Partisan as I may be regarding this presidential election, as a writer I also find interesting on an intellectual level the issues of Kerry and Bush communicating—or failing to do so—with the voters. An op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times by David Brooks nicely summarizes the conundrum undecided voters face with respect to the messages they hear from the two candidates:
“Kerry thinks obsessively about process questions, but can’t seem to come up with a core conviction; Bush is great at coming up with clear goals, but is not so great about coming up with the process to get there.”
I’m a pessimist at heart; I prefer to expect the worst with issues out of my control, as a kind of self-preservation mechanism. So it should come as no surprise that I don’t like Kerry’s chances right now. But the reason I think Bush will win, despite overwhelming evidence of countless lies, a fundamentalism cut from the same cloth as the terrorists, and countless domestic policy horrors, is that in this post 9/11 era, the average American is looking above all else for someone to say bluntly, “I will do whatever is necessary to protect you from terrorists.”
In terms of communicating their message, Bush-Kerry is like Reagan-Mondale or a lot of other Republican-Democrat contests. The very thing that makes the political left a better choice, with its intelligence, rationality and diverse tent of followers, is what hampers it from communicating a simple and concise message. Kerry has done better than, say, Dukakis, when it comes to fighting back against Bush’s attacks, but he continues to seem wooden, not very personable and—worst of all—unable to reduce his message to simple, vital terms that resonate with voters.
I hope I’m wrong – I really, really, (later that same day) really do. And I do believe Kerry still has a chance. He has a track record of finishing strong, and Bush is of course vulnerable in light of countless offenses. But I think it’s hard to stop Joe Sixpack from reasoning that it’s better to stick with the steadfast cowboy with resilient, clear intent than to take a chance on the latest cerebral Democratic bore who has the audacity to see the world in more than black and white terms.
Have faith, my friend, have faith. I don't think that folks are registering to vote in droves because they want to preserve the status quo.
Posted by: Margaret | October 09, 2004 at 08:23 PM
My heart sunk a bit when during the debate, Kerry answered the abortion question posed to him with this inconclusive, contorted maze of an answer while Bush came right out and made his (however repugnant) decision simple and known. Since abortion is hardly a hot issue in this election that is likely to change anyone's vote, it seemed like a perfect opportunity for Kerry to come right out with a nuanced but clearly pro-choice response that would showcase his conviction, since ultimately the content of his position is not the big point in this election. Instead, he seemed muddle-mouthed and deliberately obfuscated.
Posted by: Irene | October 10, 2004 at 12:11 AM
I went back and reread his answers to the 'partial-birth ban' and 'taxdollars for abortion' questions. He did give kind of roundabout answer. But I liked it. I liked that he emphasized that "It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe." It's time we stopped believing that anything is black & white. Nothing is black & white.
I'll go on the record as saying that I think Kerry is going to win. I hope he doesn't win the way Gore won (& lost) because this time I think we may see rioting and violence in response to the fraud and disenfranchisement. I _was_ heartened to see this weekend that The Oregonian endorsed Kerry for '04.
Posted by: Rose | October 11, 2004 at 01:26 PM
Even though I'm the one who said I think Kerry will lose, I can report one other possible reason for optimism: I was talking to somebody the other day who told me that polls don't always take young voters into account, because often they have only cell phones, which don't register for call logs that pollsters use. Granted young voters have very poor turnout traditionally, but I've heard there are, like Margaret mentioned, record numbers registering this time around.
Relatedly, because of the Florida debacle, I think many have forgotten that on election day in 2000 Gore did considerably better than polls in the 48 hours before the election indicated he would. Hopefully the same will be true for Kerry (minus the stolen election).
Posted by: Brian | October 11, 2004 at 03:16 PM
There's a transcript here of an online chat with political guru Charlie Cook in which he states, "...Since pollsters are not calling cell phones, almost one in five voters are not being included in poll samples."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15752-2004Oct7.html?sub=new
Posted by: Rose | October 15, 2004 at 08:37 AM