March 21, 2004
REQUIEM FOR A FEATHERWEIGHT:
John Dean Kerry (David Hogberg, 3/17/2004, American Spectator)
Recently Juan Williams described Kerry as "someone who can take a punch and punch back on his way to a strong finish." Yet last week showed a Kerry who was punch drunk. The reason is that Kerry's campaign skills really haven't been tested. The only real challenge Kerry faced during the primary was revamping his campaign after he lost the lead in the polls to Howard Dean. Dean's implosion is what was primarily responsible for Kerry's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. After the Granite State win had cemented his position as frontrunner, Kerry never really faced a serious attack. Gephardt and Lieberman were gone early, Clark was feckless, Dean was in disarray, and Edwards played too nice. Perhaps if Kerry had to defend his status as a frontrunner, it would have toughened him up, made him more careful in his remarks, and impressed upon him the difference between putting out fires and pouring gasoline on them.Indeed, Kerry hasn't faced a tough challenge since his Senate race of 1996. (He ran unopposed in 2002.) And a closer look at that victory, over GOP Governor William Weld, suggests that Kerry's ability to best a tough opponent is suspect. Kerry beat Weld by only seven percentage points, despite outspending Weld by $4.6 million, and running in what was a good year for Democrats and during Bill Clinton's successful effort to make the unpopular Newt Gingrich the face of the Republican Party. As the Almanac of American Politics suggested, it "may simply have been a matter of Democrats coming home," as Clinton walloped Dole in Massachusetts 61-28%. Kerry didn't so much fight his way to the finish line as he was carried there on Clinton's coattails.
Last week Kerry demonstrated campaign skills that are very rusty, if they exist at all. Unless he makes big improvements quickly, he is headed for a meltdown. Since he is not given to impulsive primal screams à la Dean, it will not be sudden. Rather, it will draw out like a blade as he compounds one gaffe with another and another...
Math isn't a strong suit, so can someone correct me if those numbers don't indicate that the Senator ran 26% points behind Bill Clinton's margin? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 21, 2004 6:44 PM
Better to say that he ran about 7.5% behind Clinton's total. Unless the vote totals for President and Senate were equal, the comparison loses precision.
Posted by: ratbert at March 21, 2004 7:32 PMThe reason that the Weld/Dole disparity was so much larger than the Clinton/Kerry disparity is obviously because of Perot.
Posted by: James Haney at March 21, 2004 9:09 PMAccording to the Boston Herald, Kerry got 52% of the vote in '96, so Kerry was nine percentage points behind Clinton.
Kerry received 85% as much support as Clinton got.
Weld was popular, and ran a good campaign; Dole ran a poor campaign.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 21, 2004 10:08 PMoj:
Mr. Hogberg's analysis is why I claim that McCain's challenge in '00 helped, rather than hurt, Bush.
Until SC, the Bush campaign was coasting, running on Bush's name and bushels of cash. He had already been annointed the "front-runner" in '98.
McCain woke Bush up, and got him ready for Gore.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 21, 2004 10:15 PMThe senate results are here. The presidential results are here. 1.57 million people, or about 60.4%, voted for Clinton. 1.33 million, or 52%, voted for Kerrey. 240,000 Clinton voters did not vote for Kerry. About 2.54 million people voted in the Senate race. About the same number voted in the presidential race.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 21, 2004 10:17 PMMichael:
Hard to believe there'd have been the kind of angry turnout that Gore got and the horrific numbers among blacks without McCain forcing Bush way to the Right in the primaries.
Posted by: oj at March 21, 2004 11:09 PMI just read a Mark Steyn column about Kerry and he said that last week Kerry went to a sporting goods store surrounded by reporters and he purchased amongst other things an athletic supporter. Is he trying to prove something here?
Posted by: pchuck at March 22, 2004 10:55 AM