Editor’s Note: Campaign Desk turned loose two of its finest to write the definitive explanations of the election results — no matter who wins. Here is Part Two. We have spared no cliche. Expect to see either explanation in a newspaper near you on November 3.
One of the longest, most contentious, most expensive presidential campaigns in memory has culminated in the election of Senator John Kerry, who rode a tide of criticism of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq right into the oval office.
President Bush and his surrogates like to say that everything changed on 9/11. But one thing that didn’t change was the dynamics of presidential elections involving incumbents. Such elections are said to hang on the electorate’s feelings about the job performance of their leader, and this one did, with low approval ratings once again giving a member of the Bush family a one-term presidency.
Of course, Bush often tried to focus the spotlight on his opponent, portraying Kerry as a liberal who “would say almost anything to get elected.” But Kerry refused to play defense, opting instead to relentlessly hammer Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq and the war on terror, which he successfully compartmentalized into two opposite endeavors. His team of savvy advisors, recruited late in the game from the Clinton administration, understood that their candidate could take the prize simply by being seen as the lesser of two evils.
Like his father before him, there were times when George W. Bush looked unbeatable. He led a country united by the 9/11 attacks, capitalizing on a wave of popularity to push through domestic programs that might otherwise have been doomed. But while George Herbert Walker Bush’s engagement with Saddam Hussein garnered him political capital, his son was dragged down by a steady drumbeat of bad news in the weeks before the election, which left the picture of a grand adventure gone sour.
Karl Rove may well be a behind-the-scenes genius, but even he couldn’t find a way to win over an electorate disenchanted with the administration’s foreign policy (attack Osama bin Laden verbally, attack Saddam Hussein with guns and bombs). The arrival of a videotape from bin Laden just days before the election seemed to play right into Rove’s hands, focusing attention on the threat from abroad and tempting Americans to rally around the president. But in hindsight, it’s clear to this disinterested observer that the tape had the opposite effect, reminding voters that bin Laden was still on the loose, and that Bush had focused on the wrong swarthy lunatic with a beard. “I was leaning toward voting for Kerry all along, but that tape pushed me over the edge,” said Francine Madison, an Iowa voter who participated in multiple focus groups with seasoned pollster John Zogby. “I mean, if Bush is protecting us so well, why is that man still out there?”
Not long ago, it looked like voters might head to the polls more dismayed with the specter of a fluent-in-French, windsurfing president than with four more years of a brush-cutting cowboy (with two Ivy League degrees) fumbling about on the world stage. The president and his surrogates kept to one central theme throughout the campaign: that Kerry was an elitist flip-flopper who would worry a problem to death rather than act decisively. Kerry’s missteps didn’t help: He referred to a “global test” for American action during the debates; he said he voted for an appropriations bill before voting against it; and he often came off as dry, uninspiring, and patrician on the stump. But Kerry, as his past performance suggested, was a thoroughbred in the stretch, closing relentlessly on the frontrunner, just as his shrewd surrogates (themselves brought on board late in the game) had predicted.