Why Kerry Lost and Where We Go from Here

Abstract

For many social workers, defeat of John Kerry November 2004 presidential election came as bitter disappointment. NASW endorsed Kerry and Edwards, and social workers played an active role their campaign (Fred, 2005; http://www.socialworkersforkerryedwards.org/index.html). Until very end, Kerry victory seemed possible. The campaign and its supporters engaged massive organizing effort, resulting increased turnout among Democrats (Danner, 2005). Final polls showed race tightening and pointed to Kerry victory (http:// www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/ donkeyrising/archives/000919.php). Kerry's defeat has placed conservatives position to block efforts for progressive reform and dismantle New Deal and Great Society legislation social workers have long supported. This does not bode well for our profession. Yet, we should not exaggerate extent of Kerry's defeat. President Bush's victory popular vote was relatively narrow, 50.73 percent versus 48.27 percent, or slightly more than 3 million votes (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm). This election was not like those of 1972 and 1984, when Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan won landslide victories. George Bush won by narrower margin than any Republican president re-elected past century; contrast, Bill Clinton, 1996, had margin of victory of 8.5 percent (Danner, 2005). The president also failed to do as well as expected. Alan Abramowitz (2004b), political scientist at Emory University, has developed time-for-change model, which has successfully predicted presidential elections since 1988. Based on this model, which incorporates president's standing Gallup poll June of election year, economic growth during first half of that year, and length of time president's party has been White House, president should have won 53.7 percent of major party In reality, he won only 51.4 percent. Abramowitz's findings are consistent with those of four other academic models, which predicted president would win 53.8 percent or more of vote (http://www.apsanet. org/ps/oct04/toc.cfm). This column examines reasons for president's narrow victory and considers its implications for social workers. It concludes with discussion of three issues social workers and other progressives can organize around. THE ROLE OF VALUES In aftermath of election, many observers argued that values were driving force president's re-election. This conclusion derived from exit polling by National Election Pool (NEP), which respondents were asked to identify important issue determining their vote. Twenty-two percent chose moral values, more than economy/jobs (20 percent) or terrorism (19 percent) (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/ epolls.0.html). In hindsight, significance of these findings was exaggerated. First, results of NEP poll were questionable, because as late as 8 P.M. on election night, they showed Senator Kerry with strong lead, which, of course, did not hold up (Menand, 2004). Second, as Jan Van Lohuizen, leading Republican pollster noted, poll which the highest number is twenty-two ... means there is no consensus.... no one issue that drove election' (cited Menand, p. 58). Third, question itself was problematic. Voters had to choose from list of predetermined categories, which, according to Van Lohuizen, included a lot more places for Kerry voter to park [sic] than for Bush voter to park himself (cited Menand, p. 58). A postelection poll by Pew Research Center revealed limits of this type of closed question. In this poll, half participants chose from fixed list of categories, as NEP poll; other half put in their own words issues that most influenced their vote (http://people-press. …