Predicting The 2004 Presidential Election

Lately, everyone has been asking—who’s going to win? John Kerry, of course, because the polls say he is narrowly behind.

Here’s the logic:

Using one of my favorite days of the year, October 22, lets take a look at polls from 2000. Gallup, probably the most easily recognized name in polling, had George W. Bush way ahead with 52% of the vote, and Al Gore with 39%. CNN/Time had George W. Bush with 49% and Al Gore with 43%. Zogby had it 45% to 41%. Fox News predicted Bush—75%, Gore—15%, and Nader—10% (Okay, that’s cheap—but I bet I’m close.)

CBS reports that these horserace numbers should be eyed with suspicion. Why? In the last week of the 2000 campaign, there were 43 polls. Mr. Bush was leading in 39. The next week, Al Gore won the popular vote.

Thus, since the polls had Bush with a comfortable lead (never less than 4 points), and Bush is ahead within or just ahead of the margins of error this time around, my prediction is a Kerry win.

So, the next question is why aren’t more Kerry supporters (like the Gore vote) measured in the polls? Three reasons: 1) college kids and minorities never get polled, 2) half the Dems are now cell phone users only, and 3) everyone knows that Republicans love to tell you their opinion.

Besides all of this poll analysis, I weigh in the other factors to predict a Kerry victory. Norm Chomsky, one of my favored rabble-rousers says, “The genius of our political system is to render policy irrelevant. Voter attention is to be focused on style, personality—anything but the issues that are of primary concern to the concentrated private power centers that largely finance campaigns and run the government.”

Bush’s connection to the supposed “common folk” took a hit in the debates. Besides looking wildly uneven (Debate #1 – petulant, Debate #2- pissed, Debate #3 – uncomfortably Clintonesque), Bush failed to answer the one question he needed to—what do you say to the guy who lost his job to make him feel better? Bush’s answer about going back to school was truly inept. The lowdown on Bush used to be that he was kind of dumb, but he could do the plain-talk that appealed to the heartland. But this former (perceived) strength-of-style has been replaced by his performances in the debate, and what I think is a huge tactical error in the campaign since. By playing the fear card in the final days of the election, Bush is not giving people a vision of his style any longer, while Kerry’s style remains unscathed – calm, reflective, intelligent, wordy—yes, but Presidential. His campaign does not deviate from that style message.

One final convincing factor has me certain of a John Kerry win. The Boston Red Sox beat the Yankees. Darth Vader and the evil empire were vanquished, light triumphed over the dark side of the force, and Boston’s hometown boys are in a partying mood… expect another hometown victory on election day.

Visit my website at this link: David Frick