John Zogby is Wrong -- Horace Cooper -- GOPUSA

Subscribe | Mobile | RSS | Contact

Breaking News -- Dems have 60 for health care; Lincoln a 'yes'

Other Columns by Horace Cooper
Horace Cooper Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

John Zogby is Wrong
By Horace Cooper
May 17, 2004

With remarkable candor, independent pollster John Zogby began a recent column by observing, "I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election."

Zogby is wrong. Kerry isn't likely to win this November's presidential election. In fact, he's more likely to suffer a massive loss.

Here's why. The Kerry campaign is positioned both too far left and not left enough to win. The most recent national surveys, even the ones that show the president's approval rating at all-times lows, hint at Kerry's upper limit rather than his base.

A better prediction is that on Election Day Kerry will be closer to 45 percent than 50 percent.

Zogby's main argument, that the closeness of the race this early is evidence of Bush's weakness, seems reasonable at first glance. But careful review proves otherwise--and Zogby's own surveys show the way.

Over the last 60 days, the Zogby polls have predicted a tight race, with Bush and Kerry separated by 3 to 5 points. These same polls consistently show liberal independent Ralph Nader with an identical 3 to 5 points.

The trend line in the Zogby surveys as well as in other national polls show that Kerry's absolute level of support has declined. That's right--Kerry's numbers have dropped during the last 60 days while most of the public's attention is focused on the very critical press George W. Bush has received during the same period.

Bush's support, meanwhile, has risen and fallen in a cycle that is connected to major events in the news. But, and this is the important thing, a drop in Bush's numbers are not matched by an accompanying boost for Kerry. When Bush drops the race tightens, and when he rises his lead lengthens.

In April alone, Bush has been above 50 percent several times, while Kerry, who has averaged about 44 percent, hasn't been able to climb above 50 percent even once.

For Kerry to win the general election with a 44 percent plurality would require Nader to receive 10 to 12 percent of the vote, a result that no analyst--bungee jumper or not--is willing to predict.

Moreover, on a state-by-state basis, the polls indicate the race is far different from the squeaker that national surveys presage. The state polls expose the "values gap" that benefits Bush at Kerry's expense. No matter how you package it--Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern or Carter II -- liberalism doesn't sell well in the United States.

The gap hinders Kerry especially. A sizeable portion of the voting public reflexively rejects the agenda of the far left, which Kerry is seen as enthusiastically embracing, and which is most unpopular in some of the Democrats' traditional strongholds among once-reliable voter blocs like urban Catholics and rural Southerners and in some of the battleground areas like the Midwest and the border states.

In 2002, the GOP won with a 53-47 national preference. While not overwhelming, it nevertheless allowed the GOP to retake the U.S. Senate, maintain and increase its majority in the U.S. House and take a firm lead in the number of state legislative seats and governors' mansions the party holds. An election that was predicted to be a setback for President Bush and his policies was instead a reaffirmation.

Zogby argues that Kerry is "a good closer," as evidenced by his come-from-behind win over the popular GOP governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, in the 1996 Senate race. This, he says, should push Kerry over the line in November, but it actually says more about his weakness than his strengths. Scrappy? More likely sloppy.

Kerry beat Weld in 1996 in a performance far from noteworthy. Consider the following: 1) It's Massachusetts; 2) Kerry was the odds-on favorite going into the race; 3) There were only 470,000 Republicans in the entire state out of a total population of more than 6 million; 4) Bill Clinton carried Massachusetts in his re-election bid by 33 points over Republican Bob Dole at the same time Kerry was squeaking by.

The most notable thing about the race was the way in which Kerry managed to turn a 15 point lead six months out into a statistical dead heat by September. After all was said and done, Kerry won with 52 percent of the vote in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, hardly a glowing testimony to skillful campaigning.

In the Democrats' 2004 presidential primary, Kerry started out as the big fish, the one most likely to go all the way. His ultimate victory should not be seen as an upset, as it would had John Edwards or Wesley Clark emerged as the probably nominee of the party.

The outside upstart, which is becoming a regular feature of the out-of-power party's presidential primary, was former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who burst out of the gate and quickly surpassed Kerry in the polls.

How did Kerry beat him? One, by aping his positions on Iraq, tax cuts, trade and healthcare once he realized it was what the voters wanted to hear. Two, Dean imploded.

Any general-election strategy that includes the assumption that your opponent will experience a pre-election meltdown is not a serious one, and when you are the challenger running against a proven incumbent, it's not even viable on the fringe.

There is a lingering sense among the American public that Kerry and the Democrats who once again control the party promote agendas that satisfy the liberal elites, cater to minorities at the expense of equality of opportunity and fail to treat national security issues seriously. This undermines the party's prospects in November, and does so quite significantly.

Kerry will come out of the Boston convention tacking against a serious headwind, unlikely to win and possibly headed for a thumping in November.

Horace Cooper writes a regular political-analysis column for United Press International and GOPUSA.com.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.