Democrats’ depression lifts as debate boost gives Kerry real shot at title

IN A revealing moment of television last week, PBS aired five-year-old interviews with former presidents on the role of presidential debates in American politics.

Coincidentally the interviews were conducted by Jim Lehrer, the moderator of last Thursday’s Bush-Kerry contest.

Four of the five presidents interviewed - Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton - gave answers on a similar theme, namely that debates are a terrific opportunity for the public to gauge the candidates’ relative strengths and weaknesses. One had a very different view. George Herbert Walker Bush confessed that he hated presidential debates, thought they were unnecessary, and felt they should be avoided if at all possible. Bush senior said the process favours oratory skills over other less attractive traits such as sound judgment and good management.

One can be pretty confident this week that Bush senior’s son feels the same way. Without question, John F Kerry cleaned George W Bush’s clock last Thursday night. Bush appeared unhappy on stage, angry with Kerry’s answers, and unable to go beyond stock answers to fully utilise his time.

The reaction shots that the Bush campaign did so much to prevent being aired, ultimately in vain, proved particularly devastating. Every instant poll showed Kerry the victor by up to a four-to-one margin. However, voting preference is a different story. Prior to last Thursday, Bush enjoyed a significant lead.

Of the six national polls conducted in the days following the debate four have Bush ahead by anywhere from 1.5 to 5%, one has the race as a dead-heat, and another has Kerry ahead by two. All show improvement in voters’ view of Kerry. His favourability ratings are now in positive territory and he is generally perceived as presidential. Amid all the conflicting data, the one thing that is safe to say is that the race has tightened and Bush’s post convention bounce is over.

The debate has already has a seismic effect on the race by dramatically halting the mood of depression among Democratic activists who were beginning to write Kerry off entirely. Now they are energised and believe that their guy has a real shot at the title. For the first time, Kerry lived up to and exceeded expectations. The human touch is still elusive but his answers were short and precise; the prevarication was finally absent, replaced by a coherent case reminiscent of his days as a prosecutor.

Overall the debate has given Kerry the bounce he did not get coming out of the Democratic Party’s convention.

However, while the Kerry team will be delighted that Bush’s lead has largely evaporated they will worry that Bush’s poll numbers never appear to dip below 46%, even when things go really badly for the White House. By contrast, Kerry’s floor is much lower, probably in or around 40%. One has to ask then if this tightening is as bad as things get for Bush or is it the beginning of a trend in Kerry’s favour.

Democrats will take heart from some of the contrasts that emerged last Thursday. Bush stuck to large overarching themes: “People know where he stands,” “He will defend America,” “Freedom is on the march,” and so on.

Kerry hit specific points. Why were less loose nuclear materials secured in the two years after 9/11 than before? Why had Bush cut the budget for non-proliferation? Why are 95% of containers not inspected upon arrival into the United States? As David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, noted Bush had a general philosophy while Kerry had a plan.

Bush’s inability to argue specifics allows the Democrats to argue that there are two worlds: the world Bush speaks about in front of adoring supporters and the world that the rest of us live in. If Kerry can convince the American people of this he may be able to become the candidate with a firm grip on reality, however unpleasant that reality may be. This race would pit Kerry the realist against Bush the dreamer.