Posted on 10/17/2004 11:17:34 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Faster than the mainstream media could print headlines declaring Kerry the winner of the debates and now the candidate most energized heading into the election, the American people are saying otherwise. Notwithstanding the mainstream media's inability to accurately report how the election was shaping up, it is true that after having lead by sizable margins the race tightened up in the midst of the debates. But even still the trend nationally and within the states showed a tilt toward Bush. It's been that way for the last 45 days. The difference is now they are looking as pronounced for the President as they did before the debates begin. Yes, it seems that "Big Mo" (momentum) is back and he's casting his vote for the President. A look at the latest polls makes this very clear.
Gallup's most recent survey shows the President ahead by 8 points. Newsweek has Bush leading by six. And even Zogby who predicted an easy win for Kerry is now reporting that the President is doing as well now as he was before the debates begin. Additionally the Washington Post's new tracking poll has shown Bush leading in a range of 3-5 points for the last week.
But wait, didn't Kerry win the debates? According to Newsweek, by a narrow majority, voters say yes. But also by a narrow majority voters see Bush as more personally likable. Similarly voters in Time's most recent survey (which also reported that Kerry won all three debates) give Bush a double digit advantage on who's best as commander in chief and who can win the War on Terror. This likely explains why nearly two-thirds of Newsweek's registered voters said that the debates would not have either a "moderate or high influence" on who gets their votes.
In the week since the last debate the tightening race has turned towards a clear win for the President. And it seems the further removed we get from the debates, the higher the President's support is. TIPP, Newsweek, and Gallup announced results on Sunday of leads of 4, 6, and 8 respectively for Bush. And if the trend lines continue this way as other polls are released this undisputed lead could turn into a rout.
Does this mean that the debates are irrelevant? No. More likely it reveals that the American public takes its election responsibility far more seriously than many realize. After watching all three debates, it seems that the American people grant that Senator John Kerry has great speaking skills. But as these polls have begun to bear out, Mr. and Mrs. America are looking for a doer, not a talker. And the plain speaking man from Texas fits that bill nicely. On serious issues such as the War on Terror, Medicare reform, tax relief and education reform the President has been willing to take action and put his political capital on the line. Is it really that surprising that voters consistently say that he has more of the leadership skills necessary in a President?
But the truth is this isn't new. Yes it is true that the stakes are high this election. It's fair to say that since the 1990s voters have had the luxury of not having dramatic consequences as a result of their choices. But that state of affairs is rare. The 20th Century is the century of hard choices for Americans. Voters during World War I, II, the Depression, and the Cold War were forced to make dramatic choices knowing they'd have to live with the consequences. So after a brief reprise, the high stakes have returned.
Also true but not as obvious is that it was always a mistake for pundits and political strategists to place so much weight on the debates. The debates help to present in stark contrasts the opposing views of the two candidates and for that reason they are useful. But juxtaposition is far more important than exposition. And the use of superficial measures of debate prowess more akin to those employed by ESPN than C-SPAN doesn't help either.
The challenge is that measures of success in a debate aren't the same as the skills needed for leadership. While verbal agility is clearly a good measure of success in any debate, Senator Kerry's success in the three verbal sparring matches provide about as much evidence of his fitness to lead America as the President's demonstrably post 9-11 leadership (which united the country) gives NBA recruiters insights into the President's basketball skills. Little to none. And that's why voters don't use these measures either.
A recent release from Gallup's provides more concrete support for this point. Looking back to 1984, Gallup's survey of debate winners versus election winners shows little to no relationship between the two. According to Gallup, the public viewed Mondale the winner against Reagan in the debates and yet as we all know Reagan went on to win a landslide victory in November. In 1988, voters indicated that Dukakis had won the debates and yet he was trounced by Bush on Election Day. And in 1992, viewers told Gallup that Ross Perot had won the debates yet Clinton defeated Bush in an upset. Only in 1996 and in 2000 did the debate winners ultimately prevail in the national elections. But more importantly as Gallup's notes in its release, "a review of Gallup election trends throughout the debate season in each election suggests that, with the exception of 2000, there has been little change in the basic structure of these elections from the period immediately before the first debate to the period immediately following the final debate."
And that brings us to where we are today: an election in which voters face the choice of a proven and tested incumbent who espouses the values and philosophy of the right and a challenger who for his entire political career has been an adherent of the east coast liberal brand of progressivism. Going into the debates America's decision looked pretty clear. And now after is it any wonder that voters are discounting surface issues such as who's the most glib?
Since the mid sixties America has been moving away from the left leaning statism so popular in Europe. It's most pronounced moment was the election of Ronald Reagan. Its second wave was the 1994 takeover of Congress by Republicans. It's quite possible that this November we'll see the third wave.
------------
Horace Cooper writes a regular political analysis column for GOPUSA.com and United Press International.
A lot can happen in the next two weeks.
The probability of terrorist attack here is high.
I can already hear the Dems screaming "Bush failed to protect us"...
Assassination is also a possibility. I pray that the FBI and the Secret Service is on top of it all.
It is going to be a tough 15 days... And that's assuming we know who won the day after the election... If it is close there will be a further month or so of pain.
If he can keep this kind of lead until election eve, it's all over for sKerry.
I must say, to their credit, CNN is reporting the RV poll and the 8 point Bush favor in the LV poll. As a matter of fact, they've been reporting it every half hour. I know; I was surprised also.
I guess the print media is asleep.
They also energize Bush voters.
I have done my own poll and the majority that I talk to ( all except my mother-in-law, and I consider her part of the dumb vote, she cannot give you an intelligent reason that she is voting for Kerry) are for the stronger leader.
I'd find it pretty funny if Bush won in Ma.
That would be a kick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.