but they should calm down. Heads will roll over Abu Ghraib, and it will blow over. Payrolls are surging along with economic growth; the economy will be a major plus for Bush by November. Iraq is a wild card, but again, barring a full-blown insurrection or a dramatic election-eve jump in casualties, it will not hurt Bush significantly unless the economic recovery falters as well.

Remember, even if Bush loses, Kerry can't be that much worse. The Bush tax cuts will die, but federal spending will stagnate along with it. The Republicans will keep control of the House of Representatives no matter what, and will probably barely hang onto the Senate too, even in the event of a Kerry victory.

The tragic thing about a Kerry victory would be the signal it would send to the Arab world. Bush has been bad news for radical Sunni Islam, period. A repudiation of Bush would be a repudiation of that record. That is why I am supporting him. Domestically, Bush's record on the only significant variable (federal spending) has been grotesque.

Monday, May 03, 2004

Re the posting hiatus


I have Advanced Placement exams this week (French, Amer. history and Calculus BC), so no posting for another week. Besides, I'm still grumpy about Toomey's hair-splitting loss.

The good news is that I need a 2 on French (today) to get credit at Notre Dame.