A FORECAST
I was talking about politics over lunch yesterday, and I found myself arguing a bit heatedlly about Bush's chances to win this election. And now I'm thinking, since I've gone this far out on a limb, I might as well take the chance and make my prediction, and risk looking silly if it comes out the other way. My forecast: If Karl Rove can't win this election for Bush over John Kerry, he's an idiot.

Here's what's in Bush's favor: 1) we'll be out of Iraq by then, with a sovereign Iraqi government in place, and troops coming home, and despite the absence of WMDs (it is even possible that WMDs will be found at the last minute! which would give Bush a nifty little boost, but I doubt it) the Iraq venture will look fairly successful and a good thing (to a small majority of Americans, anyway), 2) the economy will be coming out of a great year, with probably 4% growth or so, probably with job creation picking up, 3) even if the tax cut is not great fiscal policy, and the deficit is unpopular, extra money in your pocket makes you like the incumbent (as the Democrats, except Dean, are acknowledging by refusnig to advocate the repeal of the whole tax cut), 4) Bush has a good reputation by now for being strong on the national security front, 6) his Medicare and education reforms, and other "compassionate" elements of his presidency, though the Democrats refuse to acknowledge them, are real and will neutralize some of their key issues, and 6) personality: most people like Bush.

Bush is certainly vulnerable in a number of ways. People are quite upset about the deficit. Some people-- not that many, I think, but some-- are disillusioned about the justification for war because of the absence of WMDs. (Most of the people who are expressing outrage about the absence of WMDs opposed the war anyway, so the category actually swayed by that consideration is, I suspect, small, but there are some.) The left is very angry with Bush, and while Bush-hatred is certainly a minority attitude, their arguments-- that Bush is in thrall to special interests, that he is destroying our allies with his reckless unilateralism, that he is ruining the environment, that he is a "lying liar"-- may have a bit of traction with the broader public. Bush is by no means as stupid as he is stereotyped to be by the media (he has a sort of plodding intelligence and good judgment, and an ability to choose and defer to smart advisers, which gives him an effective intelligence much greater than his personal intelligence) he is also by no means brilliant. He seems to me to have a somewhat limited grasp of economics, for example. I think a certain kind of Democrat could beat. An American version of Tony Blair, to be exact.

The Democrats won't beat him, though, because Kerry is a lousy candidate, highly vulnerable on his record and on his personality. The platform he is basically running on-- his service in Vietnam, and a phony populism based on the empty rhetoric of denouncing "special interests;" Democrats' anger combined with their belief in his "electability"-- is hollow and flimsy. And Rove has a year to take it apart. It is often said that elections are a referendum on the incumbent. Is this really true? Why can't (at least some of) the voters be smart enough to say, "We're happy with the incumbent, but his opponent is even better" or "We're unhappy with the incumbent, but his opponent is even worse"? I think Bush would have fair odds of winning a "referendum on the incumbent," but fortunately for him, that's not what he's facing; he'll face a race against Kerry instead.

So why do I think Kerry is so vulnerable? He's a blue-blood, an elitist, notoriously haughty and proud, with a taste for luxury, stingy to charity. He's wooden and out of touch, yet running as a populist. Kerry will attack Bush on the deficit, of course, but since he's also propose major new spending initiatives, such as health care for all Americans, more money for education, etc., I think it will sink in on voters (with some help from Karl Rove) that Kerry's math is at least as fuzzy as Bush's ever was. (Yes, Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, but only on the wealthy, which won't generate enough revenue to cover current spending, let alone allow an expansion of discretionary spending, let alone a new entitlement like universal health care.)

Just by being a former soldier, Kerry gets a big boost on the national security issue. But can that really compensate for his voting against every major weapons system, his weird record of votes on the Iraq Wars (against in '91, for in '02, then against the $87b a year later), awkward phrases like calling for "regime change" in the US during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think it will hurt him that he called the coalition Bush headed "fraudulent." Rove doesn't have to make voters certain that Kerry would conduct our foreign policy disastrously. He just has to make them unsure.

The underlying problem is that the best coalition to beat Bush would be a combination of "left" elements-- doves and Europhiles, socialists and Great Society liberals, a few unemployed and their sympathizers, disgruntled teachers, social liberals (pro-choicers, for example)-- with "right" elements-- fiscal conservatives, free-traders, Wall Street strong dollar types, foreign-policy isolationists, small-government libertarians. This would be a somewhat odd coalition, but I think a clever and dexterous politician (e.g. Bill Clinton) could make it coherent enough to hold together long enough to topple Bush's "big-government moral conservatism." Kerry is certainly not shrewd enough to do that.

Now I think the election will be pretty close, and a lot rests on Karl Rove to spend his $100 billion of campaign contributions wisely. And since he's certainly a better political consultant than me, I'm reluctant to suggest how, but a few hints perhaps. Soft negative advertising. Show the American public the other side of Kerry's Vietnam record, when he was helping to lead the backlash that smeared the war in Vietnam and helped to ensure that veterans returning home were stereotyped as baby-killers. Portray Kerry as a "liberal" by all means (he is), but also as inconsistent and opportunist, and simply lacking the character to be president. (To do both will be a bit tricky, but that's what clever lads like Karl Rove are for.) Play Bush's foreign policy idealism for all its worth. Have ads set in Iraq and Afghanistan, showing the loya jirga, showing the celebration in the streets of Baghdad, show the horrors of Saddam's regime and how life is improving. (Would Karl Rove have the nerve to get Republican campaign ads filmed in Iraq, so that the American public can see Iraqis themselves expressing their gratitude?) I don't want to go on, because I'm sure (I hope!) Karl Rove can do his job better than I could do it. But I think he'll pull if off (and that he'll be pretty incompetent if he doesn't).

Whew! There, I did it. No respectable pundit would ever call an election this early, but I'm not a respectable pundit, just some random guy who blogs in the mornings before work, so I have less to lose. One thing more to add, before I retire from political blogging for a while: even if Kerry wins, it won't really be a big triumph for the Democrats. First, because he'd be a lousy president and might seriously humiliate and discredit his party; second, because his selection itself was on the grounds of "electability" and was thus almost a concession to Republicans, and a defeat for the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" represented by Howards Dean; third, because of the "ratchet-effect," the phenomenon by which one party pulls the country in one direction, and the other party merely leaves it in one place. (The "ratchet-effect" was a term developed in Britain, where it used to pull the country to the left. Nowadays, the US and some other countries are being ratcheted towards the right.) Kerry will be hamstrung by a Republican Congress, which would probably gain seats in 2006, and will not be able to pass the kind of legislation which would reverse the Bush legacy; and this failure will simply entrench it.

Well, now that I know the results, I don't have to follow politics anymore! That's a relief, because I was becoming kind of an addict, which is not a good thing. Now I can switch my interests to Africa, and try to become as well-versed as I can in that region before I go there. Expect future posts to focus more in that direction.