WASHINGTON, 25 October 2004 — No doubt, when the votes are cast on Nov. 2, pundits will scramble to create a narrative painting the victor as an apt political strategist and his foe as a befuddled unelectable loser who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
It is a well-worn storyline that has explained nearly all close US presidential elections throughout history. To the victors go the spoils, and no matter how close the election, the spoils are not limited to occupying the White House. Victory or defeat will forever define George W. Bush and John Kerry in the annals of history, and will judge whether the immediate post-Sept. 11 era has been a success or failure.
With rare exceptions, the list of White House losers does not differentiate by margin of defeat.
Thomas Dewey, who lost a squeaker, and the thoroughly thrashed Walter Mondale are in the same ignominious club. Dewey, the 1948 loser, would be long forgotten if not for a memorable gaff by the Chicago Tribune, which ran a headline declaring him the winner. Richard Nixon lost by a razor-thin 0.17 percent national margin to John Kennedy in a campaign plagued by alleged voter irregularities. But his 1960 campaign, including his unimpressive performance in the first debate, is an example of what not to do.
Gerald Ford is not remembered for narrowly falling to Jimmy Carter, but for losing, in part because he famously flubbed a debate question about Soviet-dominated Poland. People tend not to recollect the nation’s deep economic problems, and his pardoning of Richard Nixon, which drew the ire of voters at the time, is now thought of as an act of profound courage.
Al Gore received more votes than Bush, but lost in the Electoral College due to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision regarding the disputed Florida vote count. Upon conceding defeat and nobly urging his supporters to accept Bush’s legitimacy, he was immediately branded with the “L” word, and commentators and Democratic Party leaders slammed Gore for running a preposterously stupid campaign that failed to embrace the legacy of the golden Clinton era. Democrats collectively breathed a sigh of relief when the man who won the popular vote in 2000 — receiving more votes than any Democrat in history — opted not to run in 2004.
If George W. Bush is re-elected, his tactical missteps, malapropisms, and policy failures will be instantly erased from the memories of the Washington punditocracy. Bush will be credited for his grit and determination to stay the course. His informal public demeanor will be deemed an asset, and his first term will be forever marked by Sept. 11 and the days immediately following it. In defeat, Kerry will be demonized by the media and his fellow party members for losing what should be an easy victory over a weak incumbent.
Kerry already got a taste of what may lie ahead when his poll numbers dipped in August and early September. At the time, Kerry was panned for his timidity, inability to connect with voters, and failure to gain the public’s confidence that he could handle the awesome job of president.
On the other hand, should the Massachusetts Democrat be victorious, he will be lionized for his mastery of issues and dominant performances in the debates. The patrician Kerry, who will never be appealing to the masses on a personal level, will prove campaigns can still be won on the issues. Bush would no doubt be ostracized by the Republican rank-and-file for abandoning “true conservatism.” History will not be kind to Bush, who will forever be defined by Iraq. The public will remember not only his policy blunders, but his inflexibility and inability to admit mistakes..
As much as the candidates will be defined by the Nov. 2 results, so to the era. A Bush win means his vision of the post-Sept. 11 world will remain in tact. The Pax Americana call for “freedom and democracy” abroad while simultaneously fighting the war on terrorism — with or without fixed alliances or the support of the international community — will be national policy. Should Kerry win, the “unilateral” Bush agenda will be deemed a dangerous failure, and relegated to Trotsky’s infamous “dustbin of history.”
Today, the race remains extremely tight. Polling data remains inconsistent, making any election prediction subjective. Averaging 12 national polls taken in the past week, Bush holds a narrow lead, 47.6 percent to 46.7 percent. Statistically, the lead is insignificant because of the various margins of error.
The lead is also insignificant because the Electoral College, not the popular vote, will decide the race.
Oddly enough, some think Bush may win the popular vote by rolling up overwhelming victories in Texas and throughout the South, but lose the presidency.
These forecasts see Kerry eking out wins in voter-rich swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, while winning comfortably but not decisively throughout the Midwest. Florida remains a pundit’s enigma.
Regardless of the scenario that will be played out, it is clear the winner will not crush his foe. But in the eyes of history, the candidate who comes up short will be forever branded a loser.
— David Dumke is the CEO of the American Middle East Information Network and Principal of the MidAmr Group.
