Mark West
Election dynamics
By Mark West
Lingering in the rear view mirror is the Democratic National Convention. As hard as it will be, we must press on toward November when the United States will decide whom to have as our President. Will America keep President George W. Bush for another four years, or will we choose a suitable replacement from the other forty-six candidates for President?
This election is going to be a very dynamic race for the top office in the land. Never before has a man been elected President without winning the popular vote and been re-elected for a second term. This statistic seems to weigh pretty heavily against the incumbent. Three times in history has the presidency gone to the popular vote loser prior to our current President. Twice, the losing candidate challenged the incumbent and won to serve two terms. The other time, the party managed to maintain the presidency in spite of the incumbent's retirement, only to have their President assassinated in his first year of office.
Federalist John Quincy Adams faced Democrat Andrew Jackson in 1824. Adams actually even lost the electoral college vote, yet since no candidate received a majority of the electors the vote went to the House of Representatives whom, with Henry Clay's support, elected Adams to the presidency. In 1828 Adams ran for re-election against Jackson again and was resoundingly defeated. Jackson served two terms.
Republican Benjamin Harrison faced Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1888 and won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by 90,596 votes. The two squared off again in 1892 with Cleveland winning handily and eventually serving two terms also.
Republican Rutherford Hayes faced Democrat Sam Tilden in 1876. After an electoral college squabble, Hayes became President, ended Reconstruction by removing troops from the South and retired to pursue humanitarian efforts. Who would win the White House? Republicans were deadlocked between Ulysses S. Grant and James Blaine so James Garfield was nominated for President in a compromise. Garfield faced Democrat Winfield Scott and retained the executive office for the Republican Party while losing the popular vote by 9,464 votes. July 2, 1881, after just four months in office, Garfield was assassinated.
What does all this mean for President Bush? If history holds true, Albert Gore wins the election and goes on to a second term. Oops, wait a minute, the Democrats didn't nominate Gore. Since the Democrats have avoided a rematch, we must follow the other scenario...except that the incumbent didn't retire...but it would mean a victory for the incumbent party. Will such a victory be followed by the same tragedy that occurred in 1881? My prayer is that such will never happen again regardless of who wins the White House!
We must also consider that his major competition from the Democratic Party received very little bounce from his national convention coverage. So little bounce was last received by a challenger in 1972 by Democratic challenger George McGovern. An electoral college landslide win 520-17 by incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon sealed the deal as to how dangerous it is to get so little bounce from a convention. Opinion Dynamics (Fox News) released a poll revealing to us a very telling reason for the lack of convention bounce.
The question asked to Bush supporters: "Would you say that your vote is better described as a vote for George W. Bush or a vote against John Kerry?" Eighty-two percent of those responding said they were voting for Bush while only twelve percent were voting against Kerry. When the same question was asked to Kerry supporters in a vice versa manner, fifty-three percent said they were voting for Kerry while forty-three percent were voting against Bush.
What this polls illuminates is what so many of us have known all along...this election is not about Kerry versus Bush...it is about President Bush! Sixty-one percent of voters are basing their November decision on President George W. Bush while thirty-two percent are basing their vote on Senator John Kerry. Seven percent of voters, like myself, are basing their decision on neither factor.
If the election is going to be about President George W. Bush, what did the poll show that people are saying about George W. Bush? President Bush received a forty-four percent approval rating with a forty-eight percent disapproval rating. We must bear in mind that these results include the post-Democratic National Convention bounce. One-fourth of those responding say that the economy is the top issue in their minds while twenty-two percent say it is the war on terror. It appears, at least for now, that the Democrats have succeeded in getting Americans to forget about 9/11. On the economy, Senator Kerry leads forty-four percent to thirty-six percent over President Bush. On terrorism, President Bush leads forty-four percent to thirty-eight percent over Senator Kerry. I hope these figures are helping you realize why this election is going to be so tough to call. President Bush needs the election to be about the public perception of his handling of terrorism, while Senator Kerry needs the election to be about the public perception of President Bush's handling of the economy. Does anyone recall Clinton's 1992 strategy against Daddy-Bush? Here's a hint, "It's the economy stupid!"
A compelling figure is found in what people think about President Bush. Forty-eight percent believe the President is arrogant, forty percent believe he is genuine, thirty-nine percent believe he is optimistic, thirty-four percent believe he is hard-working, forty percent believe he is courageous and thirty-seven percent believe he is friendly. What stands out is that less that half of those polled see the President in a positive light.
However, a final figure stands out as well. The question asked: "Do you think it would be good for the United States or bad for the United States to change presidents during war?" Forty-three percent of those polled said they believed it would be bad to change the president while thirty-four percent of those polled believed it would be good. Twenty percent believed it wouldn't make a difference or weren't sure if it would make a difference. Among independents, thirty-seven percent see it as bad, while thirty-four see it as good with twenty-nine percent believing there would be no difference or being unsure whether it would make a difference. I would like to have seen a question asking whether respondents believed the United States to currently be involved in a war. That insight alone would have added so much more to this poll. As it stands, a change in the presidency is not perceived positively in this time of war...even if it isn't a war by the constitutional standard!
When asked, "Do you think the United States is safer or less safe today than before 9/11?," fifty-two percent of respondents believed the nation to be safer, twenty-eight percent believed the nation to be less safe, while twenty percent didn't see any difference or were unsure of any difference. More than half of the nation, according to this poll, believe that President Bush has made the nation safer since 9/11.
While I've talked a lot of statistics and data, we must keep in mind that our Presidential election will not be one race, but fifty local races. All politics is local! My prediction has changed to better represent the data that I have been seeing and to reflect the lack of bounce that Senator Kerry received at the Democratic National Convention. While I see John Kerry picking up Michigan and New Mexico, I see him losing Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and one district in Maine.
President Bush has been losing steam in Michigan and New Mexico, but a decision to endorse a liberal Republican incumbent U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania...Arlen Specter... who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights as opposed to his conservative Republican challenger, Pat Tomey who is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. This decision, while it will cost him among the conservatives in Pennsylvania who are unafraid of Senator Kerry, has gained him support among the independent voters of that state.
I want to express my distrust in the polls that are showing one state favoring one candidate or another. Arkansas, my home state, is shown by several polls to be in Senator Kerry's column. Nothing could be further from the truth. The polls fail, in general, to take state regionalism into account. In Arkansas, of the four congressional districts, one is strong Republican by a sixty percent to thirty-five percent clip, one is strong Democrat by a fifty percent to forty-eight percent clip, the other two are swing and favor one candidate or the other by two or three percent. If not for a man named Ross Perot, former President William Clinton would have won Arkansas by eight percent as opposed to the eighteen percent he won it by (Arkansas was his home state). In the 2000 election, President Bush won District # 3 (heavy Republican) by 52,238 votes (21.5% of District # 3) and lost in the combination of the other three districts by 2,066 votes (1.0% of District #s 1, 2 & 4). President Bush won Arkansas by 50,172 votes (5.4%) all from a heavily Republican district. Senator Kerry will have to sway 25,087 conservative Republican voters in order to carry Arkansas or convince 52,239 (15.6% of those who voted for Bush in those districts) people in the other three districts to change their votes. Not happening! I believe President Bush will carry Arkansas by about two or three percent because honestly, Kerry is no Clinton!
I realize that I have been a little long winded so I guess I'll get down to business. My post-Democratic prediction sees President Bush retaining the White House with a 310-228 electoral college victory. We can hope and pray for the best and that history will not repeat itself.
© Mark West
Lingering in the rear view mirror is the Democratic National Convention. As hard as it will be, we must press on toward November when the United States will decide whom to have as our President. Will America keep President George W. Bush for another four years, or will we choose a suitable replacement from the other forty-six candidates for President?
This election is going to be a very dynamic race for the top office in the land. Never before has a man been elected President without winning the popular vote and been re-elected for a second term. This statistic seems to weigh pretty heavily against the incumbent. Three times in history has the presidency gone to the popular vote loser prior to our current President. Twice, the losing candidate challenged the incumbent and won to serve two terms. The other time, the party managed to maintain the presidency in spite of the incumbent's retirement, only to have their President assassinated in his first year of office.
Federalist John Quincy Adams faced Democrat Andrew Jackson in 1824. Adams actually even lost the electoral college vote, yet since no candidate received a majority of the electors the vote went to the House of Representatives whom, with Henry Clay's support, elected Adams to the presidency. In 1828 Adams ran for re-election against Jackson again and was resoundingly defeated. Jackson served two terms.
Republican Benjamin Harrison faced Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1888 and won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by 90,596 votes. The two squared off again in 1892 with Cleveland winning handily and eventually serving two terms also.
Republican Rutherford Hayes faced Democrat Sam Tilden in 1876. After an electoral college squabble, Hayes became President, ended Reconstruction by removing troops from the South and retired to pursue humanitarian efforts. Who would win the White House? Republicans were deadlocked between Ulysses S. Grant and James Blaine so James Garfield was nominated for President in a compromise. Garfield faced Democrat Winfield Scott and retained the executive office for the Republican Party while losing the popular vote by 9,464 votes. July 2, 1881, after just four months in office, Garfield was assassinated.
What does all this mean for President Bush? If history holds true, Albert Gore wins the election and goes on to a second term. Oops, wait a minute, the Democrats didn't nominate Gore. Since the Democrats have avoided a rematch, we must follow the other scenario...except that the incumbent didn't retire...but it would mean a victory for the incumbent party. Will such a victory be followed by the same tragedy that occurred in 1881? My prayer is that such will never happen again regardless of who wins the White House!
We must also consider that his major competition from the Democratic Party received very little bounce from his national convention coverage. So little bounce was last received by a challenger in 1972 by Democratic challenger George McGovern. An electoral college landslide win 520-17 by incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon sealed the deal as to how dangerous it is to get so little bounce from a convention. Opinion Dynamics (Fox News) released a poll revealing to us a very telling reason for the lack of convention bounce.
The question asked to Bush supporters: "Would you say that your vote is better described as a vote for George W. Bush or a vote against John Kerry?" Eighty-two percent of those responding said they were voting for Bush while only twelve percent were voting against Kerry. When the same question was asked to Kerry supporters in a vice versa manner, fifty-three percent said they were voting for Kerry while forty-three percent were voting against Bush.
What this polls illuminates is what so many of us have known all along...this election is not about Kerry versus Bush...it is about President Bush! Sixty-one percent of voters are basing their November decision on President George W. Bush while thirty-two percent are basing their vote on Senator John Kerry. Seven percent of voters, like myself, are basing their decision on neither factor.
If the election is going to be about President George W. Bush, what did the poll show that people are saying about George W. Bush? President Bush received a forty-four percent approval rating with a forty-eight percent disapproval rating. We must bear in mind that these results include the post-Democratic National Convention bounce. One-fourth of those responding say that the economy is the top issue in their minds while twenty-two percent say it is the war on terror. It appears, at least for now, that the Democrats have succeeded in getting Americans to forget about 9/11. On the economy, Senator Kerry leads forty-four percent to thirty-six percent over President Bush. On terrorism, President Bush leads forty-four percent to thirty-eight percent over Senator Kerry. I hope these figures are helping you realize why this election is going to be so tough to call. President Bush needs the election to be about the public perception of his handling of terrorism, while Senator Kerry needs the election to be about the public perception of President Bush's handling of the economy. Does anyone recall Clinton's 1992 strategy against Daddy-Bush? Here's a hint, "It's the economy stupid!"
A compelling figure is found in what people think about President Bush. Forty-eight percent believe the President is arrogant, forty percent believe he is genuine, thirty-nine percent believe he is optimistic, thirty-four percent believe he is hard-working, forty percent believe he is courageous and thirty-seven percent believe he is friendly. What stands out is that less that half of those polled see the President in a positive light.
However, a final figure stands out as well. The question asked: "Do you think it would be good for the United States or bad for the United States to change presidents during war?" Forty-three percent of those polled said they believed it would be bad to change the president while thirty-four percent of those polled believed it would be good. Twenty percent believed it wouldn't make a difference or weren't sure if it would make a difference. Among independents, thirty-seven percent see it as bad, while thirty-four see it as good with twenty-nine percent believing there would be no difference or being unsure whether it would make a difference. I would like to have seen a question asking whether respondents believed the United States to currently be involved in a war. That insight alone would have added so much more to this poll. As it stands, a change in the presidency is not perceived positively in this time of war...even if it isn't a war by the constitutional standard!
When asked, "Do you think the United States is safer or less safe today than before 9/11?," fifty-two percent of respondents believed the nation to be safer, twenty-eight percent believed the nation to be less safe, while twenty percent didn't see any difference or were unsure of any difference. More than half of the nation, according to this poll, believe that President Bush has made the nation safer since 9/11.
While I've talked a lot of statistics and data, we must keep in mind that our Presidential election will not be one race, but fifty local races. All politics is local! My prediction has changed to better represent the data that I have been seeing and to reflect the lack of bounce that Senator Kerry received at the Democratic National Convention. While I see John Kerry picking up Michigan and New Mexico, I see him losing Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and one district in Maine.
President Bush has been losing steam in Michigan and New Mexico, but a decision to endorse a liberal Republican incumbent U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania...Arlen Specter... who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights as opposed to his conservative Republican challenger, Pat Tomey who is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. This decision, while it will cost him among the conservatives in Pennsylvania who are unafraid of Senator Kerry, has gained him support among the independent voters of that state.
I want to express my distrust in the polls that are showing one state favoring one candidate or another. Arkansas, my home state, is shown by several polls to be in Senator Kerry's column. Nothing could be further from the truth. The polls fail, in general, to take state regionalism into account. In Arkansas, of the four congressional districts, one is strong Republican by a sixty percent to thirty-five percent clip, one is strong Democrat by a fifty percent to forty-eight percent clip, the other two are swing and favor one candidate or the other by two or three percent. If not for a man named Ross Perot, former President William Clinton would have won Arkansas by eight percent as opposed to the eighteen percent he won it by (Arkansas was his home state). In the 2000 election, President Bush won District # 3 (heavy Republican) by 52,238 votes (21.5% of District # 3) and lost in the combination of the other three districts by 2,066 votes (1.0% of District #s 1, 2 & 4). President Bush won Arkansas by 50,172 votes (5.4%) all from a heavily Republican district. Senator Kerry will have to sway 25,087 conservative Republican voters in order to carry Arkansas or convince 52,239 (15.6% of those who voted for Bush in those districts) people in the other three districts to change their votes. Not happening! I believe President Bush will carry Arkansas by about two or three percent because honestly, Kerry is no Clinton!
I realize that I have been a little long winded so I guess I'll get down to business. My post-Democratic prediction sees President Bush retaining the White House with a 310-228 electoral college victory. We can hope and pray for the best and that history will not repeat itself.
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
