In which I join the chattering throngs.
In larger amounts than ever before, this election has been filled with "expert opinion" .
Whether on the television shout shows night after night, on the internet, or via newspapers, pundits have held forth with various degrees of hyperbole for well over a year.
In another 36 hours we will know who was right and who was blowing smoke. I think a lot of people who get a lot of "face time" in the media, really are clueless about this election, where it is going and what it means.
Not wanting to get left out, here are my FINAL predictions for 2004.
Popular Vote:
Bush 49.50
Kerry 49.00
Electoral vote:
Bush 303
Kerry 235
Senate:
GOP +4
House
Status Quo + - 2
Next post I will show my state by state electoral predictions.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Al Gore is no Richard Nixon
As political junkies well know, Richard Nixon had ample justification to challenge the results of the 1960 Presidential Election.
John Kennedy won by an exceedingly slender margin and there were serious allegations of election fraud in LBJ's Texas and Mayor Daley's Chicago. There were "irregularities" in other states including perhaps Hawaii where Nixon at first won and after a recount, lost.
Instead of contesting the election, Nixon swallowed hard and presided over the counting of the electoral votes in his role as Senate President. Why did he choose this path? Afterall Nixon was nothing if not a bulldog who when bitten would bite back harder.
I have long felt that Nixon's reasons were two-fold. In which order or in which amount I'll leave for others to decide .
The first reason is the one Nixon himself always (naturally) cited: He did not want to put the country through a long and bitter fight, it would have been dangerous to subject the nation to possible instability at that point in the Cold War etc etc.
The second reason is a cynical/practical one. Nixon realized it would be a longshot to overturn the results and if he failed he would be finished as a national political force. Americans hate a sore loser, preferring fighters that take their lumps like a man. But we Americans also like an underdog, a guy or a team who makes a stirring comeback. In 1960 Nixon was only 47, plenty young enough to wait a few years for another shot at glory.
I strongly suspect the truth was a mixture of the two. Nixon probably honestly felt a legal challenge would not serve the national interest AND he likely understood that the smart political move was to take his medicine and bide his time for another shot at the golden prize.
Al Gore would have done well to have studied Nixon's behavior and actions. Four years ago when Gore "won the popular vote" (why I set that in quote marks I'll explain later) but lost Florida and the Electoral College, Gore put his selfish interests first, last and always.
I in no way blame Gore for asking for a simple recount of the Florida vote. Recounts are fairly common and don't generally cause an untoward amount of problems. It is highly reasonable for a candidate to ask for a recount when only a few hundred votes out of millions cast, are the difference
But Gore went farther, much, much farther. He and his party started a highly sophisticated campaign to discredit the entire election process in Florida. No one was safe, as even officials who were DEMOCRATS (remember Theresa LaPore?) were routinely accused of high crimes and chad abuse.
Gore chose to drag the country though a month long temper tantrum, as he vainly tried to win through political and legal machination, what he lost fair and square at the ballot box.
And make no mistake, GORE LOST FLORIDA in 2000. EVERY count, every recount, even the major media circus that re-re-counted the ballots, all showed that George W. Bush received more votes than Al Gore. No matter how they twisted and turned logic, no matter how they tortured common sense, the answer kept coming up the same: Bush won.
Gore and his fellow travelers like to slyly comment that Gore "won" the 2000 election. They "base" this on two very weak reeds, one of which is the Florida excuse that has been completely debunked.
The other is the fact that Gore "won the popular vote". It is certainly true that Gore received more votes nationally than George W. Bush. It is also true that the Yankees won more regular season games then the Red Sox did this year. Those two facts are almost perfect bookends.
The Gore Whiners pretend that winning the popular vote is filled with some deep meaning and importance. For starters, since "winning the popular vote" was not and is NOT the object of the game, one can't draw any real conclusions from the fact that Gore got 48.4% and Bush 47.9%.
Had "winning the popular vote" been the object of the game, the game would have changed. The game would have been played differently. To use another analogy, the Gore complaint is identical to a football team that loses 21-20 and then yells "Yeah but we had 23 first downs and you only had 22". The dishonesty of the Gore 2000 Revisionism is breathtaking in its scope and chutzpuh.
Gore lost a heartbreakingly close election, but he DID lose. That he will be tortured by it until the day he departs this vail of tears, I fully understand. If he had borne his pain with strength and dignity he could have been an American hero, a shining example for a nation who needs more statesmen. By his self pitying words and actions, he put this nation at risk and damaged our institutions in ways we won't fully grasp for decades.
If America continues it present downward spiral into ever more bitter public discourse, filled with angry words and gestures of violence, we will have Albert Arnold Gore Jr. to thank most of all.
Post Script: I have been working on this piece for a couple of days, both in my mind and on "paper". Imagine my surprise when I saw this on Powerline today while still working on this post. As soon as I publish this I am going here to read the column by Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
As political junkies well know, Richard Nixon had ample justification to challenge the results of the 1960 Presidential Election.
John Kennedy won by an exceedingly slender margin and there were serious allegations of election fraud in LBJ's Texas and Mayor Daley's Chicago. There were "irregularities" in other states including perhaps Hawaii where Nixon at first won and after a recount, lost.
Instead of contesting the election, Nixon swallowed hard and presided over the counting of the electoral votes in his role as Senate President. Why did he choose this path? Afterall Nixon was nothing if not a bulldog who when bitten would bite back harder.
I have long felt that Nixon's reasons were two-fold. In which order or in which amount I'll leave for others to decide .
The first reason is the one Nixon himself always (naturally) cited: He did not want to put the country through a long and bitter fight, it would have been dangerous to subject the nation to possible instability at that point in the Cold War etc etc.
The second reason is a cynical/practical one. Nixon realized it would be a longshot to overturn the results and if he failed he would be finished as a national political force. Americans hate a sore loser, preferring fighters that take their lumps like a man. But we Americans also like an underdog, a guy or a team who makes a stirring comeback. In 1960 Nixon was only 47, plenty young enough to wait a few years for another shot at glory.
I strongly suspect the truth was a mixture of the two. Nixon probably honestly felt a legal challenge would not serve the national interest AND he likely understood that the smart political move was to take his medicine and bide his time for another shot at the golden prize.
Al Gore would have done well to have studied Nixon's behavior and actions. Four years ago when Gore "won the popular vote" (why I set that in quote marks I'll explain later) but lost Florida and the Electoral College, Gore put his selfish interests first, last and always.
I in no way blame Gore for asking for a simple recount of the Florida vote. Recounts are fairly common and don't generally cause an untoward amount of problems. It is highly reasonable for a candidate to ask for a recount when only a few hundred votes out of millions cast, are the difference
But Gore went farther, much, much farther. He and his party started a highly sophisticated campaign to discredit the entire election process in Florida. No one was safe, as even officials who were DEMOCRATS (remember Theresa LaPore?) were routinely accused of high crimes and chad abuse.
Gore chose to drag the country though a month long temper tantrum, as he vainly tried to win through political and legal machination, what he lost fair and square at the ballot box.
And make no mistake, GORE LOST FLORIDA in 2000. EVERY count, every recount, even the major media circus that re-re-counted the ballots, all showed that George W. Bush received more votes than Al Gore. No matter how they twisted and turned logic, no matter how they tortured common sense, the answer kept coming up the same: Bush won.
Gore and his fellow travelers like to slyly comment that Gore "won" the 2000 election. They "base" this on two very weak reeds, one of which is the Florida excuse that has been completely debunked.
The other is the fact that Gore "won the popular vote". It is certainly true that Gore received more votes nationally than George W. Bush. It is also true that the Yankees won more regular season games then the Red Sox did this year. Those two facts are almost perfect bookends.
The Gore Whiners pretend that winning the popular vote is filled with some deep meaning and importance. For starters, since "winning the popular vote" was not and is NOT the object of the game, one can't draw any real conclusions from the fact that Gore got 48.4% and Bush 47.9%.
Had "winning the popular vote" been the object of the game, the game would have changed. The game would have been played differently. To use another analogy, the Gore complaint is identical to a football team that loses 21-20 and then yells "Yeah but we had 23 first downs and you only had 22". The dishonesty of the Gore 2000 Revisionism is breathtaking in its scope and chutzpuh.
Gore lost a heartbreakingly close election, but he DID lose. That he will be tortured by it until the day he departs this vail of tears, I fully understand. If he had borne his pain with strength and dignity he could have been an American hero, a shining example for a nation who needs more statesmen. By his self pitying words and actions, he put this nation at risk and damaged our institutions in ways we won't fully grasp for decades.
If America continues it present downward spiral into ever more bitter public discourse, filled with angry words and gestures of violence, we will have Albert Arnold Gore Jr. to thank most of all.
Post Script: I have been working on this piece for a couple of days, both in my mind and on "paper". Imagine my surprise when I saw this on Powerline today while still working on this post. As soon as I publish this I am going here to read the column by Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Good news on the poll front.
Just as a reputed GOP Insider predicted, President Bush has now nudged out to a 3-5 point lead nationally.
Rasmussen has it 50-48, WaPo 49-48, Gallup 51-46, Fox 50-45, and Battleground 51-46. The Battleground poll is huge given that it too pushes Bush up over 50%, and confirms a definate move in the President's direction AND shows him with a 53% approval rating.
Have a GREAT weekend!
Just as a reputed GOP Insider predicted, President Bush has now nudged out to a 3-5 point lead nationally.
Rasmussen has it 50-48, WaPo 49-48, Gallup 51-46, Fox 50-45, and Battleground 51-46. The Battleground poll is huge given that it too pushes Bush up over 50%, and confirms a definate move in the President's direction AND shows him with a 53% approval rating.
Have a GREAT weekend!
A Note on Zogby
Not wanting to be accused of sour grapes, I am purposely timing this post at a point where John Zogby shows Bush leading in the national vote.
Simply put, I think Zogby is full of it, but what bothers me more is how the media fawns over his PREDICTIONS as though he is an oracle.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Zogby is at best a very good pollster. Frankly I don't even believe that, but I'm willing to cede it for the sake of argument. However, being a very able pollster does not in any direct way qualify you as a political expert or soothsayer.
As a pollster Zogby can perhaps tell you who is leading RIGHT NOW but this does not enable him to reliably predict who will actually win on November 2. Political prognostication is part information, part art and part knowledge.
By information I mean such things as how many new voters have registered in Locality X, how did locality X vote in 2000 or 2002 or 1998 etc.
By knowledge I am referring to a well rounded understanding of political history, past trends, and how various factors affect voting patterns etc.
The art comes into play in how one combines the information with the knowledge and then leavens the concoction with an accurate sense of the mood and temper of the voters. This last part is VITAL to having a meaningful opinion. Will Republicans vote in higher numbers than 2000? Lower numbers than 2002? Will Bush get 9% of the Black vote or 12%? 18%?
John Zogby has not shown that he has any expertise beyond polling, thus it is a waste of everyone's time for TV talking heads to ask him who he THINKS will win on Election Day.
Zogby has wavered all over the map, saying months ago that Kerry would win, then apparently telling Robert Novak that Bush will win, and now evidently doubling back and saying Kerry will win. None of his predictions matter because he is a pollster not a prophet.
Not wanting to be accused of sour grapes, I am purposely timing this post at a point where John Zogby shows Bush leading in the national vote.
Simply put, I think Zogby is full of it, but what bothers me more is how the media fawns over his PREDICTIONS as though he is an oracle.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, Zogby is at best a very good pollster. Frankly I don't even believe that, but I'm willing to cede it for the sake of argument. However, being a very able pollster does not in any direct way qualify you as a political expert or soothsayer.
As a pollster Zogby can perhaps tell you who is leading RIGHT NOW but this does not enable him to reliably predict who will actually win on November 2. Political prognostication is part information, part art and part knowledge.
By information I mean such things as how many new voters have registered in Locality X, how did locality X vote in 2000 or 2002 or 1998 etc.
By knowledge I am referring to a well rounded understanding of political history, past trends, and how various factors affect voting patterns etc.
The art comes into play in how one combines the information with the knowledge and then leavens the concoction with an accurate sense of the mood and temper of the voters. This last part is VITAL to having a meaningful opinion. Will Republicans vote in higher numbers than 2000? Lower numbers than 2002? Will Bush get 9% of the Black vote or 12%? 18%?
John Zogby has not shown that he has any expertise beyond polling, thus it is a waste of everyone's time for TV talking heads to ask him who he THINKS will win on Election Day.
Zogby has wavered all over the map, saying months ago that Kerry would win, then apparently telling Robert Novak that Bush will win, and now evidently doubling back and saying Kerry will win. None of his predictions matter because he is a pollster not a prophet.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
If it LOOKS like Desperation...
and SMELLS like Desperation, there is a real good chance it's DESPERATION.
I am referring to NYTrogate and the "missing explosives" that John Kerry has made such a huge deal of the past couple of days.
Kerry's harping on this story was raw political opportunism but it was also incredibly stupid. Handed an "issue" like this, the Kerry campaign should have relied on outside operatives to press the "Bush is a futz" line. The candidate should have looked grave and concerned, indicated that he did not feel he should discuss such a vitally important event until all the facts are known, and gone about his business of pressing his CORE issues.
What Kerry did was drop all the talking points he has honed over the past month (that seemed to be working to some degree) and allow himself to crawl WAYOUT on a limb to make a dubious charge out of rumor and hearsay. Dick Morris strongly points this out in today's NY Post.
Now he is starting to pay for this blunder. I suspect the polling numbers will start to move decisively in W's direction the rest of the way. This was one flop by Flipper too many.
and SMELLS like Desperation, there is a real good chance it's DESPERATION.
I am referring to NYTrogate and the "missing explosives" that John Kerry has made such a huge deal of the past couple of days.
Kerry's harping on this story was raw political opportunism but it was also incredibly stupid. Handed an "issue" like this, the Kerry campaign should have relied on outside operatives to press the "Bush is a futz" line. The candidate should have looked grave and concerned, indicated that he did not feel he should discuss such a vitally important event until all the facts are known, and gone about his business of pressing his CORE issues.
What Kerry did was drop all the talking points he has honed over the past month (that seemed to be working to some degree) and allow himself to crawl WAYOUT on a limb to make a dubious charge out of rumor and hearsay. Dick Morris strongly points this out in today's NY Post.
Now he is starting to pay for this blunder. I suspect the polling numbers will start to move decisively in W's direction the rest of the way. This was one flop by Flipper too many.
Rasmussen Update
Yesterday I showed the last several days worth of the Rasmussen tracking poll that appear to show a Bush Trend. Today's numbers don't belie that notion.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
Oct 28 48.9 46.9 Bush +0.3 -1.2
So the "Bush Trend" continues as the President has regained a 2% lead on Kerry and putting the race back to within 1.2% of where it was last Friday. Compared to Monday's numbers, Bush has gained 4% relative to Kerry. When "leaners" are included Bush goes to 49.7 tantalizingly close to the magic number of 50%.
The reason I key on Rasmussen is simply because he is there. I don't personally put a great amount of faith in this or ANY poll, when the numbers are this close. However a trend is a trend is a trend.
Strengthening Rasmussen's case is the fact that both TIPP (47B-44K) and Zogby/Reuters (48B-46K) are showing almost identical numbers.
I don't have much faith in ANY of these three polls but I'd rather be leading in all three than trailing in all three!
Yesterday I showed the last several days worth of the Rasmussen tracking poll that appear to show a Bush Trend. Today's numbers don't belie that notion.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
Oct 28 48.9 46.9 Bush +0.3 -1.2
So the "Bush Trend" continues as the President has regained a 2% lead on Kerry and putting the race back to within 1.2% of where it was last Friday. Compared to Monday's numbers, Bush has gained 4% relative to Kerry. When "leaners" are included Bush goes to 49.7 tantalizingly close to the magic number of 50%.
The reason I key on Rasmussen is simply because he is there. I don't personally put a great amount of faith in this or ANY poll, when the numbers are this close. However a trend is a trend is a trend.
Strengthening Rasmussen's case is the fact that both TIPP (47B-44K) and Zogby/Reuters (48B-46K) are showing almost identical numbers.
I don't have much faith in ANY of these three polls but I'd rather be leading in all three than trailing in all three!
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Polls and predictions.
This bit of information comes from over at CrushKerry.com and purportedly are the words of a longtime Republican insider who worked in the Reagan campaigns:
"In the next couple of days you will see a trend that shows Kerry taking a small but consistent lead against President Bush. I'm talking one or two points. And then, almost without warning or explanation, you will see the President open up a four- to six-point lead on or around Thursday. And that trend will carry the President through Election Day."
What is interesting to me is that this was in a post from this past Friday. So far he is hitting it pretty close. Kerry in fact did inch ahead in several polls released Sunday and Monday. Now we are starting to see Bush re-gain some traction.
Take Rasmussen for example. Many people swear by him and just as many swear at him, but as far as I know he uses consistent methods from poll to poll and thus while he may or may not be accurate, you can at least compare his polls to each other and get a sense for how things MAY be moving.
Let's look at his numbers for each day, starting on Friday (the day of the prediction by the GOP insider) and through today October 27.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
So what you see is a very clear movement toward Kerry and then just as clear a movement back toward Bush, just as predicted by Mr. Insider. Bush relative to Kerry is still 1.5% behind where he started on Friday, so the next two days of polling will be highly interesting to see.
One cautionary note, I have been told that Rasmussen had one day of polling that was clearly an anti-Bush outlier, however over that period from Friday to Monday, there was steady movement that went well beyond a single "bad poll day".
Very striking is the fact that the Rasmussen poll shows a huge 3.7% swing in just two days, from Kerry +2 to Bush +1.7.
When Rasmussen adds in the "leaners" the numbers go to Bush 49.5 and Kerry 48.1 meaning that Kerry is getting roughly 63% of undecideds who admit which way they are leaning.
This bit of information comes from over at CrushKerry.com and purportedly are the words of a longtime Republican insider who worked in the Reagan campaigns:
"In the next couple of days you will see a trend that shows Kerry taking a small but consistent lead against President Bush. I'm talking one or two points. And then, almost without warning or explanation, you will see the President open up a four- to six-point lead on or around Thursday. And that trend will carry the President through Election Day."
What is interesting to me is that this was in a post from this past Friday. So far he is hitting it pretty close. Kerry in fact did inch ahead in several polls released Sunday and Monday. Now we are starting to see Bush re-gain some traction.
Take Rasmussen for example. Many people swear by him and just as many swear at him, but as far as I know he uses consistent methods from poll to poll and thus while he may or may not be accurate, you can at least compare his polls to each other and get a sense for how things MAY be moving.
Let's look at his numbers for each day, starting on Friday (the day of the prediction by the GOP insider) and through today October 27.
Date Bush Kerry Movement Cumulative
Oct 22 49.1 45.9 Baseline
Oct 23 48.0 46.7 Bush -1.9
Oct 24 47.6 47.2 Bush -0.9 -2.8
Oct 25 46.4 48.4 Bush -2.4 -5.2
Oct 26 47.8 47.8 Bush +2.0 -3.2
Oct 27 48.8 47.1 Bush +1.7 -1.5
So what you see is a very clear movement toward Kerry and then just as clear a movement back toward Bush, just as predicted by Mr. Insider. Bush relative to Kerry is still 1.5% behind where he started on Friday, so the next two days of polling will be highly interesting to see.
One cautionary note, I have been told that Rasmussen had one day of polling that was clearly an anti-Bush outlier, however over that period from Friday to Monday, there was steady movement that went well beyond a single "bad poll day".
Very striking is the fact that the Rasmussen poll shows a huge 3.7% swing in just two days, from Kerry +2 to Bush +1.7.
When Rasmussen adds in the "leaners" the numbers go to Bush 49.5 and Kerry 48.1 meaning that Kerry is getting roughly 63% of undecideds who admit which way they are leaning.
Another 1.9% say they are still completely undecided and according to Rasmussen probably 50% of those will not even bother to vote. All of which, if correct, makes for a VERY steep hill for Kerry to climb.
All of that for what it is worth.
Monday, October 25, 2004
New links with more politics!
Just recently I've stumbled across a couple more excellent blogs. The Horse Race Blog is simply incredible. Jay puts a lot of effort into breaking down the various polls and inspecting their methods and numbers. I am very anxious to see how correctly he predicts this election. His statistical analysis is fascinating stuff and strikes me as likely to be closer to the real world numbers than anyone else's. His blog is crammed full of outstanding stuff for the political junkie.
The other new link is to Daly Thoughts, another really interesting site. It is chock full of electoral polls and predictions and Gerry updates each state as new polls roll in. The site layout is a little bit quirky but well worth the time it takes to learn your way around.
Both of these blogs seem to be well grounded and not prone to going overboard with the optimism or pessimism. Two really fine sites that I heartily recommend.
Just recently I've stumbled across a couple more excellent blogs. The Horse Race Blog is simply incredible. Jay puts a lot of effort into breaking down the various polls and inspecting their methods and numbers. I am very anxious to see how correctly he predicts this election. His statistical analysis is fascinating stuff and strikes me as likely to be closer to the real world numbers than anyone else's. His blog is crammed full of outstanding stuff for the political junkie.
The other new link is to Daly Thoughts, another really interesting site. It is chock full of electoral polls and predictions and Gerry updates each state as new polls roll in. The site layout is a little bit quirky but well worth the time it takes to learn your way around.
Both of these blogs seem to be well grounded and not prone to going overboard with the optimism or pessimism. Two really fine sites that I heartily recommend.
A full weekend.
Not many years ago weekends were mainly a down time in the news cycle. Sure there were the Sunday morning network political shows and the Sunday paper, but otherwise Saturday and Sunday were given over to yard work, BBQ's, family outings and watching football or baseball on TV.
In the new age of the Internet(s?) the news ( and most importantly the campaign news) just barrels ahead without the slightest pause. I spent a good part of Sunday sifting through a lot of information and opinion and I am left with a very good feeling for where this presidential race is headed.
To cut to the chase, President Bush is ahead and probably becoming more unbeatable with each passing day. John Kerry is just too much of an opportunistic and plastic man to win the office. The Washington Times this morning broke a story that reveals again that Kerry suffers from a debilitating case of Algores Syndrome. In other words he exaggerates (lies) about what he has done and who he has talked with etc.
Kerry is probably the least accomplished major party candidate since Warren G. Harding in 1920. In fact Harding at least ran the family newspaper fairly well. What has Kerry EVER accomplished aside from winning elective office? Now winning an election IS an accomplishment, but Kerry has NEVER done anything once he got into office. Nothing. Twenty years in the U.S. Senate and NOTHING to show for it. The man is a cipher, a chameleon, the sole actor in a one act play entitled Me Me Me.
I have a lot of respect for David Broder. Broder is a throwback to a time when reporters and pundits behaved in manner Lawrence O'Donnell could never understand. While Broder is unquestionably left of center, he is honest and generally fair. His latest column is damning for John Kerry. At first blush Broder seems to diss both candidates, but it becomes clear when one sums it up, that while Broder considers George W. Bush to be greatly flawed, he finds John Kerry to be COMPLETELY lacking in the essential qualities needed to be President.
The closing paragraph of Broder's column is telling: "Viewed in this light, the choice for the country becomes one of confirming an executive with visible and even fundamental shortcomings or entrusting the presidency to a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House." That, my friends, is a stake through John Kerry's election hopes.
For a concise reason as to why Broder (and millions more) feel this way about John F. Kerry, ponder the quote in the concluding paragraph in the Times UN story:
"In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people." "
Not many years ago weekends were mainly a down time in the news cycle. Sure there were the Sunday morning network political shows and the Sunday paper, but otherwise Saturday and Sunday were given over to yard work, BBQ's, family outings and watching football or baseball on TV.
In the new age of the Internet(s?) the news ( and most importantly the campaign news) just barrels ahead without the slightest pause. I spent a good part of Sunday sifting through a lot of information and opinion and I am left with a very good feeling for where this presidential race is headed.
To cut to the chase, President Bush is ahead and probably becoming more unbeatable with each passing day. John Kerry is just too much of an opportunistic and plastic man to win the office. The Washington Times this morning broke a story that reveals again that Kerry suffers from a debilitating case of Algores Syndrome. In other words he exaggerates (lies) about what he has done and who he has talked with etc.
Kerry is probably the least accomplished major party candidate since Warren G. Harding in 1920. In fact Harding at least ran the family newspaper fairly well. What has Kerry EVER accomplished aside from winning elective office? Now winning an election IS an accomplishment, but Kerry has NEVER done anything once he got into office. Nothing. Twenty years in the U.S. Senate and NOTHING to show for it. The man is a cipher, a chameleon, the sole actor in a one act play entitled Me Me Me.
I have a lot of respect for David Broder. Broder is a throwback to a time when reporters and pundits behaved in manner Lawrence O'Donnell could never understand. While Broder is unquestionably left of center, he is honest and generally fair. His latest column is damning for John Kerry. At first blush Broder seems to diss both candidates, but it becomes clear when one sums it up, that while Broder considers George W. Bush to be greatly flawed, he finds John Kerry to be COMPLETELY lacking in the essential qualities needed to be President.
The closing paragraph of Broder's column is telling: "Viewed in this light, the choice for the country becomes one of confirming an executive with visible and even fundamental shortcomings or entrusting the presidency to a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House." That, my friends, is a stake through John Kerry's election hopes.
For a concise reason as to why Broder (and millions more) feel this way about John F. Kerry, ponder the quote in the concluding paragraph in the Times UN story:
"In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people." "
While certainly "truth" is a laudable goal for any politician, I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, or Ronald Reagan would have thought of Mr. Kerry's choice?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Good news a plenty.
Almost all the polling numbers being released today are good for the President. The fact that he is still campaigning in Pennsylvania is also a good indication that Karl Rove sees strong movement in the GOP's direction.
Naturally Pennsylvania could be a feint intended to force Kerry out of Ohio and Florida to defend a Gore state. However I doubt it. I strongly suspect that Rove senses weakness and is moving aggressively to exploit it.
Remember, in order to win, Kerry MUST capture Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, Bush doesn't.
The most shocking poll today is the Detroit News showing Bush with a four point lead in Michigan. If Michigan is truly in play, John Kerry is in deep, deep, trouble. A possible explanation for the Bush lead is the fact that "state ballot Proposal 2 defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman [is] winning easily, with a 67 percent to 24 percent margin."
If 67% of Michigan voters are opposed to same-sex marriage, then it much more likely that this poll is not the outlier it is being treated as.
Almost all the polling numbers being released today are good for the President. The fact that he is still campaigning in Pennsylvania is also a good indication that Karl Rove sees strong movement in the GOP's direction.
Naturally Pennsylvania could be a feint intended to force Kerry out of Ohio and Florida to defend a Gore state. However I doubt it. I strongly suspect that Rove senses weakness and is moving aggressively to exploit it.
Remember, in order to win, Kerry MUST capture Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, Bush doesn't.
The most shocking poll today is the Detroit News showing Bush with a four point lead in Michigan. If Michigan is truly in play, John Kerry is in deep, deep, trouble. A possible explanation for the Bush lead is the fact that "state ballot Proposal 2 defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman [is] winning easily, with a 67 percent to 24 percent margin."
If 67% of Michigan voters are opposed to same-sex marriage, then it much more likely that this poll is not the outlier it is being treated as.
Hell hath no hissy like a Sodomite scorned
Andrew Sullivan is widely linked to by conservative blogs because he has obtained a reputation as a not totally anti-GOP homosexual. Some of Sullivan's impulses are in a logical direction, so this earned him quite a bit of attention from some conservatives.
It is time those conservatives drop back and reassess. Sullivan is a typical liberal screw who is simply not quite as mindless as some of his fellow travelers. Sullivan actually indicated early on in the campaign, that he was likely to support Bush. However, once George W Bush came out against same-sex marriage, Sullivan has been throwing a massive temper tantrum and attacking the President at every turn.
Now Sullivan has decided that Pat Robertson (of all people) is telling the absolute truth and is correct to the tiniest detail, on the idiotic notion that Bush thought there would be no casualties in Iraq. If anyone doubted what a disgusting person Sullivan was before, this episode should clear up their confusion nicely.
Like most Republicans I don't care what two consenting adults do in their free time. Whatever my personal opinion of morality, the habits of other adults are for God to sort out not me. But there comes a moment when a great political party MUST take a stand on the major issues of the day. Freedom of speech. Slavery. Abortion. Deviant sexual behavior.
The time is well past that Republicans should waste any time coddling the homosexual lobby. Call sexual deviancy by its correct name and then just get on with life. Presumably the GOP opposes adultery, but that certainly does not preclude adulterers from being Republicans. Any whinny brats like Sullivan who decide to put the issue of acceptance of their bedtime jollies ahead of national security, deserve the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Good riddance girls and boys.
Andrew Sullivan is widely linked to by conservative blogs because he has obtained a reputation as a not totally anti-GOP homosexual. Some of Sullivan's impulses are in a logical direction, so this earned him quite a bit of attention from some conservatives.
It is time those conservatives drop back and reassess. Sullivan is a typical liberal screw who is simply not quite as mindless as some of his fellow travelers. Sullivan actually indicated early on in the campaign, that he was likely to support Bush. However, once George W Bush came out against same-sex marriage, Sullivan has been throwing a massive temper tantrum and attacking the President at every turn.
Now Sullivan has decided that Pat Robertson (of all people) is telling the absolute truth and is correct to the tiniest detail, on the idiotic notion that Bush thought there would be no casualties in Iraq. If anyone doubted what a disgusting person Sullivan was before, this episode should clear up their confusion nicely.
Like most Republicans I don't care what two consenting adults do in their free time. Whatever my personal opinion of morality, the habits of other adults are for God to sort out not me. But there comes a moment when a great political party MUST take a stand on the major issues of the day. Freedom of speech. Slavery. Abortion. Deviant sexual behavior.
The time is well past that Republicans should waste any time coddling the homosexual lobby. Call sexual deviancy by its correct name and then just get on with life. Presumably the GOP opposes adultery, but that certainly does not preclude adulterers from being Republicans. Any whinny brats like Sullivan who decide to put the issue of acceptance of their bedtime jollies ahead of national security, deserve the Democratic Party and vice versa.
Good riddance girls and boys.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Two weeks and a day
Man, this waiting is killing me. I have never been on pins and needles over a presidential election like this one. The polls are gyrating like I have never seen them before. Zogby for instance goes from Kerry ahead by 3, to Bush up by 4, to Even, all in one week!
What does it all mean? For one thing I feel fairly strongly that some funny business is going on with SOME of the polls. One poll that seems much more even is Rasmussen. He has had the race within Bush up 2 - Kerry up 2, for weeks now. That is likely where the race actually is.
The most famous poll, Gallop, seems to be as loony as any, going from Bush way up to Even to Bush way up again. I just find it hard to believe that the electorate is THAT undecided. In fact I think 95% of the voters are "decided" and another 3-4% are virtually "decided". I suspect only 1-2% are still actually unsure of who will get their vote.
MaryGate continues to generate news and comment. While I doubt that many Kerry voters will switch to Bush over this issue, I do think it could cause some of his soft support to stay home or vote for Nader.
I base this observation on what I think is one of Kerry's and the Democratic Party's biggest weaknesses. His support is made up of dozens of splinter groups. What's left of the Unions, what's left of the feminists, radical gays, peaceniks, what's left of the civil rights era black groups, tree huggers, trial lawyers, various socialist nuts organizations, ditto utopian dreamers organizations, and 10 or 15 pre-Carter Democrats who never got around to leaving the Party 25 years ago.
Some of these people are very weird. They move about in a world where up and down are the same thing. Common sense and practicality are constructs with which they are unfamiliar. Little comments like Kerry's Mary Cheney gaffe will cause some of them to throw their hands in the air, stomp off in a dander and vote for Nader or maybe just stay home and be sad on Election Day.
From news reports and from my own experience, the people most offended are women. I spoke with one woman over the weekend who is a life-long Democrat and she was withering in her criticism and denunciation of Kerry.
Ticking off women is the last thing Kerry needs at this point.
Man, this waiting is killing me. I have never been on pins and needles over a presidential election like this one. The polls are gyrating like I have never seen them before. Zogby for instance goes from Kerry ahead by 3, to Bush up by 4, to Even, all in one week!
What does it all mean? For one thing I feel fairly strongly that some funny business is going on with SOME of the polls. One poll that seems much more even is Rasmussen. He has had the race within Bush up 2 - Kerry up 2, for weeks now. That is likely where the race actually is.
The most famous poll, Gallop, seems to be as loony as any, going from Bush way up to Even to Bush way up again. I just find it hard to believe that the electorate is THAT undecided. In fact I think 95% of the voters are "decided" and another 3-4% are virtually "decided". I suspect only 1-2% are still actually unsure of who will get their vote.
MaryGate continues to generate news and comment. While I doubt that many Kerry voters will switch to Bush over this issue, I do think it could cause some of his soft support to stay home or vote for Nader.
I base this observation on what I think is one of Kerry's and the Democratic Party's biggest weaknesses. His support is made up of dozens of splinter groups. What's left of the Unions, what's left of the feminists, radical gays, peaceniks, what's left of the civil rights era black groups, tree huggers, trial lawyers, various socialist nuts organizations, ditto utopian dreamers organizations, and 10 or 15 pre-Carter Democrats who never got around to leaving the Party 25 years ago.
Some of these people are very weird. They move about in a world where up and down are the same thing. Common sense and practicality are constructs with which they are unfamiliar. Little comments like Kerry's Mary Cheney gaffe will cause some of them to throw their hands in the air, stomp off in a dander and vote for Nader or maybe just stay home and be sad on Election Day.
From news reports and from my own experience, the people most offended are women. I spoke with one woman over the weekend who is a life-long Democrat and she was withering in her criticism and denunciation of Kerry.
Ticking off women is the last thing Kerry needs at this point.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
17 Days
Just over two weeks away and the election is seemingly tight as a tick on flea bitten hound dog.
Here is a quick synopsis of how I THINK we got here.
1. 2000 election extremely close and controversial, thus 2004 likely to be also.
2. 9-11 refocused Americans' minds and priorities.
3. Bush did very well in the months following 9-11 and gained much respect and support.
4. Americans generally supported both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
5. When the Iraq war continued after the 4th Quarter ended, inevitably many left of center Americans started getting cold feet and backed off from their "support" for the President.
6. As the Democratic Party went through its nomination process, many more Democrats returned to the fold and made this a close race.
7. The Democratic Convention was in hindsight a mess, but it gave the Kerry campaign a brief appearance of momentum and perhaps a small lead.
8. August was an unmitigated disaster for Kerry, with the Swift Boat Vets dominating the news.
9. The GOP convention was a distinct success and Bush started to build a lead.
10. RatherGate further damaged Kerry and boosted Bush into a considerable margin of from 6-12 points.
11. The first debate badly damaged Bush. Perhaps his greatest strength is his folksiness as contrasted with Kerry's aloofness. In the debate Bush appeared to many as grouchy, rude, and petty, and the polls were suddenly showing a near dead even race.
12. In the last two debates Bush recovered nicely and while perhaps "losing" on style, actually won on substance. Most Americans can tell the difference and Bush opened a 1-3 point lead.
13. MaryGate jumped up out of the bullrushes to bite Kerry's posterior and give Bush a further nudge of perhaps another full point.
That is where we stand today.
I think Bush currently has something between a 2-4 point lead. More importantly he appears to lead in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
The next two weeks will be most interesting.
Just over two weeks away and the election is seemingly tight as a tick on flea bitten hound dog.
Here is a quick synopsis of how I THINK we got here.
1. 2000 election extremely close and controversial, thus 2004 likely to be also.
2. 9-11 refocused Americans' minds and priorities.
3. Bush did very well in the months following 9-11 and gained much respect and support.
4. Americans generally supported both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
5. When the Iraq war continued after the 4th Quarter ended, inevitably many left of center Americans started getting cold feet and backed off from their "support" for the President.
6. As the Democratic Party went through its nomination process, many more Democrats returned to the fold and made this a close race.
7. The Democratic Convention was in hindsight a mess, but it gave the Kerry campaign a brief appearance of momentum and perhaps a small lead.
8. August was an unmitigated disaster for Kerry, with the Swift Boat Vets dominating the news.
9. The GOP convention was a distinct success and Bush started to build a lead.
10. RatherGate further damaged Kerry and boosted Bush into a considerable margin of from 6-12 points.
11. The first debate badly damaged Bush. Perhaps his greatest strength is his folksiness as contrasted with Kerry's aloofness. In the debate Bush appeared to many as grouchy, rude, and petty, and the polls were suddenly showing a near dead even race.
12. In the last two debates Bush recovered nicely and while perhaps "losing" on style, actually won on substance. Most Americans can tell the difference and Bush opened a 1-3 point lead.
13. MaryGate jumped up out of the bullrushes to bite Kerry's posterior and give Bush a further nudge of perhaps another full point.
That is where we stand today.
I think Bush currently has something between a 2-4 point lead. More importantly he appears to lead in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
The next two weeks will be most interesting.
They have no shame
My wife had ABC's morning show on TV as I gulped my coffee at about 8:15. I was lending only half an ear to the background noise until I heard this:
"Teresa Heinz Kerry is benefiting from the Bush tax cuts" blah blah blah.
So, in a story revealing that zillionaire THK paid a paltry percentage in federal taxes, she is neatly left off the hook because it is all George Bush's fault.
Apparently ABC is hewing closely to Mark Halperin's edict to screw the Bush campaign no matter where the truth lies.
My wife had ABC's morning show on TV as I gulped my coffee at about 8:15. I was lending only half an ear to the background noise until I heard this:
"Teresa Heinz Kerry is benefiting from the Bush tax cuts" blah blah blah.
So, in a story revealing that zillionaire THK paid a paltry percentage in federal taxes, she is neatly left off the hook because it is all George Bush's fault.
Apparently ABC is hewing closely to Mark Halperin's edict to screw the Bush campaign no matter where the truth lies.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Media Bias
If there is a more objectionable person, posing as an unbiased member of the media, than Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, I'll be a Deaniac if I know who it is.
Last night on "Scarborough Country" with guest host Pat Buchanan, I got my first, and with luck last, look and listen to O'Donnell. Also joining the discussion was Bob Zelnick, former ABC News Pentagon correspondent and presently the chairman of the Journalism Department at Boston University.
I have always liked Zelnick and considered him an honest broker of the truth in his years at ABC. I assumed it would be a fairly straightforward discussion about the final debate.
You can read the transcript by using the link above and scrolling down, so I won't bother with a blow by blow description. Instead here are some of O'Donnell's most absurd words for your perusal. Keep in mind that O'Donnell is billed as "MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST".
The following comments are regarding John Kerry's "Mary" answer Wednesday night.
Totally Unbiased Major Media Guy Lawrence O'Donnell:
"I don't think he crossed the line.
There's a Gallup poll that indicates that his win in the third debate was just about the same size as his win in the first debate, enormous win, 52-39. Now, that's who is judging the debate. It doesn't matter what we think.
.....that line did not seem to jar the public, who gave a huge win to Kerry in the polling on this debate."
In response to a question about Lynne Cheney's angry-mom comments:
"That's a 100 percent political reaction, 100 percent. She was sent out there to say that, and she did it. "
"Her response has no substance."
And then this incredible exchange:
BUCHANAN: She does not think her daughter's sexuality ought to be brought up by a presidential candidate in a national debate.
O'DONNELL: It wasn't brought up by a presidential candidate.
(CROSSTALK) .
O'DONNELL: It was brought up by Bob Schieffer.
A barefaced lie pure and simple.
And then O'Donnell crawls inside the brain of George W. Bush:
O'DONNELL: "It's pretty clear that this president has never had a conversation with any gay American anywhere on the question of, is this a choice? "
So for the President to have a valid opinion he first must have "a conversation with a gay on the question of is this a choice"? What a clueless twit.
Maureen Dowd of all people, says in today's New York Times:
"Mr. Kerry showed the bite in his overwhitened, overeager "I'm smarter than you but I'm trying not to show it" grin when he strategically dragged Dick Cheney's gay daughter back into the debate, a dead-wrong thing to do."
Irrefutable evidence that someone farther removed from reality than Miss Dowd actually exists.
Other than the absurdity of his words, the most striking thing about O'Donnell was his almost zombie like appearance and delivery. If he had been hypnotized and instructed to defend Kerry no matter the cost, he would not have looked differently. He hardly even reacted to Zelnick's comments (which were pitched almost perfectly in my opinion) but stuck to the line that essentially equaled "Kerry Good, Bush Bad".
And people wonder why Fox clobbers MSNBC every night.
If there is a more objectionable person, posing as an unbiased member of the media, than Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, I'll be a Deaniac if I know who it is.
Last night on "Scarborough Country" with guest host Pat Buchanan, I got my first, and with luck last, look and listen to O'Donnell. Also joining the discussion was Bob Zelnick, former ABC News Pentagon correspondent and presently the chairman of the Journalism Department at Boston University.
I have always liked Zelnick and considered him an honest broker of the truth in his years at ABC. I assumed it would be a fairly straightforward discussion about the final debate.
You can read the transcript by using the link above and scrolling down, so I won't bother with a blow by blow description. Instead here are some of O'Donnell's most absurd words for your perusal. Keep in mind that O'Donnell is billed as "MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST".
The following comments are regarding John Kerry's "Mary" answer Wednesday night.
Totally Unbiased Major Media Guy Lawrence O'Donnell:
"I don't think he crossed the line.
There's a Gallup poll that indicates that his win in the third debate was just about the same size as his win in the first debate, enormous win, 52-39. Now, that's who is judging the debate. It doesn't matter what we think.
.....that line did not seem to jar the public, who gave a huge win to Kerry in the polling on this debate."
In response to a question about Lynne Cheney's angry-mom comments:
"That's a 100 percent political reaction, 100 percent. She was sent out there to say that, and she did it. "
"Her response has no substance."
And then this incredible exchange:
BUCHANAN: She does not think her daughter's sexuality ought to be brought up by a presidential candidate in a national debate.
O'DONNELL: It wasn't brought up by a presidential candidate.
(CROSSTALK) .
O'DONNELL: It was brought up by Bob Schieffer.
A barefaced lie pure and simple.
And then O'Donnell crawls inside the brain of George W. Bush:
O'DONNELL: "It's pretty clear that this president has never had a conversation with any gay American anywhere on the question of, is this a choice? "
So for the President to have a valid opinion he first must have "a conversation with a gay on the question of is this a choice"? What a clueless twit.
Maureen Dowd of all people, says in today's New York Times:
"Mr. Kerry showed the bite in his overwhitened, overeager "I'm smarter than you but I'm trying not to show it" grin when he strategically dragged Dick Cheney's gay daughter back into the debate, a dead-wrong thing to do."
Irrefutable evidence that someone farther removed from reality than Miss Dowd actually exists.
Other than the absurdity of his words, the most striking thing about O'Donnell was his almost zombie like appearance and delivery. If he had been hypnotized and instructed to defend Kerry no matter the cost, he would not have looked differently. He hardly even reacted to Zelnick's comments (which were pitched almost perfectly in my opinion) but stuck to the line that essentially equaled "Kerry Good, Bush Bad".
And people wonder why Fox clobbers MSNBC every night.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Unprecedented?
Probably not, but the 2004 presidential elections continues to surprise with it twists and turns. The race now appears to be......well, all over the place. National polls are coming out daily that flatly contradict each other. Today Gallop has Kerry up by 1 while WaPo/ABC has Bush up 6. Yesterday Rasmussen had Bush up 4 and Zogby had Kerry up 3.
These all (except WaPo/ABC) fall within the MOE and the "internals" become all the more vital. There are all kinds of yak-yak going on about which polls are "fair" and the methodology of each poll.
My sense is that Bush is still ahead but that we are at a tilting point. Think of the election as being balanced on a pivot. Currently Bush controls the action, but any miscalculation could see Kerry move out in front, and not just by a little. If Kerry ever starts to actually surge, look out. Thus far Kerry has not polled above 50%.
I still believe that Karl Rove knows what he is doing. The only elected incumbent Republican to lose a re-election effort since 1932 was GHWB, and he lost because he had no Karl Rove. Lee Atwater died between the '88 and '92 campaigns and the contrasting results showed how valuable Atwater was.
In the final "debate" Bush needs to continue the progress he made in second one, and if he does so, he will be well positioned to win on Election Day.
Probably not, but the 2004 presidential elections continues to surprise with it twists and turns. The race now appears to be......well, all over the place. National polls are coming out daily that flatly contradict each other. Today Gallop has Kerry up by 1 while WaPo/ABC has Bush up 6. Yesterday Rasmussen had Bush up 4 and Zogby had Kerry up 3.
These all (except WaPo/ABC) fall within the MOE and the "internals" become all the more vital. There are all kinds of yak-yak going on about which polls are "fair" and the methodology of each poll.
My sense is that Bush is still ahead but that we are at a tilting point. Think of the election as being balanced on a pivot. Currently Bush controls the action, but any miscalculation could see Kerry move out in front, and not just by a little. If Kerry ever starts to actually surge, look out. Thus far Kerry has not polled above 50%.
I still believe that Karl Rove knows what he is doing. The only elected incumbent Republican to lose a re-election effort since 1932 was GHWB, and he lost because he had no Karl Rove. Lee Atwater died between the '88 and '92 campaigns and the contrasting results showed how valuable Atwater was.
In the final "debate" Bush needs to continue the progress he made in second one, and if he does so, he will be well positioned to win on Election Day.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The race tightens
Recent polls continue to show the margin narrowing between President Bush and John Kerry. This was expected and predicted by most pundits and experts and thus is slight cause for gnashing of teeth by Republicans.
When the polls are disected and their internals sifted, and then applied to the reality of the individual state polls, it becomes ever more apparent that GWB is headed for a narrow but decisive victory.
Tomorrow night's debate is important. It gives Mr. Bush a chance to beat back the impression that Kerry clobbered him in their first encounter. While I don't believe that the debates will determine who wins or loses, they may well have a considerable impact on the final margin. For instance, I would now say that my prediction of a couple weeks ago of perhaps a 55-45 landslide seems out of reach. 52-48 seems more likely from this post-debate vantage point.
The time grows short, with less than four weeks till Election Day.
Recent polls continue to show the margin narrowing between President Bush and John Kerry. This was expected and predicted by most pundits and experts and thus is slight cause for gnashing of teeth by Republicans.
When the polls are disected and their internals sifted, and then applied to the reality of the individual state polls, it becomes ever more apparent that GWB is headed for a narrow but decisive victory.
Tomorrow night's debate is important. It gives Mr. Bush a chance to beat back the impression that Kerry clobbered him in their first encounter. While I don't believe that the debates will determine who wins or loses, they may well have a considerable impact on the final margin. For instance, I would now say that my prediction of a couple weeks ago of perhaps a 55-45 landslide seems out of reach. 52-48 seems more likely from this post-debate vantage point.
The time grows short, with less than four weeks till Election Day.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Post Debate thoughts
I did not watch the debate. I have read, extensively, the opinions of those who did see it. Putting those comments together with the early post-debate polling data, I've reach a few conclusions.
Kerry stanched the bleeding and probably saved himself from complete embarrassment on Election Day. Bush appears to have been poorly prepared which just flat out amazes and angers me. No excuse for it.
Karl Rove should have grabbed W by the ears and shouted in his face after that performance. Showing "annoyance" by making faces and behaving like a high school freshman is incredibly immature and stupid.
Come on Mr. President, be the man you have been since 9-11, not the irresponsible party boy you were 40 years ago.
I like George W. Bush, but he needs to rise above the limits of his father and become a true man of the people. A man who can take a poke in the rhetorical nose, maintain his calm and use his sense of humor to diffuse the moment.
This is still W's race to lose. I think the polls will loosen back up over the next few days, but the President needs a solid performance in the next debate to regain lost momentum.
I did not watch the debate. I have read, extensively, the opinions of those who did see it. Putting those comments together with the early post-debate polling data, I've reach a few conclusions.
Kerry stanched the bleeding and probably saved himself from complete embarrassment on Election Day. Bush appears to have been poorly prepared which just flat out amazes and angers me. No excuse for it.
Karl Rove should have grabbed W by the ears and shouted in his face after that performance. Showing "annoyance" by making faces and behaving like a high school freshman is incredibly immature and stupid.
Come on Mr. President, be the man you have been since 9-11, not the irresponsible party boy you were 40 years ago.
I like George W. Bush, but he needs to rise above the limits of his father and become a true man of the people. A man who can take a poke in the rhetorical nose, maintain his calm and use his sense of humor to diffuse the moment.
This is still W's race to lose. I think the polls will loosen back up over the next few days, but the President needs a solid performance in the next debate to regain lost momentum.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Is a Landslide possible?
I think the answer is emphatically YES!
Political campaigns are deeply bound by tradition and generally follow along well worn paths. Many folks are reluctant to break out of habits well learned until they actually step into the voting booth. An election that illustrates this very well is 1980.
All through that campaign, the polls showed a relatively tight race. Reagan was considered by the chattering class as too much of a cowboy, dangerous, reckless etc. Many Americans thus kept their intention to vote for him to themselves. I have long felt that this explains why polls generally under count the GOP's support.
On election day Reagan destroyed Jimmy Carter. Reagan got 51% of the vote in a three way race and lead Carter by 10 percentage points. With the exception of Reagan's dismantling of the hapless Walter Mondale four years later, no presidential election since then has seen a margin anywhere near that large.
George W. Bush came into office under less than ideal conditions. He lost the popular vote (for what that is worth, more on that in a future post), and he won the electoral vote by the barest of margins and only after a several weeks long Gortantrum. Many pundits along with the Democratic Party, assumed this would cloud Bush's chances for a second term.
Then September 11, 2001 happened. In a single morning of horror, the earth shifted and politics as we knew it ceased to exist. That single fact, barring a bizarre and unprecedented meltdown by George W. Bush in tonight's debate, will re-elect the President and by a margin outside that which is suggested by current polls.
When voters across the nation enter the voting booth and prepare to pull the lever (or punch the screen, or whatever) the last thought they will have, the last image they will contemplate will decide their vote.
It won't be Social Security, or unemployment, or gay marriage, or tax cuts, or Vietnam. Enron won't matter nor will Halliburton or Damn Rather. Milk price supports, wind surfing, idiots from Hollywood, and gas prices won't matter.
What will rise before the mind's eye and fill Americans with resolve, will be two towers burning and falling, a national symbol with a plane embedded in one of its five sides, an open field in Pennsylvania where good men confronted evil.
I believe that when Americans make this most important of choices, a surprisingly large number of them will vote for George W. Bush. In five weeks we will know for sure, but at this moment I suspect the president will gather something on the order of 55% of the popular vote, well over 300 electoral votes, and John Kerry will join George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis as men who ran for the wrong job against the wrong man at the wrong time.
I think the answer is emphatically YES!
Political campaigns are deeply bound by tradition and generally follow along well worn paths. Many folks are reluctant to break out of habits well learned until they actually step into the voting booth. An election that illustrates this very well is 1980.
All through that campaign, the polls showed a relatively tight race. Reagan was considered by the chattering class as too much of a cowboy, dangerous, reckless etc. Many Americans thus kept their intention to vote for him to themselves. I have long felt that this explains why polls generally under count the GOP's support.
On election day Reagan destroyed Jimmy Carter. Reagan got 51% of the vote in a three way race and lead Carter by 10 percentage points. With the exception of Reagan's dismantling of the hapless Walter Mondale four years later, no presidential election since then has seen a margin anywhere near that large.
George W. Bush came into office under less than ideal conditions. He lost the popular vote (for what that is worth, more on that in a future post), and he won the electoral vote by the barest of margins and only after a several weeks long Gortantrum. Many pundits along with the Democratic Party, assumed this would cloud Bush's chances for a second term.
Then September 11, 2001 happened. In a single morning of horror, the earth shifted and politics as we knew it ceased to exist. That single fact, barring a bizarre and unprecedented meltdown by George W. Bush in tonight's debate, will re-elect the President and by a margin outside that which is suggested by current polls.
When voters across the nation enter the voting booth and prepare to pull the lever (or punch the screen, or whatever) the last thought they will have, the last image they will contemplate will decide their vote.
It won't be Social Security, or unemployment, or gay marriage, or tax cuts, or Vietnam. Enron won't matter nor will Halliburton or Damn Rather. Milk price supports, wind surfing, idiots from Hollywood, and gas prices won't matter.
What will rise before the mind's eye and fill Americans with resolve, will be two towers burning and falling, a national symbol with a plane embedded in one of its five sides, an open field in Pennsylvania where good men confronted evil.
I believe that when Americans make this most important of choices, a surprisingly large number of them will vote for George W. Bush. In five weeks we will know for sure, but at this moment I suspect the president will gather something on the order of 55% of the popular vote, well over 300 electoral votes, and John Kerry will join George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis as men who ran for the wrong job against the wrong man at the wrong time.
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Road to 270
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush (a switch) 101
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Bush 154
New Hampshire 4 Bush 158
New Jersey 15 Kerry 161
New Mexico 5 Kerry 166
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Bush 292
Wyoming 3 Bush 295
Bush 295
Kerry 243
These are very close to numbers I put out back in January. I have moved New Mexico back into Kerry's court, while switching Nevada back to Bush. Both states have five votes and thus offset each other.
The huge news, and the only changes I have made from the 2000 results, is Iowa and Wisconsin moving strongly into the Red State column.
Several states are really too close to call, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. I would not be shocked to see all four go to President Bush on election day.
In my next post I will explain why I believe the President will actually win by an even larger margin.
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush (a switch) 101
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Bush 154
New Hampshire 4 Bush 158
New Jersey 15 Kerry 161
New Mexico 5 Kerry 166
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Bush 292
Wyoming 3 Bush 295
Bush 295
Kerry 243
These are very close to numbers I put out back in January. I have moved New Mexico back into Kerry's court, while switching Nevada back to Bush. Both states have five votes and thus offset each other.
The huge news, and the only changes I have made from the 2000 results, is Iowa and Wisconsin moving strongly into the Red State column.
Several states are really too close to call, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. I would not be shocked to see all four go to President Bush on election day.
In my next post I will explain why I believe the President will actually win by an even larger margin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)