After reading about polling numbers for PM Gillard of Australia and her governing Labor party that found however popular their policies are, and however positively Australians feel about the direction of their country, Gillard/Labor lose in match ups against opposition party. Putting aside the recent showdown against Gillard and Rudd (#Ruddvenge) that saw the PM retain power, I felt like I was reading about the painful polling numbers of 2000 here in the US.
It was a turbulent 7 years of a Clinton administration that saw a strong re-election and an impeachment of a sitting President, however in the beginning of 2000, 80% of Americans polled favored the direction of the US. With unemployment around 4% (half of what it is today), there is little to question on why Americans felt good about their country. Yet why, oh why, did Vice President Al Gore almost never poll better than his opposition? And what can Gillard learn from this problem/opportunity?
President Clinton in 2000 was seen as a potential drag on the Gore campaign, that was a big argument going on in the Democratic party in 2000. Impeached though not convicted, a tarnished imaged was the face of the 2 term-president. But numbers don’t lie, people were happy with the overall administration and the country. All then Governor George W. Bush had to argue was potential for recession (a real one he would in fact create before the end of his 2nd term).
Yet November 2000 Gore never could affectively sell his “peace and prosperity” campaign to keep the spoils of his administration going for the country into another 4 years. Though the final count was intensely close, even that is a problem when such an overwhelming number of Americans felt good about the direction of the country. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLOSE.
Here comes Gillard facing similar issues, with Australian unemployment just above 5% (a miraculous low number compared to the recession torn America and what Europe is facing), and public sentiment mirroring how positive Australians feel about their country. Yet Gillard is losing ground, even before Rudd tried to overtake her. What can she do?
What didn’t Al Gore do first, is use Bill Clinton enough. Clinton was kept at bay from the campaign trail until about a month before the election…a fatal mistake for the Gore campaign. Clinton the campaigner is something that few people my age have seen (even above Pres. Obama). Clinton a made real difference for Gore at almost every stop. Yet it was too late. What was Clinton doing? Simply reminding the county who they had to thank for the good economy and relative peace around the world.
And that’s what Gillard needs to do…get herself, and her once again vanquished foe, but predecessor Kevin Rudd, out there on the talk show circuit and campaign trail now! Campaign for yourself and for your policies that have been successful. Make nice in the Labor party and get the team off the bench. Had Al Gore just had the benefit of being an incumbent President (an idea that was floated around), like Gillard has as PM, he could have won in 2000. Gillard has an easier fight than Gore, so don’t blow it.
