Ryan Lizza, whose work I always enjoy at The New Republic, has an article about John Kerry’s campaign that will not make the junior Massachusetts senator very happy.
Lizza used the one word that no campaign ever wants to hear — freefall.
“The Kerry campaign looks a little bit like a 1990s tech stock whose paper profits are slowly being unmasked as accounting gimmicks,” Lizza said. “Just a few months ago, other campaigns fretted about Kerry delivering a knockout punch in Iowa and New Hampshire that would end the race…. [N]ow, as he embarks on a two-day swing through South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts on September 2 and 3, Kerry is slipping out of the top tier altogether.”
It’s not that Lizza is wrong — I think the analysis is largely correct — it’s that I find it amazing how far Kerry has slipped in such a short time.
A few months ago, Kerry was competitive with Gephardt for the lead in Iowa. As recently as two months ago, Kerry had a sizable lead in New Hampshire. The party establishment was slowly coalescing around his candidacy, the GOP in Congress was targeting its attacks on Kerry’s criticism of Bush, and the stage appeared to be set. He was, for all intents and purposes, the presumptive nominee.
Indeed, in February, Paul Waldman, the associate director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Washington Post that Kerry shouldn’t shy away from the “frontrunner” label because, “chances are, he’s already won the 2004 Democratic nomination.”
Given Kerry’s decline, one might assume the candidate is losing ground because of some internal crisis — an embarrassing slip-up, a personal scandal, a poor public performance, an impolitic joke, something.
But there’s really no mystery at all behind Kerry’s waning popularity. Howard Dean, plain and simple, has taken away Kerry’s support.
This is clearly a case where two candidates from the same part of the country are competing for the attention and affection of the same types of voters — and Dean is doing it better. In case there was any doubt about that, one need only look at Dean’s new found lead in Iowa and his ridiculously large lead in New Hampshire.
That’s the bad news for the Kerry campaign. The good news is it’s August.
If Kerry is going to experience a dramatic freefall that looks like it could kill his chances of getting the nomination, it’s much better to have this happen in August 2003 as opposed to, say, January 2004.
In fact, Kerry’s campaign appears to see a light at the end of this tunnel.
“[Dean] kicks up so much dust to make sure voters never ask, ‘Is this man ready to be leader of the free world?'” Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan told Lizza. “Voters are looking for a man of strength, experience, and sound judgment. Once the campaign is on that turf, and not the Internet and fly-arounds, that’s when we will show our real strength.”
Maybe. The important thing for Team Kerry, however, is that they appear to have gained a new sense of focus. The announcement on Wednesday that Kerry trails Dean in New Hampshire by a 38% to 17% margin represented the bottom falling out. Now we get to see how well Kerry does picking himself up off the floor.
I should note, of course, things would get slightly worse for Kerry if Wesley Clark enters the race. Kerry enjoys telling audiences that he’s the only veteran/war hero in the race. If Clark is a candidate, Kerry loses his one and only trump card.
Nevertheless, the long hike up the comeback trail began yesterday, when Kerry outlined his economic plan, which was fairly well received. On Tuesday, he’ll formally kick-off the campaign with an announcement speech in South Carolina, and over the weekend, he’ll face an intense Tim Russert grilling on Meet the Press.
It’s not too late for Kerry, but he’s got some work to do.