Polls and prospects

I try not to spend too much time focusing on polls.  But what political junkie can totally resist?

Swift Boat Liars for Bush

Before it's swept away in the tide of the campaign, it's worth taking another look at how the issue of Kerry vs. the Swift Boat Liars for Bush played out for him.  John Belasarius, writing at Ruy Teixeira's Donkey Rising blog looked at the question How much damage did the Swift Boat attacks really do - and what can Dems learn from them? (09/11/04).

Belasarius looks closely at the internals of how various segments of the electorate responded to the charges of the Swift Boat Liars challenging Kerry's Vietnam War medals.  Based on that, he believes that "the smear campaign was essentially a failure."  For example:

It was only among Republican partisans and in the closed conservative media environment created by talk radio and cable TV that the percentage of those who thought Kerry did not deserve his medals ever rose above 30%.

He notes that while Kerry's relatively slow response to the charges may have allowed the charges to gain more traction than they might otherwise have had, the slower response may have also created some sympathy for Kerry as being the target of the Republican slime machine.  And he cites a Gallup poll showing that by early September, more than half the public (52%) thought that the Republicans were attacking Kerry unfairly.  It's worth noting that Gallup has been rightly criticized, by Ruy Teixeira in particular, for sampling that is far too heavily weighted toward Republicans this election year, so that 52% could well have been understated.

The one caution I would have about Belasarius' analysis is that he doesn't seem to consider the fact that sleaze-slinging ads can have an indirect effect that is more important than the overt one.  While many people who thought the Swift Boat Liars' attacks were unfair, many people also assume "where there's smoke, there's fire," as the saying goes.  These days in politics, it's often the case that where there's smoke, there's only Republican hot air.  But it can still be effective.

But I do think, based on this and other analyses of the polling data on this I've seen, that his conclusions are warranted.  I'm quoting them here in full:

There are several conclusions suggested by this data, conclusions that go beyond the currently popular view that democrats [sic] should respond to any future smear attacks as rapidly, forcefully and aggressively as possible.

First, it is probably impossible to prevent smears from taking hold within the conservative "echo chamber" of Fox and talk radio and it may be a misuse of resources to attempt to achieve that goal. The more important and achievable goal - preventing the smear from spreading beyond that audience - is probably best pursued by energetically demanding that the mainstream media fulfill their journalistic obligations by emphatically and categorically labeling false accusations as baseless on their editorial pages rather then attempting to debate the issues directly with the smear group itself.

Second, while a very rapid and aggressive response to new accusations can clearly be desirable, it must still be balanced with the need to appear fair, unruffled and unafraid of open and honest debate. A shrill or intemperate counterattack, even if launched at the earliest possible moment, can have little effect or even be counterproductive.

Finally, Republicans have significantly damaged their image and reputation among many moderates and opinion leaders by embracing an essentially dishonest, "win at any cost" approach during this campaign. This tarnished reputation is an asset democrats should energetically exploit. Not only does it reduce the appeal and legitimacy of Republicanism in general, but it makes it easier for Dems to successfully deflect future smear campaigns. Ronald Reagan's famous response, "There you go again", with which he portrayed Jimmy Carter's repeated challenges to his character as tiresome evidence of unfairness, provides one model of how such a strategy can be successfully executed.

I would only add that while it makes very good sense for the Democrats to demand, again and again and again, that the mainstream press do their job on stories like the Swift Boat Liars, the dysfunction of the American press corps is so deep and chronic that this recommendation is truly a long-term project.  If dishonest just make up stuff attacking Democrats like the Swift Boat Liars did, they can get Regnery to publish a book on it and our sad excuse for a press corps will publicize the lies without the most minimal fact-checking and treat it as a "this side says/the other side says" story.

But if CBS slips up on the sourcing of documents that appear critical of Bush the Magnificent, Liberator of Peoples and Scourge of the Heathen, they may be looking at a Congressional investigation, while they mainstream media gleefully piles on with at least the same level of carelessness that CBS showed in their document mishap.

Issues and trends

Economist James Galbraith has been doing his own running analysis of polling the last several months.  He has been tracking Bush's "secular" decline in the polls, as economists say.  "Secular" in this context means a long-term trend.  Essentially, Bush's job-apprival ratings have declined steadily in the polls ever since he took office, with three notable exceptions:  the September 11 attack, the invasion of Iraq, and the capture of Saddam Hussein.  His decline resumed thereafter in each case, with the bounce being longer in the case of the 9/11 attacks.

And he sees it continuing: Bush still sinking slowly Salon.com 09/14/04.  And he adds the Republican convention just concluded as a fourth event giving Bush a bump up in approval ratings, though less than the other three.  Over his presidency, Bush has lost about 1.4% per month in approval ratings, according to Galbraith's calculations.

Galbraith has also been looking at The voters Democrats can't reach Salon.com 09/13/04.  I especially like this one, because it builds on the insights of one of my very favorite books on American politics, The Culture of Contentment (1992) by his father, John Kenneth Galbraith.

This article is a good antidote to any easy stereotyping of "red" and "blue" states.  (How the Republicans ever got designated the "reds" is beyond me; but I do enjoy calling them Reds, I must admit.)  Looking at data on income inequality - one of his own research specialties - he finds:

States that are sharply divided, usually between major cities and lower-income hinterlands, are primarily Democratic. States that are either near the economic median or else sparsely populated tend to be Republican.

Of the top 14 most-polarized states (in order: New York, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Delaware and Minnesota), only one -- Virginia -- voted clearly for Bush. Of the 22 least-polarized states, only four (Iowa, Maine, Vermont and New Mexico) voted for Al Gore.

He also has an important observation about the Republicans' suburban voting base and how it is fueled to a large extent by resentment - resentment of those considered to be lower on the social ladder than themselves.  And he argues that the Democrats shouldn't bother with trying to peel off small slices of the Republicans' base who live to a depressing extent in a Fox-and-Oxycontin haze of disinformation (my terms, not his).  He summarizes:

Democrats should realize that, to a considerable extent, the Republican base lies behind their lines. It lives in a simplified world, cut off effectively and even voluntarily from outside information. For this reason, basing the campaign on the character defects and early history of Bush just won't work. This war isn't going to be decided by records from the Texas Air National Guard. Those who might care know already. And if they don't, they will never find out.

John Kerry and John Edwards must, therefore, speak to the two Americas they can reach. They must speak to the issues that the two Americas care about. These are predominantly the war in Iraq and jobs. Jobs and the war in Iraq. And as Democratic strategist James Carville said back in 1992, "don't forget healthcare." They must do this in just those places where a handful of votes can make the difference. Almost everything else is a distraction.

In other words, Kerry's issues from now until the election need to be: Iraq War, jobs, Iraq War, health care, Iraq War.

The economic of the war presidency

In The Afghan effect? Salon.com (09/21/04), Galbraith looks at the economic effect of Bush's more notable projects as president, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  With the intervention in the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan), the economy got a quarter's growth spurt, which subsided thereafter.  With the Iraqi invasion, there was briefly an economic benefit that extended beyond no-bid contracts to an under-performing Halliburton:

Federal military spending added almost 1.5 points to growth in the second quarter of 2003, kicking an anemic growth rate above 4 percent for the first time under Bush's rule. Then, in the rush of the Baghdad "cakewalk," the economy finally fired on all cylinders at once. Consumption and investment both jumped, pushing the growth rate to 7.4 percent in the third quarter of 2003.

That was the peak, the top of the Bush economy. It has been downhill since then. In the second quarter of 2004, consumer spending contributed only 1.1 points to growth. The investment surge still had some spark to it, contributing 2.6 points. But every sign so far suggests that the third quarter of 2004 will be worse on both fronts. Meanwhile, the contribution of government spending to the growth rate has fallen to half a percent overall.

Galbraith notes that the stimulative portion of the tax cuts, which the Democrats successfully insisted be included with the longer-term tax bonanza for the wealthiest, did stimulate consumer spending in 2001-3.  "But they didn't create jobs -- a lesson for future Keynesians seeking cheap solutions." (my emphasis)

Thre has been some job growth in the year since the intial military victory in Iraq, though only 1/5 of the amount it would take to get back to full employment, in his calculation.  Galbraith thinks the uncertainty created by the disastrous war in Iraq is severely inhibiting business investment.  "Peace and prosperity are associated in economic history, for good reason."

So long as we're stuck in Iraq, bleeding harder every day (and building toward crises with Iran and North Korea), I bet against a strong and long revival of private business investment. That means I also bet against strong and sustained growth of decent jobs, and against a return to full employment. And I'd keep to that bet even in the face of new stimulus measures, such as new tax cuts or making the old ones permanent.

Galbraith has been looking soberly at a number of trends that most political and social analysts seem to be missing.  He's definitely worth listening to.  And his careful skepticism about the prevailing assumptions that dominate (among other things) our lazy press corps is probably even more valuable than his particular conclusions.