After Democratic Sen. Zell Miller launched his fire-and-brimstone attack against Kerry at the Republican convention, many Democrats believed Miller came across as too angry and laughed at his batty post-speech TV interviews, convinced that voters would see him as a flawed messenger. But a Bush campaign adviser says that, based on polling, Miller added credibility to the GOP criticisms of Kerry and helped move some swing voters toward Bush.
And throughout August, the Democrats' roughest month to date, Kerry advisers insisted that taking the high road amid attacks on Kerry's Vietnam service by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was the way to go. They referred to polling and focus group data showing that negativity turns voters off. Meanwhile, several Democratic consultants not working for the Kerry campaign cringed in frustration as their own experience and polling data told them the charges were resonating.
The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.
• Outlook Section
| | |
|
The Bush campaign doesn't go into a defensive crouch. When attacked, it does a quick two-step, moving quickly from defense to offense so the coverage of their reaction includes an immediate and even preemptive strike against the credibility of the source -- be it "60 Minutes" or the new Kitty Kelley book on the Bush family that began to make the pre-publication publicity rounds last week.
The Democrats finally seem to have recognized the imbalance in the two campaigns' approaches: Since the end of the GOP convention and Bush's rise to an 11 percentage point margin in two separate media polls, Kerry has attacked Bush daily on the stump.
But at the same time, that first weekend of the fall campaign really revealed the current Democratic approach to campaigns at its worst. The culture of blame and territoriality, and a lack of personal investment in the candidate, led Kerry campaigners to engage in a lot of finger-pointing while talking with political reporters about Kerry's drop in the polls. Not that the two surveys showing Bush with a double-digit lead weren't a legitimately rude shock for Democrats, after the race was tied or leaning Kerry's way for months. But the Bush crowd, if they were in a similar position, would run to Karl Rove, not to the media. After counseling them to calm down, Rove would have reminded them that the election is a contest of weeks and months, not days.
A Bush campaign official suggests that the Kerry team's tendency to focus more on each news cycle rather than on the long haul could explain Democrats' uneven efforts to manage expectations -- including their own. Many Democratic officials, inside the Kerry campaign and out, appear to need reminding that their guy hasn't lost yet -- and, indeed, can win.
It's crucial to keep in mind, however, that a presidential campaign reflects the candidates, and some of the Democrats' problems are caused by the nominee himself. Longtime Kerry observers know he has some killer instincts, as shown when he's running behind. But it's also a Kerry adage that his advisers compete to be the last one he speaks with before going to sleep, on the theory that this adviser will hold sway for the night. If that's true, Kerry is not the kind of candidate to demand a structured and disciplined operation.
The Bush approach to campaigning carries its own disadvantages. A black-and-white worldview and a corporate structure with a clear chain of command, characteristic of the candidate's own outlook and background, allow for less flexibility in this event-driven, 24/7 cable news era. But at root, the Bush campaign is a collection of doggedly loyal operatives who believe in their man. When faced with bad news, they stick to their message, focusing on winning the election more than on winning the day.
Author's e-mail:
Elizabeth.Wilner@nbcuni.com
Elizabeth Wilner, political director for NBC News, is covering her fourth presidential campaign.
