By Charlie Cook
NationalJournal.com
Tuesday, July 8, 2003

The notion that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is just a quirky, fringe candidate has largely been dispelled by his recent fund-raising success and by his strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire polls. Still, many seem to think that Dean's appeal and support is largely confined to the antiwar and leftist wing of the party.

Voicing broadside condemnations of Bush can generate short-term enthusiasm within the Democratic Party, but it can easily be counterproductive among independent voters.

But, while there is no question that Dean's presidential candidacy draws considerable support from both of those constituencies, his campaign is also tapping into a strong vein of disillusionment with the current leadership and direction of the Democratic Party.

Many Democrats believe that their party not only caved on attacking Iraq, but that it also backed the concept of an economic stimulus package based entirely on tax cuts -- as opposed to public works spending. There is frustration that many Democratic legislators are supporting a prescription drug benefit that 69 percent of seniors -- in a recent Gallup poll -- said would not be of much help to them. And there is a sense that elected Democratic leaders have been cowed by President Bush since the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and have confined themselves largely to half-measures and rhetorical distinctions.

Democratic pollsters more aligned with the party establishment agree that Dean is on to something.

Looking at two combined Ipsos/Cook Political Report surveys conducted in June among 1,553 registered voters nationwide (with a 2.5-point error margin), 63 percent of the Democrats interviewed disapproved the overall job Bush was doing as president; 36 percent strongly disapproved. On handling the economy, while 74 percent disapproved, 49 percent strongly disapproved. On handling domestic issues, 73 percent of Democrats disapproved, 45 percent strongly disapproved.

Even on Bush's strong suit of handling "foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism," 50 percent of all Democrats disapproved, and 26 percent strongly disapproved. Suffice it to say that at the very least, one-quarter of Democrats are totally hostile to Bush and as many as half show strong tendencies in this direction.

The rub is that while a candidate like Dean can certainly score points by venting Democrats' frustration and contempt for Bush, these views bear little resemblance to those of the independent and other swing voters who, by and large, determine who wins and loses in general elections.

In those same two June Ipsos/Cook surveys, 55 percent of all independent registered voters approved of Bush's overall performance, while 25 percent strongly approved. Thirty-seven percent disapproved, but only 17 percent strongly disapproved.

On the economy and domestic issues, a somewhat stronger case can be made for more specific attacks. On the economy, 44 percent of independent voters approved and 12 percent strongly approved -- while 49 percent disapproved, and 29 percent strongly disapproved. On the handling of domestic issues, 48 percent approved and only 8 percent strongly approved; 45 percent disapproved, with 30 percent strongly disapproving.

On foreign policy, however, independents are generally supportive of Bush. Sixty percent of independents approved of Bush's performance and 38 percent strongly approved -- while 35 percent disapprove, with 21 percent strongly disapproving.

In short, exhibiting personal contempt and voicing broadside condemnations of Bush can generate considerable short-term enthusiasm within the Democratic Party, but it can easily be counterproductive among independent voters. The data does indicate that Democrats are on considerably safer ground with targeted attacks on Bush on both the economy and on domestic issues, with less downside potential among independents and presumably other swing voters.

This does not suggest that Dean is all wrong.

Congressional Democratic leaders are vulnerable to questions as to whether they threw in the towel too quickly on tax cuts. There is a considerable body of evidence that voters see a more direct connection between government spending on streets, highways, bridges and school construction and the creation of jobs than the connection between tax cuts and job creation and economic stimulus.

The Democrats' argument could have gone something like this: "President Bush wants to blow the deficit sky high by giving tax cuts to his rich and powerful friends. If we are going to drive up the deficit, at least do it by repairing our streets, roads, schools and other public spending that we would eventually need to do anyway and would create more jobs."

It's a virtual certainty that this argument would resonate better than the tax cuts did -- which received tepid support at best.

Charlie Cook, a NationalJournal.com contributing editor, is the founder and publisher of the Cook Political Report. This column, which also runs in CongressDailyAM when Congress is in session, appears each Tuesday morning. In addition, Cook writes a weekly column for National Journal magazine. His e-mail address cookreport@nationaljournal.com.

[ Off To The Races Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Column?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.