Democrats popping their [French] champagne corks over John Kerry's impressive poll numbers...
Kerry’s legendary lead
“So Mark, how well is John Kerry doing?”
“Better than any challenger in modern times has ever been doing at this point in this race!”
“You wouldn’t know that from the press spin.”
“Like my mother always said (quoting Santayana), those who do not remember the past are doomed to relive it.”
How does one define “doing well” in the context of polling? As I have written before, polling numbers have no inherent meaning. They only derive meaning from comparisons across time or space.
In the latest Gallup poll, John Kerry leads George Bush by five points among registered voters when Nader is included, and by 6 when he is not. How do we know just how strong a showing that is for Kerry?
Looking at the history of presidential races is one approach. No challenger has ever done as well against an elected incumbent at this point in the cycle. Every incumbent who won re-election had a double-digit lead over his challenger at this stage. Lyndon Johnson led Barry Goldwater by 59 points in the spring of ’64. Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by 14 points, Ronald Reagan led Walter Mondale by 17 and Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by 11.
Of course, some incumbents who went on to lose were doing better than Bush is today. The president’s father led Clinton by six points at this stage but was beaten anyway.
Thus, Kerry’s margin is 11 points better than was Bill Clinton’s at a similar point in time against Bush I. What, you haven’t seen that “Kerry stronger than Clinton” headline?
Only one challenger has ever done as well against an incumbent at a comparable time in the election cycle. Jimmy Carter had a similar six-point lead over the unelected and subsequently defeated Gerald Ford. The nation had just been through the long national nightmare of Watergate and Ford had pardoned Nixon.
I keep referring to “this point in time.” Why? Because campaigns are events that unfold over the course of the cycle. Most of the movement in polls comes in the aftermath of the conventions. Incumbent presidents are the best-known politicians around. Challengers are usually not as well known. Kerry is no exception. Today, many voters are expressing a preference for the Kerry they don’t know over the Bush they do. That is striking. Often, unpopular politicians still lead at this stage.
In September 2000, Bob Torricelli (D) led his opponent by a four-point margin. Just 14 percent of New Jersey voters had a favorable impression of the senator, who had been dragged through the mud by then, while 34 percent were unfavorable. You did not hear too many analysts saying, “Wow, that Torricelli is strong. A year of horrific press and he still leads his opponent.” A few weeks later, rightly convinced he could not win, Torricelli withdrew. As his opponent became better known, the incumbent was likely to suffer.
Indeed, in most races involving incumbents the critical number is not the margin over the challenger but rather the percentage of the vote the incumbent is garnering. As sophisticated poll-watchers know, few incumbents get more votes on Election Day than they do in the last polls. Voters who are undecided at the end break overwhelmingly to the challenger.
With just 44 percent support in both of the two most recent polls, Bush is in real and serious trouble.
Democrats should not be popping champagne corks yet, but our party should be delighted that Kerry is turning in a stronger performance to date than any challenger since the advent of modern polling.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) this year.
thehill.com |
