What bounces up might come down

10 September 2004

George W. Bush is riding high right now. After a summer where virtually every poll put him narrowly behind John Kerry, he comes out of the New York convention perhaps 11 points ahead.

No question, it's a commanding lead. The last time any presidential nominee saw such a surge was 1988, when Michael Dukakis left his convention with a 17-point advantage.

All of which should give cheering Republicans and depressed Democrats some pause.

Bush's bounce was predictable (in fact, I predicted it in this space two weeks ago). Prior to the GOP convention, remember, the president had spent a miserable eight months on the defensive: savaged by the Democrats, knocked off-kilter by the prisoner abuse scandal, mocked by Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The convention finally put Bush in the spotlight. For one week a disciplined parade of speakers not only made their case for his re- election, but they also turned the tables on Kerry, putting him on the defensive. It's little wonder that the president's numbers rose.

Yet, as Dukakis could testify, bounces are ephemeral things. Indeed, this year's bounce for Bush underscores just how fluid voters' feelings about the race really are.

One common perception of the electorate is that almost everyone is in one camp or another, with the number of undecideds almost vanishingly small. Yet the wild swing in the polls suggests a more complex picture. No question, some are firm in their allegiance to either Bush or Kerry; to pick up on an analogy used back in the Democratic primaries, they are married to their choices. Others, however, are just dating. When asked, they may express a preference (and hence are not officially undecided) but their hearts are fickle. They'll readily follow the latest candidate to whisper sweet nothings in their ears.

And between now and Nov. 2, there are many sweet nothings still to come. Some, such as the debates, have the potential to remake the race as profoundly as did the GOP convention.

Still, Democrats are right to worry. The Republican convention was better than theirs, its message crisper and more coherent. Moreover, Kerry seems to have lost focus on the core messages he must communicate in order to win.

This is a different election than 2000. Back then, the two nominees competed on equal ground for an open job, each trying to persuade people that he had the better plan.

This time around, however, the job is filled. Democrats are trying to defeat an incumbent, trying to convince voters to discard what they know - even though flawed - for something unknown and potentially even worse. It's a "bird in hand is worth two in the bush" kind of problem that makes winning enormously difficult.

To succeed, challengers must manage two things. First, they have to turn the election into a referendum on the past term, persuading voters that the incumbent has done a terrible job. Second, they need to be able to portray themselves as a largely risk-free alternative.

In Kerry's case, that means he has to take on Bush directly and forcefully. So far, he hasn't, a point former President Bill Clinton made to him immediately before undergoing bypass surgery. Kerry may have lots of wonderful programs, but in essence this election isn't about them: It's about Bush. Reagan beat Carter in 1980 by asking two questions: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and "Is America as respected throughout the world?" Kerry needs to frame his entire campaign along similar lines, convincing people that the last four years have been awful, that Bush is to blame and that, if they don't want a repeat of those years, something different, something unknown, is worth taking a chance on.

Minimizing the peril of that unknown is Kerry's second task.

Last January, voters in Iowa ultimately abandoned Howard Dean because they thought Kerry to be more presidential - shorthand for saying that he seemed more experienced, level-headed and ready to lead. These days, however, that sense of Kerry as presidential seems lost; we hear far more about his few months as a young soldier than we do about his decades in the Senate. A friend has compared Kerry - in looks, demeanor and even the sound of his voice - to Treebeard in "The Lord of the Rings." He's not exciting, but he's nothing to be feared either. Voters need to be reassured that a Kerry presidency is less a jump into the abyss than it is a step in a different direction.

Hard as it is to win, beating a sitting president isn't very complicated. It requires a willingness to be tough and unrelenting in taking on the incumbent, while presenting oneself as safe and sane.

People this November face a simple decision: the bird in the hand or the two in the bush? For Kerry to win (and I apologize for this), voters must pick bush.