Cognitive Dissonance, John Kerry And The Polls

James Taranto and Mickey Kaus are wondering why the grim news out of Iraq is not helping John Kerry at the polls.

I stand by my earlier comment - folks committed to the success of the Iraqi Liberation Project simply do not accept Kerry as a plausible alternative. The bad news out of Iraq may leave us thinking that the project will be more difficult (or impossible); it may leave us thinking that Bush could not manage a successful beer-bash for thirsty sailors; but only of of the two candidates is convincingly committed to making this work.

However, Kerry's problem goes even deeper. A cold-blooded political strategist (aren't they all?) would attempt to position Kerry as Nixon to Bush's Johnson - Kerry will be presented as the man with the plan to redeem Bush's badly executed war and occupation. But does any Dem anywhere want to be Richard Nixon?

It is entirely likely that Kerry will drift past the Nixon-Humphrey race of 1968 and cast himself as McGovern 1972. Come home America - do we really expect Kerry to lead a long, possibly futile struggle to re-build Iraq? Under this theory, the debacle at Abu Grahib actually hurts Kerry. After all his talk about his Vietnam experience, we all know that he believed a morally corrupt Administration oversaw a war in which war crimes were the norm. If that is what he thought about American troops then, what does he think now? Ted Kennedy, the animating force behind the Kerry campaign, has ventured well into Vietnam quagmire rhetoric, and has drawn an equivalence between the US and Saddam Hussein. Can Kerry be far behind? His mantra - there is nothing wrong with the United States that can't be solved by what's right with the United Nations - is more popular with the NPR crowd than with the country as a whole.

Most Americans didn't want to believe then, and don't want to believe now, that we are the bad guys. Despite Kent State, Laos, and Kerry's moral outrage, the Republican carried 49 states in 1972 as "Peace With Honor" trumped "Come Home, America". If Kerry re-lives the role he played in 1971, we may see a similar result in 2004.

MORE: The Note tackled this yesterday in points (2) and (3).

Comments

[WillieStyle]

First of all, the use of "us" is somewhat amusing.
Let's face it minuteman, neither of us is the covetted marginal voter.
The fact that Kerry and Bush are statistically tied is very good news for Kerry. Until most voters start paying attention (later this year), the incumbent is the default choice for most polled. Furthermore, ndecideds tend to break heavily for the challenger. Bush shot his load in an attempt to "define" Kerry early and accomplished nada.
The "If Kerry can't pull away now, he'll be in real trouble in November" argument assumes that the publics' view of Iraq will improve as the election approaches. Polling evidence suggests the oppossite.

From the recent Gallup Poll
Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle each of the following issues.

The situation in Iraq
---------------Kerry Bush Same No opinion
2004 May 7-9 -- 45 -- 48 -- 1 -- 6
2004 Mar 5-7 -- 39 -- 54 -- 2 -- 5

McGovern indeed.

[TM]

First of all, the use of "us" is somewhat amusing.

I can't spell 'presumptuous' with 'us'. But I will have to plead ironic intent - the shock of watching Mariano blow a save shattered my concentration.

Anyway, Ispoke with a bunch of dispirited Republicans over the weekend (wasn't 'shock and awe' supposed to be administered to the *other* guys?). They will never vote for Kerry, but they aren't writing checks to Bush anymore, either.

And Howard Fineman was interesting on Imus this morning. His point - Kerry (at a fundraiser, I think) said his strategy is to stay close, preserve his acceptability and electability, and win a referendum on Bush as the ABB choice. "He doesn't want to be loved, he just wants to be elected" was the soundbite.

Interesting. My suspicion is that (my recent lesser-of-two-evil vote for Bush notwithstanding),people prefer to vote *for* a candidate rather than against one. But these are unusual times.

And if a booming economy lulls us all into complaceny and Bush is re-elected, does the soundbite change from "it's the economy, stupid" to "It's the economy - we're stupid"?

[WillieStyle]

And if a booming economy lulls us all into complaceny and Bush is re-elected, does the soundbite change from "it's the economy, stupid" to "It's the economy - we're stupid"?

In my book, the winner gets to pick the pithy victory phrase. If y'all win, feel free to run with it.
Me personally, I'm working on one for my side.
Exclusive minuteman sneak preview:
It involves Bears and tricycles.

[John]

"Booming"?

It should be noted that Bush is a total nincompoop.