Is the 2008 election like 2004?

How much things change, and how much they stay the same.  At a certain angle, the election in 2008 is very similar to 2004.  Or is it?

A few things to think about when making the comparison:

• Who are the candidates perceived as?
• What support are they tapping in order to secure a win?
• What type of campaign can be expected as a whole?
• What issue will win the election?

First, lets look at the two fellas:

Who are the candidates perceived as:

In 2004, the contrast was between the most liberal senator in Congress and the pro-war Republican candidate.  John Kerry ended up being portrayed as a stiff, hollow man who calculated more than a calculus professor.  George Bush did a fine job of putting himself in stark contrast as the passionate president who led with his gut as much as with his belly.  

John McCain may not be a conservative in the same vein Bush was, but he is slowly making inroads in that direction.  Framing himself as a no-nonsense right winger who is pro-life, pro-war, and anti-hippie, he knows the move he needs to make is to the right, to the right, as Beyonce would say.

Barack Obama is also not a liberal in the same vein as Kerry.  First of all, Kerry always rubbed liberals the wrong way with his pro-war stance.  The only reason he was stomached by most was because he was NOT Bush.  He ran a campaign off of a negative quality.  Obama is already outraging liberals, but for other reasons.  He is as much an intellectual as Kerry, but he does not wear it on his sleeve; instead, he takes a step back and takes the most pragmatist approach to issues.  This may eventually paint him as calculating, which was one of the downfalls of the Kerry campaign.

What support are they tapping in order to secure a win:

In 2004, it was all about the base.  Independent voters, undecided citizens, bah!  They played second fiddle to both parties.  Bush was lucky enough that the grand Karl Rove strategy to increase Evangelical turnout by 4mill proved to be a success.  Kerry built his campaign around the Bush outrage, again running a negative quality campaign.

The 2008 election could not be anymore different.  The base has dispersed from both parties, especially the GOP.  Instead of courting the choir, McCain and Obama have to proselytize to a new flock.  Moderates, independents, discouraged former party loyalists, they are all walking around aimlessly, judging each candidate with a grain of salt.

In order to win in 2008, both candidates will have to win the voters who decide who to vote for the day before the election.

What type of campaign can expected as a whole:

Dirty.  But that would not make 2004 that much different from most elections.  What made it distinct was how the dirt was thrown and received.  On both sides the dirt was thrown from outside the official campaign.  Bush mostly used the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (most effective, in the end), while Kerry relied on MoveOn.org and every other left-leaning group in the Western Hemisphere.

So far this campaign has been run with little fanfare.  An awkward New Yorker cover here, some inappropriate jokes made by McCain there, but nothing earth-shattering.  I suspect as the months roll by that McCain will become the aggressor in this campaign.  He is already positioning himself as the "underdog", which he is but not really.  His party is still fundraising very well, and he is not that far off from Obama in most polls.  Still, he is quite vicious when pinned against a wall.  Obama might keep a low profile except on media-heavy occasions, such as the debates and the convention.

What issue will win the election:

Security, security, security was the motto in 2004.  Bush knew this, Kerry didn't.  Kerry thought making himself a reasonable, smart, careful candidate would raise the collective feeling of comfort and give him a win.  But Bush knew better, creating instead a gap between what might happen with me and what happen without me.  The key emotion was fear, not comfort, and Bush tapped it out for all it was worth.  

In addition to the tandem of fear and security, 'morality' was key.  Bush won this handidly because of one thing he had over Kerry: clarity.  It was not really consistency, because both candidates lacked that.  But Bush was able to make what would be a 3-page long argument by Kerry into a bumper sticker that sticked.  He made his positions clear and compact, while Kerry went on diatribes that felt like lectures not positions.

So far there are a few issues that are raising their heads this year.  One is the economy, or more specifically, the potential of a worst economy.  The other is change.  This does not secure a win for Obama, as the polls show.  This is an issue that McCain is continually trying to adopt by making "Unlike the President, I..." statements.  How successful he will be at that, I am not sure of.

I believe the issue of Afghanistan, lobbyists, and healthcare will gain some prominence.  These are issue Obama and McCain differ in by wide margins, so the decision between both candidates, by Nov. 4th, will be an easy one to make by someone who has made up their mind on these issues already.

The comparison between 2004 and 2008 shows that while party faithful drive your primary campaign, they can ruin your national campaign.  Going after independents voters is essential, but ultimately, the power to rein is held in the hands of those who have held it before.  Obama and McCain are two of the most contrasting presidential candidates in decades, and keeping that contrast while reaching out for the middle will test both campaign's mettle and will to win.

lhp