After 18 Months of Watching, It's Time to Predict
By Craig Crawford, CQ Columnist

Published: October 22, 2004
   
It's John Kerry's to lose.

No flip-flopping here. I think the Democratic nominee will win the
presidential election on Nov. 2. I don't even think it will take weeks of
recounting to confirm this.

The scariest thing about writing a campaign column is that on the eve of an
election you are expected to make a prediction. What good is spending much
of the past year-and-a-half on the road covering a campaign if you cannot
offer an educated guess about the outcome?

Forgive me if I take a pass on the mind-numbing chess game of mixing and
matching "battleground" states to reach a mathematical conclusion. The final
phase of this campaign is like projecting the path of a hurricane. I cannot
predict its longitude and latitude on Election Day, but I do see the
momentum headed in Kerry's direction.

For all of President Bush's valiant efforts to make this campaign a
referendum on his challenger's character, it is turning into what the nature
of politics demands: a referendum on the incumbent's performance.

You will notice a bit of hedging in my opening line. Yes, the Massachusetts
senator could find a way to lose. He sometimes has a tin ear for the effect
of his words, such as when he said he voted for funding the Iraq war before
he voted against it. Not knowing how ridiculous that would sound
demonstrated just why he might falter again in the final days.

Putting Kerry's clumsy campaign style aside, I am predicting his victory
based on the overwhelming mood for change I've seen around the country.

A Fresh Start?

I could see this mood in the nods of agreement in an airport lounge recently
as a television news clip showed Kerry saying the country needs "a fresh
start." This could be the most powerful phrase in Kerry's arsenal during the
closing days.

Calling for "a fresh start" sounds like a phrase that was poll tested with a
battery of focus groups, which is why it works. It is a simple notion
conveyed by simple words.

The need for a fresh start is the least provocative argument that Kerry
offers for replacing Bush after one term, and yet it might be the most
persuasive. Kerry's more provocative language sets the bar too high for
voters to come his way.

When Kerry portrays the president as either deceitful or incompetent, he
delights those partisan Democrats who despise Bush. But most voters say they
like the president, even if they lean against voting for him. The "fresh
start" message gives those voters a reason to vote for Kerry without joining
the hate-Bush camp.

No matter what one thinks about the status of Iraq, jobs or health care, who
can argue that a "fresh start" would be so bad?

Bush could have blunted this message. He could have signaled his own plans
for a new beginning in his second term. And there is still time for him to
do so.

The president did not need to admit mistakes to show a willingness to try
something new in Iraq, for instance. Hints about changing faces in a second
Bush administration would help. The White House could have floated a few
popular names, maybe even a Democrat or two, as candidates to replace
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, in particular.

Instead, Bush has stubbornly entrenched himself, refusing to acknowledge any
need for change in his policies on any front, domestic or international.

Ceding the change vote to Kerry could end up being the Bush camp's biggest
mistake. It is the dark side of their effective attacks on Kerry as a
flip-flopper.

The president is so determined to contrast his certitude against Kerry's
vacillation that he has left himself no room to appeal to voters who would
like to see him make adjustments. Bush would risk looking like a
flip-flopper himself if he hinted at planning to try something different in
Iraq, to cite the most politically important example, or if he eased off tax
cuts so that he could slow the rise of federal budget deficits.

Many of Bush's most ardent supporters would have welcomed a bit of
flexibility. Fiscal conservatives are outraged at the overspending in Bush's
first term. Yet he barely acknowledges the problem.

Or, More of the Same?

Bush is stuck in a world of "more of the same," the other obviously
poll-tested phrase that Kerry uses to great effect.

There was a moment at the Republican National Convention when it seemed his
campaign would finally center itself on a new second-term agenda. On the day
of the president's acceptance speech his aides released a massive document
filled with proposals for the next four years. There were no far-reaching
promises. Mostly, it was a litany of small programmatic changes, but it
seemed to be the basis for a forward-looking message. But we never heard
much more about it.

It turned out that conservatives gave the Bush camp such a beating for
spending increases in the lengthy document that his advisers backed away
from it.

Forgoing a definitive message of new ideas for a second term makes it
difficult for the president to end this campaign by promising a bright
future. Instead, his re-election is staked on fear of the future, arguing
that a Kerry presidency would put our lives in jeopardy.

Without a forward promise of modest change, Bush allows voters to conclude
that keeping him in the White House only brings more of the same.

A fresh start is not much of a mandate for a new president, but it is enough
for Kerry to slip into the White House
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2004/10/22/news-1395890.html