Coverage of Polls
One of the things I have always found interesting in this stage of Presidential campaigns is how when the democrat is ahead in the polls we hear about the polls all the time, but when the Republican is gaining, or ahead in the polls, suddenly the polls don’t seem to be all that news worthy any more.
A few weeks ago Kerry was ahead in the polls and it seemed that every night in there was reports about Kerry’s lead. But then suddenly Bush began his campaign and Kerry had a few bad weeks, and news about polls virtually disappeared. From side comments I have heard and reports on talk radio the Polls now show that Bush is now tied with Kerry or ahead, depending on the polls.
No doubt as the campaigns go up and down (i.e. Kerry regains a lead) prominent coverage of the polls will return
How Bush Could Lose Part V: Social Issues
This is also a very difficult for the democrats, and not because of the issue of abortion. As hotly contested as that issue is, ultimately it does not play much of a role in presidential politics except for the base. Thus a Republican who goes pro choice will be hurt as will a democrat who is pro life, but beyond that, and despite what the activists try to claim, it is pretty much a wash in the general election.The real problem here is that, as with the domestic policy, Democratic seem to have lost there way and thus seem to be the advocates of the special interests than the average citizen. As the special interest groups have pushed for increasingly radical changes (Changing the definition of Marriage, Banning “Under God,” Reparations for Slavery), the Democrats have suffered as a result.
A recent example has been on same-sex marriage. With the liberal base this may be supported, but the polls show that most Americans oppose this and this is true of the important swing voters. Thus the “civil unions” supported by most democrats is easily portrayed as a fig leaf to try keep the base, while not alienating voters. But again there should be no inherent reason that a Democrat could not side with average Americans and take the stand that Bush is taking, and probably much more effectively: to support the traditional view of marriage, while appealing to tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals. Short of that, it is best to downplay this and other social issues.
How Bush Could Lose Part IV: Domestic Policy
In theory Democrats are suppose to be for the little guy. If the focus is on this rather than on what they have been doing for the last 70 years, they could have some real breakthroughs in this area, for it would really play to one of their big strengths. The main problem Democrats face here, particularly at the national level is that Democrats often seem to be the advocates of government, more than the advocates of the little guy.
Put simply most “solution” Democrats propose for these problems involve more or bigger government programs. But most voters do not like the idea of a bigger government for most do not like government to begin with, seeing it more as a necessary evil than anything else. This is especially true given the long and well established history of waste and failure in government programs, something Republicans have gotten very effective at exploiting.
Thus what it is needed is a truly new and innovative approach to these issues that will allow them to make the same appeals, without the same baggage. Current most of the really innovative solutions are coming from Republican, and it is one of the reasons for their success in recent decades, but there is no inherent reason why this must the case. In theory Democratic can be just as innovative as Republicans.
The main problem here is that the current Democratic party has such strong ties to special interest groups that are tied to the status quo such as government and teachers unions that innovation is difficult. But if the democrats were to nominate a candidate with innovative approaches, they would make major gains as this is traditionally a strong area for them. They would be playing to their strengths while at the same time defusing one the main criticism against them.
How Bush Could Lose Part III: Economy
The outlook is for strong economic growth through 2004. Unless Democrats want to base their hopes on a relapse in the economy, which is at best risky, they should count on people being pretty happy with the economy by November. Thus they will need a different approach than traditional class warfare rhetoric they have depended on since the 1930s.
Taxes are always a big problem for the Democrats. While their tax-the-rich proposals play well with the left it is pretty clearly a looser when it come to the general election. Past proposals to cut middle-class taxes have been little more than election year rhetoric, and so are not trusted. So the best thing here is to just remain silent. Closing Loopholes for “Big Business” and “Attacking Special Interests” also play well with the Left but don’t do very well in the general election as these are seen by many as simply increasing the burdens on businesses, and most realize you do not help employees, by making it harder for employers.
One possible approach here is to do something revolutionary as Jerry Brown tried, such as supporting a flat tax or a move to a consumption tax. Such a “Only Nixon could go to China” move would seriously cut into Bush’s support among independents. It is risky as Bush is likely to counter with a similar proposal to neutralize such a move. However, It could be done after Bush makes his proposal to cut taxes, and thus put him on the defensive. But either way it would probably neutralize the tax issue, which currently is a big negative for Democrats.
One of the strongest groups supporting Republicans is small business owners. In theory, this should be prime groups for the Democrats to attract. A democrat that reached out with specific proposals to encourage people to start and grow businesses and to ease the burden on small businesses could make major inroads here. This would also have the side benefit of being a realistic jobs program as small business employs the majority of workers.
Finally, a comment on the deficit. While many democrats are attempting to make a big deal of this it is really not a good issue for them. For one this issue has been called a “green eye shade” issue for good reason. Simply put, it is not that important for most voters. Voters may say they are concerned, but very few actually vote on this issue. In addition, one of the major justifications for why this issue in suppose to be important is the impact on interest rates. While it sounds good in theory, it simply does not hold up in practice. (For example over the last 10 year interest rates actually went up as the deficit decreased and peaked when we had the highest surplus. As the deficits have grown, interest rates dropped.) Finally, it is hard to take the Democrats seriously on this issue as their concerns appears only one sided for deficits seem to only be a concern when it comes to cutting taxes but never when is comes to increasing spending. As such, if anything this issue is at best a wash, and may in fact be somewhat negative for them. Best drop it.
How Bush Could Lose Part II: Foreign Policy
The War on Terror will dominate here. If Iraq continues on it present course this will be a plus for Bush in November, but this is an unstable region and things could still go very badly. But this could go in a politically disastrous direct for either side, we could for example, have some major success in stabilizing Iraq and get bin Laden. But a significant part of the outcome is out of our control, so for the sake of argument, I will consider events to be a wash for either side and focus more on the policy.
While one of Bush strongest areas, even here the democrats could trump Bush. Currently the Democrats are in a could of/should of mode, focusing on supposed errors Bush made. To win in November, the nominee will have to make a serious case for what they will do now that will make people think they will do a better job if elected.
This has to be more than just going to the UN or the French for most people do not trust the UN or the French with their security. The candidate must be very clear they are representing the best interests of the US, not the best interests of the UN or the French. The other key area would be to come up with a plan for Iraq, rather than complain about it. A nominee that took an aggressive stance to strengthen the military and beef up security with specific proposals and had a plan for dealing with Iraq could at least neutralize Bush’s advantage in this area.
