Fish Gotta Swim; Birds Gotta Fly;
"Pundits" Gotta Predict Elections
By:
Mark Shields
Syndicated Columnist
The Thursday
before Tuesday's presidential election, I gave a noontime speech to a
group that politically, one of its members told me privately, was somewhere
to the right of Romania's late, unlamented boss, Nicolae Ceausescu. As
the old refrain goes: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and alleged "pundits"
-- at least in exchange for a good meal -- gotta risk making public fools
of themselves by predicting the outcome of U.S. elections.
Loyal readers may recall that I did make one, very lucky, accurate prediction
in one presidential race. In the nearly half century following the 1932
election of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only two Republicans elected
president -- Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968
-- had both been moderate Republicans, anything but true-believer conservatives.
So in 1980, when Ronald Reagan, the minority conservative leader of the
distinctly minority Republican Party, was nominated, a big majority of
observers was sure that the Californian could not defeat the admittedly
unpopular Democratic incumbent, Jimmy Carter.
Remembering that the 1976 White House contest between Carter and Republican
Gerald Ford had been almost a dead heat, I asked voters whom I met in
my 1980 travels if any of those who had voted for Ford intended, this
time, to switch to Carter or, conversely, if any of the 1976 Carter voters
intended to back either third-party candidate John Anderson or Reagan
in 1980. Everywhere I went, the second group -- the Carter-to-Anderson/Reagan
-- was dramatically bigger than the Ford-to-Carter crowd. Thus, my totally
unscientific prediction that Ronald Reagan would win big in 1980, which
he did by carrying 44 of the 50 states.
Of course, the 2000 election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George
W. Bush was even closer than the 1976 Carter-Ford race. So it has seemed
logical to ask voters I met, this year, how many people they personally
know -- friends, relatives, colleagues -- who voted for Al Gore in 2000
and intend, this year, to vote for George W. Bush, compared to how many
who had voted for Bush, four years ago, and would not vote for his re-election
on Nov. 2.
On Thursday, I asked the questions again to a luncheon crowd of perhaps
300. First, how many knew people who had voted for Gore in 2000 and now
had switched to Bush: At the most, a half dozen hands went up. Did anybody
know any previous supporters who would desert President Bush and vote
for his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry? At this conservative event,
at least 75 individuals raised their hands.
Yes, the evidence is purely anecdotal and absolutely unscientific. Yes,
the "poll" samples are surely unrepresentative (almost certainly
more Republican than the electorate at large.) But everywhere I have been
this year, I have encountered many more defectors from Bush 2000 than
from Gore.
Do not get me wrong. John Kerry is not Ronald Reagan. Kerry is not the
leader of an ideological movement who has inspired a devoted national
following. John Kerry remains at this late hour, to many of his backers,
the acceptable alternative to an unacceptable status quo, the "Not
George W. Bush."
But make no mistake about it, John Kerry, personally, by his confident
and dominant performance in the first presidential debate with President
Bush, transformed himself from Loser to Underdog and essentially eliminated
whatever advantage Bush had held over him since the Republican convention
in national polls.
On the eve of the GOP convention in New York, I was at a dinner with Mississippi
Gov. Haley Barbour, who had been chairman of the Republican Party and
who knows firsthand the nation's politics. I asked Barbour who would win
in November, and here is what he said: Mark, if this election is about
John Kerry, then George W. Bush will be re-elected. And what if this election
is about George W. Bush? In that case, Mark, George W. Bush will carry
Mississippi.
In the final analysis, this election is about the incumbent, George W.
Bush, and about his stewardship and his record. The betting here is that
while he will not, unlike Ronald Reagan, carry 44 of the 50 states, John
Kerry will become the third challenger in 24 years to deny re-election
to a U.S. president.
