Copyright 2004 Ben S. Pollock
Friday, Aug. 6, 2004: After conducting all the research that’s necessary — licked my right index finger and held it up — I finally can make a prediction on the presidential race: Kerry will win in a landslide.
I know the polls still show neck-and-neck, with less-than-expected bounce for Kerry from his convention, but this race is George II’s to lose. This analysis comes from my now liking Kerry better. It derives more from various articles than from his speeches. (Also, Edwards is a good VP pick; he could step in and be president, and that’s all that matters. (Cheney is a good VP for exactly the same reason, plus Cheney’s already had three years of running things, har har.).)
One profile that got me was U.S. News’ lengthy analysis of the Iowa primary, in the July 19-26 issue (no free hyperlink available). It showed that as campaign staff run the campaign, they should get nearly all of the credit or blame. BUT, the candidate is in charge. Therefore, despite my early leaning toward Howard Dean, the Vermont governor would have been a lousy Democratic nominee and would have suffered a loss worse than McGovern’s because Dean was a lousy boss. Yes, and be a crummy president. He should have fired some folks, heeded the competent ones and trusted his own instincts.
Being president means running that ol’ West Wing. You can’t know everything, and comprehend instantly, so you take advice.
Kerry has been running a good campaign. He’s hired the right people and dumped the dead wood along the way. Sometimes, like Clinton, Kerry follows his political instincts, against advice, and that’s been working.
It’s a lousy test for the Oval Office, but a campaign is about the only one for a non-incumbent, and it’s the most immediate evaluation. There’s also Kerry’s resume: he can lead and he can compromise. George II as governor and business executive showed little of either. A similar litmus test can be given to an incumbent: How well does W run his Cabinet and Executive Staff, and how well do they serve him, and the country?
(This is separate from how supporting a candidate does not mean needing to agree with all of his positions, which will be a future Brick. This ability to govern counts more than leaning left or right. That is an important lesson from 9/11.)
Finally, though, my prediction only goes to the ideal. If things go smoothly, Kerry will win a landslide majority, popular and electoral. BUT this election will be judged on how well each candidate rides out the inevitable gaffes. Not voters analyzing 9/11/Iraq for Bush and Kerry’s Senate voting record, but the mistakes made in the debates or perhaps in response to a national crisis (in the latter, Bush has to act but Kerry has to respond appropriately). Ford on Poland, Carter’s "malaise" speech and Dukakis in the tank are examples of bad mistakes. It seems undecided voters focus more on the present than the records, the past, the histories.
My prediction though still holds: Kerry seems to ride out mistakes very well. And George II? -30-
