|
Playing it safe can bring trouble
Originally appeared in the Star Ledger on 10/14/01
On the sports field, it's called running out the clock. And here in the latter stages of New Jersey's gubernatorial race, it appears to be the Jim McGreevey campaign strategy.
With less than a month to go until Election Day, the Democratic nominee has been virtually everywhere, met virtually everyone, and according to most political observers, said very little. So far, his double-digit lead in the polls has held steady.
"McGreevey's platform is a feel-good one," said David Rebovich, a Rider University political scientist. "But he's extremely short on what he's going to do."
It's an opinion shared by nearly everyone who's paying attention to the campaign, with the exception of the McGreevey camp. Schundler, on the other hand, has thrown caution to the wind in his decidedly underdog role. He has been far more accessible to the media and considerably more expansive on the issues.
"The idea of sitting on a lead can be tricky for a front-runner who's not an incumbent. It may not be the wisest strategy -- especially in uncertain times," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political scientist.
Throughout the campaign, much of McGreevey's energy has been invested in reacting to Schundler's platform. Many of his ads hammer Schundler's staunch opposition to abortion and his willingness to consider relaxing certain gun restrictions. McGreevey, however, is a much more elusive target. Consider some differences between McGreevey and Schundler on key issues:
"Candidates like to stay away from specifics because every time you talk about specifics you alienate some groups," said Cliff Zukin, director of The Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll and a political science professor at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.
McGreevey, he said, has "been able to get away with just building endorsements and good will. To be fair, most candidates running for office don't offer specifics -- especially when they're ahead."
McGreevey is by no means the first politician to sit on a lead by saying little, but the tactic is typically used by incumbents with large leads and weak opponents.
A notable exception: Richard Nixon in 1968 held a 22-point early lead over Vice President Hubert Humphrey.
"Nixon people made a calculation that there was virtually no way he could lose, so they said nothing," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. "He sat there and he sat there and the lead dwindled, and he won by one-half of 1 percent."
Nixon fared better with the same strategy as an incumbent four years later, said Sabato, noting how Nixon employed the so-called Rose Garden strategy and won big over George McGovern.
The Schundler campaign, which has endured criticism on several of its proposals, has complained often about McGreevey's unspecific agenda.
"I've always thought the worst possible outcome would be to sell your soul to get elected," said Schundler. "By going out there and be willing to have the interest groups against you. . . . Yes, it incurs some political risk. . . . But you get a chance to fix problems."
Back on Aug. 27, for example, Bill Pascoe, Schundler's campaign manager, issued this statement:
"On April 8, 1997 -- 1,601 days ago -- Jim McGreevey first announced his bid to become New Jersey's governor. He's been running for office nonstop since then -- and he has yet to offer a credible plan for property tax relief. Given that the Garden State has the highest property taxes in the nation, this is a truly amazing feat."
McGreevey's answer is that he is the candidate who is refraining from promises that cannot be kept.
"To paraphrase Alan Greenspan, I'd rather be right than quick," he said.
McGreevey stressed "the need to exercise fiscal discipline" by accelerating debt repayment, while chiding Schundler for making "commitments to $3 billion in new initiatives."
But generally, McGreevey's strategy has been to avoid specifics.
Following Thursday's debate between the two candidates, for example, McGreevey was asked to specify how much money several of his budget-cutting proposals would save. He said he did not know but said the figure could be obtained by staff. Pressed for a simple ballpark estimate, McGreevey again deferred to a staff member. Two days later, the aide provided a specific savings estimate for only one of the proposals.
In late June, McGreevey asked a reporter to leave a hotel ballroom so he could speak privately with a group of African-Americans about racial profiling. Asked afterward to outline his position on the issue, McGreevey said he would not discuss the matter because he did not have his briefing binder and declined to take additional questions.
In July, the day after new statistics suggested that racial profiling persisted in State Police ranks, McGreevey declined to discuss the issue.
When pressed, however, he obtained his position paper on the issue, and then spent 45 minutes outlining a 10-point agenda. Most of the proposals were similar to various items contained in a federal consent order the State Police were already required to follow.
"McGreevey has to be careful," said Rebovich, the Rider professor. "He has to remember that, in the end, voters need a reason to vote for someone."
|
