IN the end, George W. Bush survived the Jimmy Carter factor.
There’s no doubt that Iraq brought voters – and Kerry voters, in particular – out to the polls in record numbers.
But there was no massive repudiation of the president and his party – of the kind that Jimmy Carter, hopelessly mired in the quagmire of the Iran hostage crisis, suffered a quarter-century ago.
Still, Iraq clearly hurt Bush: John Kerry’s tactic of saying that Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror yielded political dividends. But it may have hurt him, as well – because his campaign became defined by its opposition to the president.
Kerry never developed a solid base of supporters committed to his candidacy for any reason other than he was running against President Bush. Recall that Kerry rose to the top of the Democratic pack only because his Vietnam record was seen as allowing him to credibly challenge Bush on the war.
That he did – but not enough to overcome those who strongly believed that toppling Saddam Hussein most definitely did strike a blow at the global terrorist threat – and trusted the president to continue that battle.
Carter, recall, saw an enormous defection of undecided and soft voters to Ronald Reagan in the final hours of what had been – until the final days – a deadlocked contest. Moreover, Democratic incumbents on Capitol Hill fell like tenpins as the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time in nearly three decades.
Last night, Republicans not only beat back Democratic challenges but also gained seats in the Senate.
But there’s no denying that Iraq made Bush’s re-election much more difficult than it otherwise would – or should – have been.
In the last few days, there was a shift in public sentiment about the situation in Iraq: Asked if they approved of the decision to go to war, voters responded yes by a 49-47 percent margin, according to exit polls. Last week, the polls showed the split more than 10 points in favor of the war.
Those who said they approved of the war backed Bush by 85-15 percent; those who disapproved went for Kerry by 88-10 percent.
The exit polls also showed how important it was for Kerry to try and separate the war in Iraq from the overall War on Terror: Those who said terrorism was the campaign’s most important issue went for Bush, 84-15; those who cited Iraq were voting for Kerry by 77-21.
Just how volatile the issue had become was seen in one Fox News exit poll finding: In Florida, one-third of voters surveyed said the CBS-New York Times “missing explosives” late hit had an effect on their vote – and they went for Kerry, 64-32.
Moreover, voters nationwide said – by a surprisingly large 53-42 percent margin – that they feel the war is going badly.
That clearly reflects the fact that Bush found himself battling not just an energized opponent and well-funded special-interest groups, but also a news media that was unabashedly pro-Kerry.
That’s not just sour grapes. The non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, which monitors news coverage, reported this week that Kerry “is getting the most favorable network news coverage of any presidential candidate in the past quarter-century.”
That coverage was especially favorable during the final month, with 77 percent of network stories about him being positive, compared to just 34 percent for Bush. Through the whole fall campaign, Bush’s coverage was 64 percent negative.
Still, it’s too easy to simply blame the national news media. A significant number of Americans remain unconvinced about the prognosis in Iraq, both short- and long-term.
The immediate challenge facing the newly re-elected president is to demonstrate that America is in control in Iraq – that the dangerous and bloody military situation is not overwhelming the nation’s difficult transformation to democracy.
If he can’t do that, Bush still runs the risk of becoming another Jimmy Carter – a president who finds himself overwhelmed by an uncontrollable foreign policy crisis.