|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Thomas Holbrook, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
The first consideration is the context of the election. While strategies, candidates, and campaign events do influence how people vote, these are somewhat limited by the political and economic environment in which the election occurs. In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the context of the 2004 election is quite unlike any in recent history. Still, there are some general indicators-presidential approval and the state of the economy, in particular-that we can use to try to divine how events are likely to unfold. With the notable exception of the 2000 election, voters have habitually returned the incumbent party to office during good economic times and when the sitting president is relatively popular, and have thrown out the incumbent party during bad economic times and when the president is relatively unpopular. On balance, the context of the election favors the Bush/Cheney ticket. At this writing (July 12th) President Bush's approval rating is hovering around 47-48%. These are not strong numbers for re-election, but nor do they portend disaster for the Republican ticket. At the same time, economic growth in the second quarter was quite strong and many indicators point toward a sustained recovering. While most in the community of election forecasters have not produced final predictions at this time, it appears that most of the models will come in with predictions somewhere in the range of 53-56% of the two-party vote for George W. Bush. But, of course, this forecast isn't cast in stone, and the expected margin is narrow enough that a strong Kerry/Edwards campaign effort, especially if coupled with a lackluster Bush/Cheney effort, could make the difference. Indeed, we need look back no farther than the 2000 election for just such a scenario. Given the state of the economy and President Clinton's high approval numbers in the summer of 2000, Al Gore should have easily won the election. In retrospect, it is clear that the 2000 election was one in which the campaign itself heavily influenced the outcome. Among the "big" campaign events are the party nominating conventions and the debates. As these events and the fall campaign approach, certain patterns will emerge. The convention period is probably more important for John Kerry, as it provides him with a relatively uncontested opportunity to introduce himself to the nation and to shape his public image. If all goes well, Kerry can expect a significant bump in the polls coming out of his convention. The size of this bump could be limited by the fact that he is already riding higher than expected in the polls and that he announced his choice of a running mate almost three weeks prior to the convention, thus perhaps sacrificing some of the momentum typically gained by making that announcement the week before the convention. Still, challengers usually get a bigger bump than incumbents, a pattern from which Kerry should benefit. Bush should also expect a bump from the Republican convention. But, by virtue of being well known already, incumbents usually get less of a bump than challengers. However, if Bush goes into his convention trailing Kerry by a wide margin in the polls, his post-convention bump could be larger than expected, as wayward Republicans find their way home. There are a couple of characteristics worth remembering about convention bumps, however. First, they are not always very substantial. In 1984 and in 1996, neither party's convention produced a bump of much magnitude. Second, they can be transitory and decay rather quickly (Gore, 2000), or they can provide a springboard into a strong fall campaign (Bush, 1988; Clinton, 1992). And, finally, even very large bumps do not necessarily translate into victory (Goldwater, 1964). Debates are the other high profile campaign event and, while they grab a lot of attention and can provide some of the most memorable moments from the campaign, they usually do not have much effect on candidate support. While conventions produce "bumps," debates can best be described as producing "blips." This is not to say they do not serve an important function-indeed, there is evidence that voters gain useful information about candidates from the debates-just that they are unlikely to change a lot of minds or play a pivotal role in deciding the outcome of the election. Conventions and debates are part of what might be considered the broader, national campaign. But we also know that the on-the-ground campaign strategies will focus heavily on the "battleground states," those states in which the outcome is in enough doubt that a superior effort by either side could tip the balance. Throughout September and October, residents of these states will have many opportunities to get up-close and personal with the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. At some level, the focus on battleground states means that residents of non-competitive states will experience the campaign vicariously (sorry, Idaho). And while the highly visible campaign activities, such as campaign advertising and candidate visits to the states, will be most apparent, there is every indication that voter mobilization will play a more prominent role in the 2004 campaign than it has in other years. Based on experiences in recent congressional elections, as well as the closeness of the 2000 election, the candidates' organizations, parties, and outside groups are gearing up for major mobilization drives in battleground states this fall. Throughout the campaign-on the ground, in the conventions, and at the debates-both candidates will struggle to frame the campaign. If the campaign becomes about terrorism, renewed economic prosperity, or "flip-flops," then the advantage goes to President Bush. If the campaign becomes about mounting casualties in Iraq, the Two Americas, or misleading the public in the runup to the war, then the advantage goes to Senator Kerry. Of course, the media play an important role in this process, something both campaigns are aware of, and something that will itself shape many of the campaigns' activities. It is worth remembering, also, that the world itself is volatile and any number of events could influence the outcome of the election. The situation in Iraq could descend into even greater instability, or it could hit a relatively smooth patch by November. The economy could continue to improve, or it could be slowed by additional spikes in energy costs or uncertainty associated with the war in Iraq. And of course, there are any number of other "outside" events that could shape the campaign and influence the election outcome. All of this is to say that right now the context of the election favors the Bush/Cheney ticket, but not so strongly that Republicans should take it for granted. The campaign itself provides many opportunities for the Kerry/Edwards ticket and external events could also sway the outcome. The bottom line is that this is likely to be a very hard-fought and interesting campaign season. Thomas Holbrook is Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he specializes in forecasting models, conventions, debates, and other campaign events. He is the author of Do Campaigns Matter? and former editor of American Politics Research. He can be reached at holbroot@uwm.edu and 414-229-6468.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1527 New Hampshire Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036-1206
Ph: (202) 483-2512 Fx: (202) 483-2657 E-Mail: apsa@apsanet.org