Read Senior Editor Laura Washington's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > October 21, 2004

I Think He Can, I Think He Can

By Craig Aaron

Young voters—whose turnout could be the highest since 1992—favored Kerry by as many as 25 points in recent Zogby polls.

John Kerry is going to win.

Repeat after me: John Kerry is going to win.

Normally I’m not one for mantras and affirmations, but to beat George W. Bush we all better start saying—out loud, to our neighbors, on the train, at the water cooler, anywhere a swing voter might be in earshot—that our guy (and, like it or not, he’s our guy) is going to be the next president. So one more time: John Kerry is going to win.

How can he win? Looking at the record of the dangerous, disingenuous Bush administration, the question should be how could Kerry possibly lose? Yet all the hangdog Democrats and their pathologically pessimistic fellow-travelers ignore the encouraging evidence and just assume that one way or another—by hook, crook or October Surprise—the omnipotent Karl Rove will spank us again. The Republicans aren’t afflicted with this “genetic predisposition to panic,” as Ken Auletta calls it, and maybe that’s why they roll over us every time.

For a change, let’s try to accentuate the positive. Sure, Kerry can be ponderous, pandering and mealy-mouthed. But in the three debates he looked more competent, confident and presidential than his opponent. Bush appeared intermittently incoherent and desperate, code-talking about “activist judges” and the Dred Scott decision in a bizarre shout-out to anti-choice zealots. At other times, Bush seemed to be channeling the ghost of Lee Atwater, with all the snide comments about Ted Kennedy and efforts to tag Kerry as a scary liberal. That’s so 1988. What’s next—Willie Horton in a swift boat?

While most of the national polls rate the race a dead heat, the trends favor Kerry. He trounces Bush on a wide range of domestic issues, according to the latest Gallup survey, which shows voters overwhelmingly prefer Kerry when it comes to the environment, healthcare, Social Security and education. Polls still show Bush maintaining a sizable advantage on the war on terror in spite of the tragedy in Iraq. But fewer Americans than ever believe the war was worth it, and the president’s overall approval rating is sinking lower every day.

More bad news for Bush is what poll-watchers call the 50 percent rule. “The percentage of the vote an incumbent president receives in surveys is an extraordinarily accurate predictor of the percentage he will receive on Election Day,” Guy Molyneux recently explained in The American Prospect. “An incumbent who fails to poll above 50 percent is in grave jeopardy of losing his job.” Bush’s average support in trial heats since the first debate is 47 percent.

The upside for Kerry is that the polls are almost certainly overestimating Bush’s popularity by surveying older, whiter, Republican-leaning voters. One key demographic that’s definitely being ignored is young people, millions of whom aren’t polled because they only have cell phones. Young voters—whose turnout could be the highest since 1992—favored Kerry by as many as 25 points in recent Zogby polls.

Of course, no group of voters will be more important to Kerry’s victory, especially in the battlegrounds, than African-Americans. While Kerry has been criticized for not doing enough to reach out to black voters, beating Bush may be motivation enough in places like Florida’s Duval Country—where 27,000 ballots, mostly from black neighborhoods, were tossed out in 2000.

A percentage point or two in places like Duval—where black voter registrations are up more than 150 percent—could tip the entire state.

One thing Kerry won’t have to worry about in Florida this year is the Nader factor. Ralph may be on the ballot again this year, but almost everyone who endorsed him in 2000—the Greens, Barbara Ehrenreich, Michael Moore—has disowned him. The only person I’ve met who’s even considering a vote for Nader is a born-again Christian Republican who can’t stomach the war. The Libertarian candidate will get more votes.

County election boards in swing states—and many others—are adding staff, working overtime and reporting a rush in new voter registrations. Florida has at least a million new registered voters, the vast majority of whom are Democrats or independents. Registrations in Ohio’s Democratic strongholds are up 250 percent, according to the New York Times. Philadelphia reported the greatest surge in voter registrations in two decades.

These figures are a direct result of the college kids, union workers, corporate lawyers and housewives—many of whom had never worked on a national political campaign before—getting on buses every weekend to go knock on doors in swing states. Hardened organizers and armchair activists alike are giving up their nights and taking time off from their day jobs to defeat George Bush. The pollsters all missed the same type of below-the-radar activity by the right in elections like 1980 and 1994. But this time the passion and energy is on our side.

I can’t promise this will be one of those watershed elections, but it could be. John Kerry is going to win. And that’s when the real work starts.

Craig Aaron is the communications director of the national media reform group Free Press and a senior editor of In These Times. The views expressed here are his own.

More information about Craig Aaron

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    It’s true that the stars of the Progressive world are lining up behind pro-war and inevitable draft John Kerry because they hate Bush. But young people will die in Iraq not Michael Moore. Mostg people don’t know that the Democrats fought Nader off of many ballots -the new K St. KKK- to keep people from choosing him. Suckers will vote for Kerry because their friends say so. Others will cast a secret vote for Nader and leave the group pressures outside. A vote for Nader is the only anti-war vote and a vote against the anti-civil rights tactics of the Dixiecrat Democrats of 2004.

    Posted by steve conn on Oct 21, 2004 at 8:23 AM

    I might tend to agree with your last comment, Steve. I think Moore, however, is a little moore realistic in his views than he may be showing. I believe at the beginning of this election year—and in years prior—he has been extremely critical of the Dems, but threw his lot behind them because of the Bush factor, i.e. Bush is simply a loose cannon who has no business leading the country, and his government is made up of corporate bigwigs who don’t give a hoot about anything other than swimming in bucks. Under the circumstances a vote for Nader is a vote definitely for war, since the guy is only drawing about 1 or so % of the national vote. Kerry is, I hope/think/evaluate, a fellow with more sense and I believe a better agenda.

    And I say this, Steve, as a long-term admirer of Nader. I have followed and applauded his career for decades, and if the Republicans would have a guy that was more to the center (they haven’t had one there since Ike, and he was fast asleep and snoring), I would cast my vote loudly and with the angels trumpeting for Nader. But this time it’s no.

    About the war in Iraq: Even if Nader would win the election, assuming all the Dems and a few of those enlightened fundamentalists decide to pull a fast one… We cannot just pull out of Iraq and blame GWB for it. That was the big mistake there: You always need an exit strategy. During the propaganda blitz before the war, I did not hear a single voice (there might have been one or two) debating what would happen. Some of us (we are ordinary Joe Blows) did suggest what would happen. The US army and it’s tagalongs would win quickly, W would do a testosterone show for the yokels, and then civil war would break out and we would be caught in the middle. And because of that (it’s our damned responsibility) we would not be able to just up and leave. There would be untold bloodshed in the country, believe me. One of my closest friends is Iraqi. Besides, Halliburton and others haven’t finished yet. All I am waiting for at this point is the Kurds to start clamoring for their independence using their old blunderbusses. They already have, actually, but not loudly. After all, Kurdistan has enough oil to support a handful of warlords in a lavish lifestyle for a generation or two while leaving us a little more fuel for SUVs.

    Kerry’s suggested exit strategy is smart. It involves rebuilding the alliance with the rest of the world outside Palau, Rumania, GB, Macedonia, Hungary, etc… Getting some heavyweights on board. That will make the difference.  He also is thinking along the lines of less dependence on fossil fuels, etc… That is also smart.

    My last argument right now is: Four more years of Bush and there may be neither a second nor third party left to vote for, there may not even be elections. Tom Ridge gave the world the recipe for ending our democracy when he suggested postponing the elections because of the threat of terror attacks (he probably heard the threat from Rove). That was July 12. It was quickly brushed aside.... Instead of being thoroughly investigated.  We jave come to accept our democracy as if it were a given, a birethright. It ain’t. It’s a privilege, not god given but fought for with real human blood, sweat and tears and, when you come right down to it, brain cells. It’s because of that democracy that millions of Christian fundamentalists can pray, sing and talk in tongues without being pilloried. And that mountebanks like Pat Robertson can suck them dry of their last earnings by promising them a little nest in the heavens.

    i have to go, regards,

    Posted by Marton on Oct 21, 2004 at 9:38 AM

    I think the only people I’ve met who are more self-righteous than Bush supporters are hardcore Nader supporters. You’d think that if they wanted to get more people to vote for Nader, they wouldn’t refer to Kerry supporters as suckers. Vote your conscience, but don’t try to force your conscience onto others.

    Posted by Tornado Rex on Oct 21, 2004 at 9:44 AM

    Kerry *IS* going to win & it’s not going to be close (not 2000 close anyway).

    He will win the whole BigTen (that’s Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania) minus IN.  Florida will not matter, but he will probably win that too when the dust settles.

    Posted by Adam on Oct 21, 2004 at 12:54 PM

    “A vote for Nader is the only anti-war vote...”

    I am anti-war and would dearly love to have a true anti-war candidate that could win this election, but Ralph Nader is NOT IT.  And if I need so desperately to cling to my illusion over that reality that I would knowingly hand this election to the fascist supreme, George W. Bush, I will deserve the administration I help elect by doing so.

    Furthermore, Kerry, who could have exempted himself from the Viet Nam War as GWB did, committed himself to it, and then had the decency to come back and openly regret it, and to call it what it was:  a monumental tragedy. 

    To sum up, steve conn, you :

    pretend Nader can win;
    pretend that even if Nader cannot win, it means something to register your complaint by voting for him;
    pretend that Kerry is pro-war;
    pretend Kerry is pro-draft.

    My advice to you :

    If you want to play pretend, buy yourself some paper dolls.

    If you want to help create a better America, GET REAL, because this is no time to pretend.

    Posted by Kim Louth on Oct 21, 2004 at 2:02 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 20 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

"To people who say they are sick of the corporate dominated and celebrity fixated news media, I say, "Stop whining and subscribe to In These Times." --Barbara Ehrenreich
Popular Discussions