Bush Is Still A Lock

Tim Cavanaugh | June 29, 2004

At the Daily Star, an expansion on my recent blog post about wartime elections.

Comments

Tim Cavanaugh|6.29.04 @ 1:09AM|#

Gary Gunnels:

1. Madison was re-elected in 1812, at the height of the war he himself had gotten into. DeWitt Clinton was not the hawk in that contest.

2. The United States was not at war in 1916.

3. It's true that it's hard to draw any conclusion about Vietnam from 1964--that's why I said so in the article. But in all three Vietnam era elections, the showing-resolve candidate won--once despite a strong third party challenge and once by a huge landslide.

4. It is pure sophistry to pretend Vietnamization wasn't widely recognized as throwing in the towel. Make what you like of this, but I remember my superhawk (and stalwart Nixonian) father shrieking at the TV that Nixon was a traitor when he announced the last US troops would be leaving Vietnam.

5. Says me: If you don't think Nixon seemed more hawkish than Hubert Humphrey, I seriously question your eyesight.

BB:

Nobody has responded to the Dewey '44 claim because it's absurd: If you're seriously claiming Roosevelt didn't have hawk credentials in the fight against Germany and Japan, there really is no response needed. And if you think talking up war with the USSR constitutes hawkishness in the war against the Axis, you're just wrong. I didn't say Americans have an endless appetite for war; I said they are determined to win the wars they are already fighting.

|6.29.04 @ 1:11AM|#

I don't suppose anyone has noticed that Kerry is actually calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq. How do you get more hawkish than that? Oh I forgot...if you accidentally get the UN and/or NATO behind you, you're "the anti-war candidate."

I think isolating ourselves from the rest of the world is a terrible ideal. But after 9/11 his view has changed to something I can agree with.

A good portion of the world is angry because they're living in something akin to a Deist nightmare with respect to America. There is barely a part of the world we haven't had our fingers in. But when it goes bad we leave it to rot and fester (as long as our immediate interests aren't at stake). This is how much of the world sees us. An absent vengeful god that demands homage and sacrifice but does nothing.

Of course when you trust our great leader you'll know that we're really the Jesus of the world. Sacrificing ourselves for the greater good.

I guess that's what American elections are all about. Who can be more hawkish and convincingly Jesus-like at the same time. Why on earth would the world think we're crazy?!

Tim Cavanaugh|6.29.04 @ 1:19AM|#

I don't suppose anyone has noticed that Kerry is actually calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq.

You're right: Nobody has noticed that. Hence the Kerry problem I outlined in the article.

|6.29.04 @ 1:22AM|#

Pavel: So long as they keep sending us their best and brightest to be tempted and corrupted by the ways of the great satan we (and I) shall always prevail.

OK, gotta get back to the secret caves. See ya in '08!

|6.29.04 @ 1:31AM|#

"I don't suppose anyone has noticed that Kerry is actually calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq.

You're right: Nobody has noticed that. Hence the Kerry problem I outlined in the article."

Actually, I think plenty of people have heard of this.

|6.29.04 @ 1:33AM|#

Cavanaugh,

You say: "When troops are in the field, in sufficient enough numbers for the nation to consider itself "at war," the candidate who looks more convincingly hawkish will always win."

My question is: Was FDR more hawkish than Dewey? Your theory (and I think it is pretty solid) does not say "if the candidate is seen as having the hawk credentials necessary to win the war he will win the election". You say "the candidate who looks more convincingly hawkish will always win." Since there have not been a huge number of wartime elections, I think it is worth pointing out '44.

|6.29.04 @ 1:37AM|#

Tim,

"1. Madison was re-elected in 1812, at the height of the war he himself had gotten into."

Which doesn't disprove my point that the U.S. was quite willing to sue for peace in that war.

"2. The United States was not at war in 1916."

I already corrected myself.

"3. It's true that it's hard to draw any conclusion about Vietnam from 1964--that's why I said so in the article."

No you tried to subtlely turn the table and use that election as a data point in favor of your theory.

"But in all three Vietnam era elections, the showing-resolve candidate won--once despite a strong third party challenge and once by a huge landslide."

Well, again the first election proves nothing (here again you state that it does - even though you originally argue otherwise), I didn't write about the second election because I also don't think that it proves much (largely because its not very representative of American elections), and with regard to the third election you've so mangled the historical record that I would also say that you're off there too.

"4. It is pure sophistry to pretend Vietnamization wasn't widely recognized as throwing in the towel."

The American public didn't view it this way; nor did Nixon sell it that way. What you're making is a post facto fallacy here. In fact, given that both Nixon and Kissinger assumed in 1972-1973 that American air and material support would continue as long as hostilities continued in SE Asia, its rather strange that you see Vietnamization as a realization of defeat. Indeed, their SE Asia policy was predicated on the continuation of such efforts.

"Make what you like of this, but I remember my superhawk (and stalwart Nixonian) father shrieking at the TV that Nixon was a traitor when he announced the last US troops would be leaving Vietnam."

The last American troops didn't leave Viet Nam until long after the 1972 election; the election in question.

"5. Says me: If you don't think Nixon seemed more hawkish than Hubert Humphrey, I seriously question your eyesight."

I see you've downgraded yourself to personal insults. :)

|6.29.04 @ 1:45AM|#

"Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll, said Bush's slowly sinking job approval rating, down to 46 percent in his latest survey, was similar to the dropping trajectory of the last three incumbents to lose their elections -- George Bush, the current president's father, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

In contrast, the five most recent incumbent presidents who won their elections never dipped below 50 percent in their job approval rating at any point in the election year, he said."

What does this mean? I think what this really says is we are in new territory. All historic markers are off and really useless at this point. Most are predicting the largest voter turnout in modern history.

http://dotpeople.com/goJRE/turnout/

What does that mean for Bush?

Tim, As much as I respect your opinion, I believe your completely wrong on this.

|6.29.04 @ 1:49AM|#

Tim,

Also, with regard to the War of 1812, it should also be noted that it was not so much Madison who pushed for that war, but the various "war hawks" that were elected to Congress in 1810. Then again, at the time Congress exercised its power more properly then when it came to matters of war and peace.

|6.29.04 @ 2:09AM|#

Many of these arguments strike me as being of the 'no team down by 10 in the third quarter in the second round of the playoffs has won a game in the snow' variety.

It's the ESPN fallacy, or something like that.

Tim Cavanaugh|6.29.04 @ 2:10AM|#

What does this mean? I think what this really says is we are in new territory. All historic markers are off and really useless at this point. Most are predicting the largest voter turnout in modern history.

You may well be right: Note that I threw in some weasel language in the article because I'm not especially persuaded of my own thesis. Just to be clear: I don't want another four years of Bush, and though I have publicly stated in the past that anything is better than Kerry, I'm starting to ease up even on that injunction. But I think the commitment voters feel to stay-the-course types needs to be taken very seriously.

|6.29.04 @ 3:05AM|#

Another point about 1968: the "stay the course" type was Lyndon Johnson, and he quit, so hopeless was his cause.

In every other wartime election, we were winning, or at least not faring poorly. Perhaps Americans only like to stay the course when the course is clearly heading somewhere good.

|6.29.04 @ 3:24AM|#

I don't suppose anyone has noticed that Kerry is actually calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq.

You're right: Nobody has noticed that. Hence the Kerry problem I outlined in the article.

I know *you* noticed that, Tim. I was trying to take a jab at the particular way you painted the issue being projected in Joe Voter's mind, not your stupidity. The argument, as you make it, is simply that Americans will always vote against the guy that seems more anti-war.

I think that's not nearly cycnical enough. It's just that your thesis coincides somewhat with the "who is more of a pussy" rule of elections. Hence I was trying to hint that Kerry could end up arguing for a step-up in fighting even heavier than Bush, while still losing on account of the fact that he seems like/is more timid. Or, conversely, should Kerry get his act together and tap into anti-Bush core sentiments, he could win by being significantly against escalation of war (this would amount to the growing of an unlikely pair of balls on the part of the American left).

Perhaps a different way of saying the same thing. In truth, I think this election will have little historical precedent in the end and will come down to a huge-turnout-based referendum on the Bush administration.

|6.29.04 @ 3:27AM|#

joe,

In the 1952 election America bogged down in Korea (the war had ceased to be one of movement in other words).

Lincoln owed his electoral success largely to the spectacular victory of Sherman in Atlanta (and to the Confederate government, who replaced the deft General Johnston - who had successfully held Sherman in check with a series of flanking manuevres - with the less able General Hood). Note that though the Democratic party platform in 1864 called for an end of hostilities, McClellan rejected it.

|6.29.04 @ 3:38AM|#

joe,

However, I think you do make an important distinction, one which refines Tim's thesis to a point where it comes somewhat more credible. In other words, one would need to differentiate wars where the an election occurred and the U.S. was clearly winning the debacle (or at least where confidence had not ebbed) and those where was significant apprehension about the outcome of the war.

|6.29.04 @ 3:45AM|#

I am starting to have my doubts that Bush is a lock, although I certainly hope that he is. But if he does win it will only be partly due to the "troops in the field" effect. A more likely scenario is that the Democratic convention turns into a giant hate-Bush-fest that turns off centrist voters. Demonizing the other party's candidate may energize your base but it risks alienating the very people that you most need to win over.

|6.29.04 @ 4:17AM|#

american in europe,

Give the way elections are stage-managed these days, I don't expect that to be much of a possibility (at least at the the convention itself).

|6.29.04 @ 4:28AM|#

with the convention in NYC, and with the press's "equal coverage" tendency, Bush will be lucky if the Republican convention doesn't turn out to be a Bush hate-fest.

|6.29.04 @ 4:32AM|#

AIE...with Al Sharpton playing the role of Pat Buchanan in 1992? Interesting because, once again, the nominee is much less interesting than the fringe kook he beat.

Gary, I don't think elections prior to the Great Depression are useful in analyzing electoral behavior.

Perhaps the relevant variable is not how well the war is going, but whether the public still believes in its purpose.

|6.29.04 @ 5:05AM|#

Tim, I really like your writting - and I read you all the time...

But... na man... you're completely wrong on this one.

Bush is toast.

|6.29.04 @ 5:18AM|#

joe,

Well, Tim was making the broad and sweeping statements taking in all of American history.

|6.29.04 @ 6:32AM|#

There are "good wars" and "bad wars". This is one of the latter and poses no advantage to the lil' general that started it.

|6.29.04 @ 6:33AM|#

Predictions are the only things that are really fun to argue about. I will make mine:

Bush wins in November with 53% and every state he won in 2000 plus.

Nader gets 25 and no states.

Kerry gets 44% - 45% and every state Gore won, minus some.

The Dems get 53 Senators and a near-deadlock in the House...not bad for an election they were always looking to lose.

What will be unprecedented in American political history will be Bush's second ter, where he will become perhaps the first incumbent re-elected who was solidly more popular in his second term. The re-election will vindicate the 2000 squeaker, the improving economy will make the voters happy and success in Iraq (it WILL be a success) will rightly secure his place in history as a visionary...and the guy always was just plain likeable.

The incandescent anger of the Left will defuse when it sinks in that Bush is a dead horse, and the media will move on to the next Grand Narrative.

None of which will change the fact that the Democtats are keeping the Senate for the foreseeable future, and are looking to win in 2008.

Tim's thesis can be better-stated in a cruder form: during a conflict Americans don't drop an incumbent President, assuming he is a Hawk. Harry Truman is the closest thing to a real exception-- he declined to run, although constitutionally eligible, and I think would likely have been beaten by Ike. LBJ could have secured the nomination (even against RFK), Wallace would not have dared the field, and I think he could have beatan Nixon.

Americans generally don't turn out incumbents, and the three examples since WW II feature one of two things (in two cases, both) : an embarassing primary fight for the Prez; a serious third-party candidate drawing real points from the Prez.

Ford had an extremely perilous challenge from Reagan, Carter had an embarassing challenge from Ted Kennedy and John Anderson to deal with, Bush I had an embarrassment in Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.

None of this applies to Bush. Bush has no real problems with his base (in fact he runs better with both self-identified conservatives and Republicans than is typical for a Republican incumbent) and Nader bites Kerry, not Bush.

I could be wrong, but I ahd the nerve to present specific and fairly unqualified predictions.

|6.29.04 @ 6:56AM|#

Andrews,

"Bush wins in November with 53% and every state he won in 2000 plus.

Nader gets 25 and no states.

Kerry gets 44% - 45% and every state Gore won, minus some."

These numbers don't add up. Did you mean 2% for Nader? The problem for Nader of course is getting on the ballot in most of the states - the Green party's unwillingness to endorse him really put a big fat hole in his campaign.

I generally liked your comments. And I do think your prediction about the Senate is correct. However, one caveat I would make is that I still think that all hinges on the Iraq war for Bush.

Also, if your prediction is correct, that would Bush the weakest re-elected President in quite a long time - since his party would no longer command the entire Congress, nor would he be very popular. I think it would make for an interesting four years in American politics.

Paul Rako|6.29.04 @ 7:27AM|#

I hope everybody left a comment at the Daily Star about what a great guy Tim is so we libertarians can get some traction in world opinion. At least give him credit for touting his own article as opposed to getting another staffer to do it for him-- how refreshingly direct. I like him and you should tell the Daily Star you like him too, even if you disagree with this particular thesis.

|6.29.04 @ 7:32AM|#

Paul Rako,

Oh I like Tim too (well as well as I can like someone I've never met); my disagreements here are largely academic in nature. Ultimately my opinion is that we won't know who will win until January 20th, 2005, and perhaps not even then (taking an possible court proceedings, etc. into consideration). :)

Kevin Carson|6.29.04 @ 9:02AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

Good point. Ike ran on a platform of getting the U.S. out of a quagmire that Truman started, didn't he? That was back in the days when the slogan was still "Democrats get us into wars and Republicans get us out of them."

And Nixon may or may not have seemed more hawkish, but he campaigned on a promise of having an effective plan to get us out.

joe,

You also raise a good point. These days, how do you define being "at war"? According to the WOT's supporters, it is not a specific military campaign that will have a definite end in the near future. It is more akin to the Cold War--possibly a decades-long project. Does that mean that every election will be a "wartime election," or that the War on Terror will be accepted (like the Cold War) as bipartisan business as usual?

And Bush himself said that large-scale military operations ended May 1 last year, and that what's been going on since is the normal cost of nation-building rather than a quagmire.

fyodor|6.29.04 @ 11:29AM|#

I think the '64 analysis is a bit of a stretch, but since my own guess is that "troops in the field" may help the incumbent as much as the ostensible hawk, the conclusion would amount to the same for '04.

|6.29.04 @ 11:33AM|#

I am a Gore voter who will now vote for Bush.

There are lots of us, just let me link this site to my blog....

Resistance is futile!

|6.29.04 @ 11:40AM|#

Here we go again ...

|6.29.04 @ 11:53AM|#

Foreign diplomacy is the most important job for a president. Domestic programs are not anywhere as important. Bush was not the Republican canadate I liked. I think isolating ourselves from the rest of the world is a terrible ideal. But after 9/11 his view has changed to something I can agree with. I like us showing force to those that threaten us. Although I'm still not confident in nation building.

|6.29.04 @ 12:02PM|#

The thing is, the situation we find ourselves in is neither wartime nor peacetime. Now 2002, THAT was a wartime election.

|6.29.04 @ 12:04PM|#

I Bush wins, I am killing myself.

|6.29.04 @ 12:04PM|#

If Bush wins, I am killing myself.

|6.29.04 @ 12:10PM|#

Interesting analysis and well-reasoned.

Unfortunately, I think it forgets what I think may have been one of Humphrey's biggest weaknesses...the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention. The party emerged deeply divided.

By almost any measure, one can't really analyse Nixon's success in 1968 without including that.

Remember, Nixon was a lifetime miserable failure as a presidential candidate and wasn't looking that great in 1968 until the Democratic party self-destructed on national television. He won by a razor-thin margin of about 1%.

Although, to lend credence to Tim's assertion, Humphrey further nose-dived when he announced his lack of support for the war.

He started gaining on Nixon's lead when Johnson announced a halt to bombings, ostensibly to work toward some sort of exit.

Warren|6.29.04 @ 12:25PM|#

11944, Dewey was the more hawkish candidate. While FDR was in no way dovish, Dewey campaigned on two issues, FDR was too infirm and too soft on communism. Advocating conflict with our ally while still at war, must certainly qualify Dewey as the more hawkish candidate.

|6.29.04 @ 12:28PM|#

Nixon almost beat JFK in 1960, and may in fact have beaten him, had he been more Gore-like and demanded a recount in Florida and Illinois. Hardly a lifetime miserable failure.

|6.29.04 @ 12:37PM|#

Had the Democrats' leading candidate not been murdered just as he was sealing up the nomination, Nixon would have gotten trounced. And Kennedy was clearly the more dovish.

|6.29.04 @ 12:41PM|#

I am a Browne voter who will now vote for Kerry.

There are lots of us, Just read this blog...

Renaissance is fertile!

|6.29.04 @ 12:45PM|#

I also posted the Dewey '44 question the last time Tim blogged on this subject. I have not heard an answer from anyone.

|6.29.04 @ 12:47PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh,

"Call it the Alamo Principle: When troops are in the field, in sufficient enough numbers for the nation to consider itself 'at war,' the candidate who looks more convincingly hawkish will always win."

This appears to be your thesis; I should note that its terms are so subjective as to make it really too fluid to refute or confirm.

"American voters refuse to admit, or even consider, battlefield defeat."

Not true of the War of 1812; though it ended with a victory at New Orleans, it was generally a horribly fought war by the U.S. and we readily sued for peace to end it. And of course the seeming futility of Viet Nam started the clamor for Vietnamization, etc. that ended with the accord in Paris.

"Thus Bush, who has managed to sell himself as the hawkish candidate on both the war in Iraq and the 'war on terrorism' (though it's often difficult to tell how or where his and Kerry's positions on the two differ), has an edge that is more significant than the slight lead Kerry now enjoys in most polls..."

According to the polls I recently saw, this policy position edge isn't very large.

"Anybody who believes Kerry can win as an anti-war candidate needs to cite a single wartime instance in American history where an anti-war candidate has won."

Woodrow Wilson - 1916. :) "Wilson Kept Us Out Of War" (or something along these lines) was one of his slogans. Anyway, your original thesis was not what is reflected in the remark directly above.

"In 1964, the United States had fewer than 20,000 troops in Vietnam, ostensibly in an advisory role; Americans could still kid themselves that the nation was not at war."

Actually, Americans didn't know how deep the involvement was because the Johnson administration did everything it could squelch information coming out from there.

"In retrospect, the 1964 Tokin Gulf resolution passed a few weeks before the Democratic presidential convention (and which gave the administration wide latitude to expand the war in Vietnam), can be seen as Johnson's formal, and successful, drive to establish himself as the real Vietnam warrior."

Apparently then the 1964 election is moot either way - since it neither proves nor disproves your thesis. Indeed, given what you've stated about American opinion at the time, it couldn't prove your thesis - since it fails to meet the nation considering itself "at war" prong.

"What is clear is that Nixon was palpably more hawkish than Hubert Humphrey, his eventual Democratic opponent. Nixon ran as a 'peace with honor' candidate - the kind of posture that seems moderate on its face but translates to voters as: 'I'm going to kick some ass and then go home.'"

Others have discussed the Humphrey campaign.

"More importantly, the stern, sharp-edged Nixon seemed more personally hawkish than the wooly Humphrey, whose conviction for staying the course in Vietnam always seemed half-hearted."

Says who?

"In the event Nixon squeaked by Humphrey, and would almost certainly have won by a much wider margin had it not been for a strong third-party challenge by George Wallace."

Of course here is that if Nixon were such a strong candidate, there wouldn't have been third party opposition in the first place.

"By 1972, American involvement in Vietnam was winding down and it was clear to all that the United States would lose."

Really? I don't think this was particularly clear at the time. Indeed, if anything was clear it was that Vietnamization would continue, and so would American air and material support. I think you're making a rather unjustified leap here.

"Yet even then, with public opinion strongly against the war..."

I believe you're also incorrect here as well; indeed, the public largely supported Nixon's plans for Vietnamization, which included massive air and material support from the U.S.

"That is to say: Even at the losing end of the most controversial war in American history, the hawk won just by promising to lose more slowly than the other guy."

I think my comments make this observation wronghead and moot; in 1972 not many expected the sudden collapse that followed; indeed, the American military as well as the U.S. continued to assume that the U.S. would be giving military support in SE Asia for many years to come.

"This military tenacity in the voters says many things about the American character, not all of them flattering."

Most nations have such a tenacity - indeed, its often observed by military historians that its the lack of such tenacity which is the aberration.

|6.29.04 @ 12:59PM|#

BB, etc.,

The problem is that Tim's thesis is so subjective in its terms as to make it difficult to critically assess.

BTW, I meant to state that the 1916 election was not in wartime, but in my rush to publish forgot to write that. :)

|6.30.04 @ 2:07AM|#

with the convention in NYC, and with the press's "equal coverage" tendency, Bush will be lucky if the Republican convention doesn't turn out to be a Bush hate-fest.

I've already got my pass in. I can't *wait*. This is going to be the action hit of the summer.

With Howard Stern on the radio organizing the rabble and Michael Moore on 7 out of 9 cinemas, I do believe you're going to see some shit hit the fan. I could be wrong, but I can think of no precedent for the kind of atmosphere and buzz rippling around the city right now.

|6.30.04 @ 5:54AM|#

I heard Cheney got booed when they showed his face on the scoreboard during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. That's remarkable.

|6.30.04 @ 12:20PM|#

Kevin Carson,

Well, from what I know of the 1952 campaign (admittedly little - I've never read a biography of Eisenhower - I guess I'll have to remedy that in the next week or so) Eisenhower promised to "bring the boys home." Whether that's an accurate portrayal of his campaign I can't say.

As to Nixon, well he promised that he had a "secret" plan to get us out. Now if Kissinger hadn't torpedoed the Paris talks in 1968....

|6.30.04 @ 12:55PM|#

Kevin,

Clinton's victories, and W's, against candidates with arguably greater claims to the hawk mantle, have often been attributed to the end of the Cold War bunker mentality.

|7.1.04 @ 10:45AM|#

Gadfly:

1.) Many baseball fans boo all pols, on principle. How dare they show their faces at the ballpark, thus sullying hallowed ground. Unclean! Unclean!

2.) The Bronx is pretty much home field for the Dems. These people voted for Hilary, and though they will put in R's, they have to be moderate-to-liberals, from Lindsey to Bloomberg. The latter barely re-registered as a Republican to get on the ballot, and the former wound up his career running for president as a Dem.

3.) The Red Sox were in town, and most of the visiting fans hail from New England, where Bush/Cheney didn't do too well, either.

4.) They were really yelling "Lou."

5.) Like all moral people raised in Greater New York, I can only say, "Let's Go Mets!" :)

Kevin