by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 18, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

wo weeks from Election Day, polls give President George W. Bush a slight edge on Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry, perhaps hinting at a possible outcome. In what appears as an ominous sign, Kerry got little benefit from the final presidential debate at Arizona State University. Despite beating Bush by nearly 10% in some polls, Kerry's lead slipped, proving, as many people expected, that national security and the war on terror are foremost on voters' minds. Most polls still show Bush beating Kerry handily on defense, a sore point for the Massachusetts liberal, whose 20-year voting record precedes him on national security. Rightly or wrongly, the White House has highlighted the new security paradigm of the post Sept.11. era. Voters seem to forgive Bush's mistakes on Iraq, trusting instead his stewardship on defense and the war on terror.

      Reading the tea leaves, it appears that 2004 voters are looking at the big picture, not focused on Bush's mistakes—no matter how costly. Since Kerry decided to accept the Iraq war, his position doesn't present enough contrast for voters to make a switch. Kerry says he can wage a better, smarter war, not calling into question whether the U.S. should be there at all. Kerry's fence-sitting got him into trouble on Iraq, unable to adopt former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's true antiwar stance. Bush criticized Kerry for adopting Dean's views on Iraq for political expediency. Yet Dean's views are far more radical, but, more to the point, clearer. Kerry can't have it both ways: Criticizing Bush for rushing to war, yet, at the same time, telling voters how he plans to fight and win a smarter war. Undecided voters opposed to the war get little consolation from Kerry's stance on Iraq.

      Converging polls pointing toward Bush tell a story that national security—as defined by the war on terror—has become ‘04's overriding issue. While some voters will vote their “pocket books,” the vast majority view Bush as the best steward on defense and national security. “They seem to want to feel comfort that they are choosing a chief executive to sustain national security,” said David Birdsell, a political scientist at Baruch College in New York. That goes for undecided voters and Democrats, Republicans and Independents already more concerned about national security in ‘04. If the race pivoted on the economy, Kerry would have a leg up, since many voters have doubts about Bush's economic policies. Voters still remember those dark days after Sept. 11 when Bush lifted the nation's depressed spirits. Even Kerry acknowledged Bush's steady hand during a time of national crisis.

      Predicting the outcome of Nov. 2 is like forecasting Mt. St. Helen's next eruption. Polls and past history are good predictors but they don't tell the whole story. Intangible forces operate under the radar, including things like the public's gratitude for Bush's dignified handling of Sept. 11. White House spin doctors know all too well that the public is wary of changing teams during wartime. “All the traditional wisdom needs to be thrown out the window this year. This race is not following a historical pattern,” said Scott Reed, campaign manager of Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 White House run. In past elections, undecided voters usually go for the challenger. Because of 9/11 and because of the Iraq war, it's possible voters will stick with the incumbent. On the other hand, close elections are sometimes driven external forces beyond candidates' control—including the war and the economy.

      Rising chaos and body counts in Iraq don't help the president's message that he's better at prosecuting terror than Kerry. Economic bad news also doesn't reassure undecided voters to go in the president's direction. Staggering budget deficits, a flagging stock market and rising unemployment don't create the kind of reassurance telling voters to give the incumbent four more years. “Undecided voters tend to be unhappy about the state of the nation and with the economy but give Bush better marks on handling terrorism and Iraq,” said Andrew Kohut, chief pollster for the Pew Researcher Center, confirming a trend for last-minute holdouts to cast a vote against the status quo. If that's true, than independent candidate Ralph Nader looms large on Nov. 2—something experts agree hurts Kerry and helps Bush. Many truly disgruntled undecided voters may not show up at all.

      Steaming toward Election Day, converging forces favor retaining the incumbent, especially on the pivotal issue of defense and national security. While Kerry has made significant inroads, he hasn't made a compelling case for changing management in midstream. Bush's Achilles heel has always been the Iraq war. Kerry missed many opportunities both in the debates and on the stump to contrast his approach with the White House. With two weeks to go, it's too late to shift gears. It's also unclear whether the “youth vote,” fearful of a hypothetical military draft, will have much impact on the outcome. Women too, while not a homogeneous block, seem more concerned about national security than economics. Unless there's something unexpected between now and the election, undecided voters are less important than getting out the party faithful. On that note, Bush wins hands down.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.