« Hoeffel in Trouble? | Main | Another Quiet Period for State Polls »
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Convention Bounce Predictions, Round 2
Posted by DavidNYCIt's too hard to predict convention bounces in individual states, but if you care to hazard a national guess as to what kind of spike (if any) Bush will get out of the RNC, go ahead and do so here. I think, like Kerry's, it will necessarily be smaller than usual. I also think that Bush, because he's playing so heavily to his base, can actually expect a bounce in national polling that isn't equalled by an improvement in swing states (because much of his numbers growth will be in the reddest of the red states).
My personal feeling here, btw, is that the GOP is trying to "Gipperize" Bush. He has no successful substantive record to run on, so his party is trying to turn him into a soothing & benevolent (but stern when he needs to be) father-figure. (For more on this, read this William Saletan piece if you haven't yet.) This worked brilliantly with Reagan, of course - but then Ronnie was much older, didn't have a misspent youth like Dubya, and had an entirely different mien. I just can't see this ploy working very well, given the limited material the GOP has to work with.
Posted at 10:57 AM in General | Technorati
Comments
I am not expecting much of a bounce even in the Red States because Bush has fundamentally sewn up his base. There might by a +2 as he sees his 90% support among registered Republicans (now) go to 95% support next week and then a couple of drift-offs over the next two months. He'll be picking off no Democrats of any number or ideology (sorry Zell does not count) and there are not that many undecideds that are favorably inclined to Bush.
Posted by: fester at September 1, 2004 12:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually, I think there are far more Bush Democrats than what we'd like to believe. I don't believe Ed Koch, Ron Silver and blogger Roger L. Simon are particularly unique in being liberals who believe that there's nothing more important than stopping the bad guys, and who, for some reason, believe Bush is the guy to tdo this.
The good news is that I suspect most "Dubya Democrats" live in uncontested states...either conservative Southerners who are still registered Democrats even though they haven't voted for a Democrat for President since 1976. orupper-income Northeasterns, including many Jews, who live in deep blue states like New Jersey and New York If we start reading reports of large numbers of Dubya Democrats in Iowa, then we might have something to worry about.
Posted by: Mark at September 1, 2004 01:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I read this forum all the time so I can get the other point view and it just kills me that you people can hate Bush so much. All I see here is hiding of anything that shows Bush in the lead and some election projections for Kerry that show him winnning, even when the state polls and national polls show him losing.
The reason Kerry got so little of a bounce (which all the Democrats where saying he would get a large bounce) is because no one can trust him on any issue. People are not voting for him - they are voting against Bush. I hear the saying all the time - "I vote for the lesser of two evils". After the RNC, where Bush has already successfully defined himself, the bounce will be bigger than Kerry's, and in fact, from that point on, Bush will lead and win re-election. Really think about it, I even see Tom Daschle running to embrace Bush to save his seat.
Posted by: Howie at September 1, 2004 01:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Don't bet on it. Polls last week showed Bush ahead by 2 or 3 points, and preliminary polls this week show the race even again. If Friday polls don't show Bush ahead by 4 or 5 points he will have had a negative bounce.
Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2004 01:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I report all polls of interest here, whether they show Kerry or Bush in the lead. Howie, if you can cite any hard evidence that can support your point (that Kerry got a small bounce because "no one can trust him"), I'd love to see it.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 1, 2004 01:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For me, Howie, it isn't hatred of Bush, it's hatred of
1) the mess he's gotten this country into, on any number of issues; and
2) his campaign's strategy of winning the election on fear, uncertainty and doubt, rather than on his record (which is dismal).
Those on the left believe that we can do a helluva lot better than a C- coker for president. How low have our standards gone? The republicans know that the only way to win is to repeat, over and over and over again, that the bad guys are out to get us, but don't worry...Dubya's here to protect us. Guess what? WE AREN'T LITTLE CHILDREN, WE ARE ADULTS. Those of us who take a moment to free ourselves from constant fear and panic, and think rationally for a moment realize that Bush's policies MAKE NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!! But instead of talking about this, we talk about whether Kerry's battle wounds were significant enough to warrant purple hearts. Or whether or not he strayed into Cambodia 36 years ago. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Your speculation about the election has no merit. "The bounce will be bigger than Kerry's." What is this based on? At least DavidNYC is not making baseless predictions, but giving logical reasons. But the truth is, nobody knows. Who knows what new depths Karl Rove will take us to next. And who knows how the American people react. Fact is, we don't know.
Why doesn't Bush simply agree to some debates, to talk about the issues and make his case to the American people, LIKE A REAL LEADER!! If he is ready to lead the free world for another four years, he will agree to as many debates as possible, rather than hiding behind so-called 'veterans for truth', Giuliani, and his other proxies. I'll tell you why he's trying to "negotiate" down to two debates. Because it is not in his interest to be seen side-by-side with a veteran commander with thirty years of public service.
Posted by: Joel at September 1, 2004 01:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry for the rant, everyone. I just get so burned up when people cite Bush's faux-strength and Kerry's faux-weakness. The right seems genuinely to not understand why the left is so pi--ed off. If Thomas Jefferson were running as a Democrat, he would be derided as a weak, do-gooding liberal. It's character assasination, plain and simple.
Posted by: Joel at September 1, 2004 02:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Bush will get a 6 point spike the week immediately after the convention, but that it will fade to a 2 point spike by 3 weeks after and that we'll have an essentially tied race (where we are today) by the time the debates roll around.
I hope Bush's bounce is 2 or less, but I'm expecting and prepared for an immediate 6 point bounce.
Posted by: Wayne in Missouri at September 1, 2004 02:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry for the rant, everyone. I just get so burned up when people cite Bush's faux-strength and Kerry's faux-weakness. The right seems genuinely to not understand why the left is so pi--ed off. If Thomas Jefferson were running as a Democrat, he would be derided as a weak, do-gooding liberal. It's character assasination, plain and simple.
Posted by: Joel at September 1, 2004 02:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm on record as thinking that Bush will indeed get a bounce from the convention (a positive lift in his numbers, as opposed to the driving down of Kerry's, which is how he got to his current position), but a small one which will dissipate rather rapidly. Let's say it'll be about the same magnitude of the lift Kerry got after the DNC -- but the difference will be that, unlike Kerry's bounce, there will be no appreciable improvement in Bush's internals as there was with Kerry's internals after his convention.
I think Bush's bump will fade away even faster than Wayne does -- I think we should be back to a Kerry lead in as little as two weeks. (Of course, I say that counting on the Kerry campaign to handle their post-convention strategy a little better than they did their anti-SBVT tactics.)
As to hating Bush -- what's not to hate? The man is unqualified to be president, stole the election, lies consistently to the nation, has put the nation in an economic place it's going to be *very* difficult to get out of, destroyed our relationships with most of our friends and allies, got us into an unwinnable war in Iraq, screwed the poor and the middle class to benefit the rich and corporate America and has generally fucked us over royally.
Other than that, I've got nothing against the guy.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 1, 2004 02:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Howie,
I believe many Democrats asked the same question 4-11 years ago when addressing the Republican hatred for Clinton. Ultimately, Bush is someone I despise...sometimes for good reasons (such as his hypocrisy by calling Kerry a flip flopper when he has constantly done the same thing and his butchering of the employment market by losing 2 million jobs and replacing them with jobs that on average pay less), sometimes for irrational reasons (such as his smug grin or his butchering of sayings and phrases) similiar to the reasons many GOPers still hate the Clintons. It always amazed me when Dems didn't understand why the GOP hated their guy and it amazes me the GOPers are upset and dumbfounded that many Dems hate their guy.
As for my prediction (Using the LA Times poll as my control - 49-46 Bush) the polls will be 52-46 on Friday for a net 3 gain...Over the next two weeks they will drop down to about 50-46 number...If however, the jobs report due out comes back negative then the polls will drop farther to a 48-47 or a 48-48 tie. So he gets a 3 point bounce on the LA Times list.
Anyone who thinks that W will be up in the high single digits (by this I mean 7-9 points) I think you are smoking something...or fixing something...
Posted by: Michael at September 1, 2004 04:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It may already be out there, but I'd love to see polling data on just how effective the Swift Boat Ad has been with undecideds.
Regardless of how this election turns out, I think there is no longer any doubt about the effectiveness of negative ads. Dukakis showed us what happens when you don't respond, and Clinton the opposite.
Kerry didn't want to spend resources defending himself in August; and one can argue right now about that strategy being wrong. On the other hand, Kerry could have spent $10 mil fighting this and the GOP still wouldn't have let up.
All I can say is that if the Swift boat contoversy was enough to sway undecideds to Bush, then Kerry never had them to begin with. About this time next week , we'll have an idea of where everyone stands. The debates are only going to make a difference if it's still a dead even race.
Posted by: Rob at September 1, 2004 06:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush will get a 3-point bounce or less.
In fact...I wouldn't even be surprised to see a flatline from the convention; no bounce at all.
It's been a one-note show the first few days: Terror. Which is how he's been selling himself all along. It's not going to win any new converts at this point, particularly with so few up for grabs.
Posted by: Nim at September 1, 2004 07:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with Howie. I cannot believe how much the liberals hate the President. I did not like President Clinton's policies. However, I never hated him. I am convince if Saddam and Bin Laden were running against President Bush they would be Liberals voting for the Sadam/Bin Laden ticket.
The president is doing a great job at fighting the terrorists. If the terrorist win over us, health care, social security, etc. will be meaningless.
Posted by: David at September 1, 2004 09:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ordinarily, I might be tempted to delete such trolling, but it is so hilarious to me that I'm going to leave it up. Yes, David, I am sure Saddam would indeed vote for himself.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 1, 2004 10:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's amazing how the GOP trolls suddenly come out of the woodwork now that Bush has suddenly "leapt" ahead of Kerry. Barring any major event, this race will go down to the wire just like 2000. And as in 2000, the Democrats should be ahead by 5%, but this is what happens when the party keeps nominating uninspiring candidates.
Posted by: Brett at September 1, 2004 10:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"I agree with Howie. I cannot believe how much the liberals hate the President. I did not like President Clinton's policies. However, I never hated him. I am convince if Saddam and Bin Laden were running against President Bush they would be Liberals voting for the Sadam/Bin Laden ticket.
The president is doing a great job at fighting the terrorists. If the terrorist win over us, health care, social security, etc. will be meaningless."
David, you may not have hated Clinton, but you are minority of the far right. MANY CONSERVATIVES HATED AND DESPISED CLINTON...One of the main reasons was that he was able to get out of situations that would have destroyed any of their guys (and most of the progressive candidates as well). So please stop playing like progressives are alone in the hate game.
On the Saddam/Bin Laden ticket, besides the fact that they couldn't run in this country due to the fact they are not naturalized citizens, I am sure they would get votes from some extreme radicals as well as some extreme reactionaries. I am sure Bush will benefit from several votes from KKK, Neo-Nazi's and other fringe hate group members...(and I do believe he despises these people and would never purposefully accept their help) just as Kerry may benefit from votes from Eco-terrorists or other Left radical groups (and I believe Kerry despises these people as well). Ultimately, the 99% of us who do not fall into a Radical (FAR LEFT VIEWPOINT) or Reactionary (FAR RIGHT VIEWPOINT)point of view would never vote for known terrorists or dictators...we would vote for Bush or we would vote for one of the 3rd party candidates such as Nader, or the Greens candidate...Making a comment like the one you did above is nothing but ignorance and you should apologize to everyone for making a comment like that.
As far as Bush doing a great job, I have to strongly disagree. He is doing a mixed job. According to government reports, 66-75% of AL Qaida leadership has been caught (although there is no way to know FOR SURE if this number is true...however, one can see a dent has been made) on the flip side, the same reports show a growing hostility to Americans abroad and a higher recruitment rate for terrorist groups. Invading Iraq solved a short term problem by eliminating an unfriendly presence in the middle east, however, it has also created a longterm problem by becoming a recruiting tool for radical islam to gather more angry youths and training them to become terrorists.
If you think that re-electing Bush will prevent a terrorist attack, then I have a big bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you. The "war on terror" is truly not a winnable war (despite what America wants to hear and the candidates will feed to them) just as the other cultural wars aren't...or are we forgetting that low level drug use is higher and more socially acceptable than before the war on drugs began. So basing your vote simply on that is the same as basing it on just enviromental policies or abortion (disagreements that will never be solved).
Instead, ask yourself...Are you better now than four years ago...If yes, vote Bush. If not, Vote Kerry or a 3rd party. I for one am making less money because much of the job growth over the last four years has been in lower paying jobs.I got laid off twice and was forced to take a job paying less. My 60 year old father is making far less (almost $70,000 less) after his layoff. He is working commissioned sales now and has no health insurance because premiums are too high and companies are not required to have healthcare for their employees and the US has no alternative low cost care. My aunt is dying because she had to go on disability, can't work and can't get insurance, as Tennessee has some of the worst public healthcare and disabilty. If she had health insurance, she would probably live, but we can't afford the procedures without it. My 401K is still not back up to previous levels. The only thing really positive is I have a better deduction with the marriage penalty disapeering, of course that doesn't make up for the lower salary I get now.
Overall I can say I am not better off after 4 years of Bush. Terrorism is a problem regardless of the President. Hate to break it to you sports fans but it has been a problem for the last 30 odd years...We even trained Osama to do the same sorts of things to the Russians in Afghanistan. SO I look at jobs, healthcare and the economy. He gets bad marks on all three. Time for a change. SO I vote for Kerry. If I am not better off in four years, I will look for a new president then too.
Posted by: Michael at September 1, 2004 11:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Brett,
Hate to agree with you but I do. Kerry is very uninspiring at times (although I still like him much better than Bush) The current system just doesn't work. Why are we letting 2 small states pick the candidates? States like Illinois, California, FLorida, OH, MI, PA etc should be first.
Posted by: Michael at September 1, 2004 11:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
On the Saddam/Bin Laden ticket, besides the fact that they couldn't run in this country due to the fact they are not naturalized citizens,
Actually, even if they became naturalized citizens, they could not run for President, because only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible for the job.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 2, 2004 12:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC,
"Howie, if you can cite any hard evidence that can support your point (that Kerry got a small bounce because "no one can trust him"), I'd love to see it."
Then please explain why he did not get a huge bouce as predicted. I am not stating hard evidence, I am stating opinion, but either way you look at it, there was some reason why he did not get a big bounce.
Joel,
"Your speculation about the election has no merit. "The bounce will be bigger than Kerry's." What is this based on? At least DavidNYC is not making baseless predictions, but giving logical reasons. But the truth is, nobody knows."
But in a week we will know.
"Why doesn't Bush simply agree to some debates, to talk about the issues and make his case to the American people, LIKE A REAL LEADER!!"
Probably the same reason Kerry refused to debate Howard Dean. When you are losing you ask for debates to get your message out there.
"Because it is not in his interest to be seen side-by-side with a veteran commander with thirty years of public service."
30 years of being on the wrong side.
Ed,
"stole the election"
Bush was ahead in every election tally in Florida. The only stealing to be done was by Gore.
"lies consistently to the nation"
Please tell me where he lied.
"has put the nation in an economic place it's going to be *very* difficult to get out of"
The economy was on the downside before he took office.
"destroyed our relationships with most of our friends and allies"
France? Like they are a big help. They could care less about who is office. They simply do not like America.
"got us into an unwinnable war in Iraq"
Saddam is gone and our troops were won.
Michael,
Look at the things Clinton did and how corrupt his Presidency was. That is why Republicans hated him. Personally, I did not like what he did, but when he spoke, Clinton gained your trust, unlike Kerry.
Brett,
Please do not call me a troll, because you disagree with me. Unlike some people I read two sites to get two views on things (this one for the left and the Hedgehog Report for the right). I have read this site for months, but since I was forwarded deployed on the USS John C. Stennis I did not post.
Posted by: Howie at September 2, 2004 01:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I REALLY think it's all but over now!
After McCain & Giuliani the first night, both of whom I found quite impressive, I was sure there would be a bounce.
But since then it's been a disaster for the GOP:
* The news highlight of Tuesday eve is Governator calling anyone worried about the economy is a "girly man" [a seniment that I'm sure will go over well with unemployed swing voters in Ohio].
* Zell Miller delivered a disasterously negative and grumpy speech, which I'm sure will rub MOST people the wrong way. [Cheney was his usual drab self but at least not that nasty.]
* And if you're skeptical, go check out the Iowa electronic market chart: http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm
Of course, this may be part of their strategy -- now Bush will come across as Mr. Nice Guy. But I think some damage has been done. Can't wait for the debates.
Posted by: Jason at September 2, 2004 01:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Folks, I'm truly not interested in hosting a left-right debate here. I appreciate people from the other side of the aisle dropping by here, but this isn't the place to debate right vs. left, Dem vs. GOP.
This is a place to discuss election-year politics: Who's up, who's down, and why. Sometimes, of course, the answers to these questions hinge on issues of policy, but it's enough to say (for example) that Kerry can win favor with Nevada voters by pushing the Yucca Mountain issue without having to get into a debate about the merits of the Yucca Mountain depository. Same with the Iraq war, etc.
I don't mean to stifle discussion, but there are plenty of places on the web where left and right can thrash it out. Though this is a niche site, we definitely have plenty of good material to work with.
One quick on-point response to Howie: I don't know who predicted a huge bounce, but it certainly wasn't me. I said Kerry would see some sort of bounce (which he did receive), but I specifically did not say how big I thought it would be. But I'm happy to provide an alternate (and much simpler) reason for the relatively small size of Kerry's bounce: There are just very few undecided voters in this country this year.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 2, 2004 02:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC,
Perhaps the opening remarks of my comments made people on this site defensive. I said prediction, it was by Terry McAuliffe.
I, however, feel Bush will get a much larger bounce than Kerry. Karl Rowe is doing a good job at the RNC this year. I already see Democrats running away from Kerry's Message (what his message is I can not figure out except he served in Vietnam) in the form of Tom Daschle and Zell Miller. Kerry was the wrong man for the Democrats, but it is still a long time before the election and what is on the polls now, is no way an indication of what it will be like on November 2nd. (Although I am predicting a Bush victory)
Again, thanks for providing me a different opinion and will continue to read this site when I return to my ship at the middle of the month.
Posted by: Howie at September 2, 2004 02:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm not prepared to predict what sort of convention bounce Bush is likely to get. Certainly, negative attacks have the potential to produce boatloads of votes, particularly when coming from the well-oiled Republican smear machine who have successful character assassination down to an artform. However, I think the credibility of the attacker has some weight in the matter. Dick Cheney is not a liked or trusted man among anybody but the fringe right, and his speech last night was little more than a regurgitation of every campaign stump speech Cheney's been doing for months, complete with the same "sensitive war" and "how do you think I got the job?" one-liners that were at first effective but seem far too trite for a primetime nomination speech. I guess the gamble was that undecided voters wouldn't have seen the footage of Cheney using the same material in weeks past.
Zell Miller's effect is even more ambiguous. He'll get some latitude of credibility over the fact that he's criticizing his own party and that he's an ex-Marine, but his enraged, red-faced demeanor seemed to play more to the convention floor than the TV viewing audience who doesn't particularly care for such hot-blooded invective.
The real bounce, or lack thereof, is likely to be determined by tonight's nomination speech. It's now being said that Kerry's "reporting for duty" opening to his nomination speech may have cost him the election. If Bush capitalizes on the advantage of hitting clean-up by presenting a reasoned assessment of Kerry's faults, we could see a poll bounce of up to six points that will leave Kerry playing defense until the debates.
Posted by: Mark at September 2, 2004 10:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Actually, even if they became naturalized citizens, they could not run for President, because only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible for the job."
I actually meant natural born citizen and typed the wrong thing...Thanks for pointing that out. I knew that, just said the wrong thing...OOPS I pulled a Bush.
Posted by: Michael at September 2, 2004 10:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"France? Like they are a big help. They could care less about who is office. They simply do not like America. "
So Howie, you feel they care a great deal about who the President is... FUnny, so do I. I believe what you meant to say was FRANCE COULDN'T CARE LESS which is the correct way to say that phrase. Guess you pulled a Bush too.;-)
Brother, if you don't think that a majority of Politicians have some corruption in their current or past agendas, I still have that bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Kennedy had women and possibly help from the mob to win the election, Johnson may have had Kennedy Killed and gave in to special interests to start Vietnam, Nixon is just too damn easy, I will grant you Ford, I will grant you Carter, Reagan trained the people who are attacking us now, might have made a deal with the Iranians holding people hostage to win the election (I know not proven but this has been speculated for years) traded weapons for hostages but had subordinates take the fall, sold out to special interests, has been linked with Savings and Loans scandals but never indicted and illicit fund raising but never indicted, Bush I, sold out to special interests and oil companies, Clinton, lied about a blow job, has been linked but never indicted on a real estate scam, has been accused of illicit fund raising but never indicted, and Bush II, who has sold out to special interests, been accused of having knowledge of 9-11 and not stopping it but never indicted, has been accused of starting the war in Iraq to boost oil interests, make his friends a lot of money and to avenge his father. Almost all politicians are corrupt. The GOP hated Clinton because just when they thought they had him out of office, he would slip through the cracks, and then he would smirk to them and bait them, making them come off terrible in the public eye. They think he is scum, yet he still remained popular and that infuriates them...Dems hate Bush because just when they think they have him beat, he steals a victory away and then gives a smug and smirk smile and baits the Dems making them come off badly in the public eye. They think he is stupid but yet he still remains likable and that infuriates them. The two are ideologically different, yet in many ways are the same...a statement that will piss off Dems and GOP alike.
""Because it is not in his interest to be seen side-by-side with a veteran commander with thirty years of public service.""
"30 years of being on the wrong side."
That was a stupid comment and you know it. It is the same as saying Bush has the IQ of a monkey. Kerry has done a lot for this country. Even if you don't vote for him, to not acknowledge that is pure ignorance.
"Ed,
""stole the election""
"Bush was ahead in every election tally in Florida. The only stealing to be done was by Gore."
That is not accurate. Bush was ahead in the two official ones. The AP results from a year later were different. They had about 7 different types of recounts and came up with Gore winning some and Bush the others. The biggest irony would be if the votes were counted by the Bush standard, Gore would have won, and if the votes were counted by the Gore standard, Bush would have one. However, Dems anger on Florida and the feeling the election was stolen goes beyond vote counts. The fact that the Supreme Court decided the case along party lines didn't help heal the wounds...Had it been 9-0, things may be a little better. The fact that 40,000 voters were erroneously declared felons and not allowed to vote also lends credence to the accusation since the majority of these would have voted Dem. The fact Jeb broke the law by sending out letters to GOP voters on Florida Government Letterhead telling them to vote absentee, which then increases GOP turnout tends to upset DEMS as well (this is a violation of Florida law not Federal Law. Jeb was never prosecuted)
""lies consistently to the nation""
"Please tell me where he lied."
Well WMDs tend to spring to mind. Even if, as he claims, the lie was not intentional and based on false evidence, it still is a lie. But then I assume my politicians are all liars and change their minds with the public, so call me a cynic.
""has put the nation in an economic place it's going to be *very* difficult to get out of""
"The economy was on the downside before he took office."
True, and 9-11 made it worse, but that was 3 years ago and things should be improving. Even though stocks and GDP has risen, the job market is still stale and the average adjusted wage is less than 4 years ago. Most economists feel the Bush tax cuts do indeed benefit the rich, but not the middle class and this combined with the job loss and wage reduction has squeezed the biggest economic class in the US significantly. Ironically, we are still spending because of the low interest rates, and this has some economists scared, especially if jobs and wage outlooks don't pick up.
""destroyed our relationships with most of our friends and allies""
"France? Like they are a big help. They could care less about who is office. They simply do not like America."
Actually, leaving the grammar correction aside for the moment, that isn't true. France, like most of Europe, have no issue with America. They don't dislike most Americans, although they do have issues with obnoxious tourists...(then again, so do I regardless of the countries...Those of you who have ever been around a Brazilian tourgroup at Disney world have an idea of what i am talking about.) EU citizens do dislike the Bush administration, (and lets be honest Europe is one big country now, similiar to the first US confederation before the COnsitution was made) but it is incorrect to take that as disliking America. That is the same as saying that just because I disapprove of the war and its handling, that I hate all the soldiers. I respect all the soldiers fighting over there (including several family members) and have no issues with them...mainly because they are just pawns in this game. This isn't vietnam (although after August, I am not sure anymore) and protestors don't blame the soldiers. Luckily we have learned from the terrible way they were treated.
""got us into an unwinnable war in Iraq""
"Saddam is gone and our troops were won."
Saddam is gone and that is a good thing. (I can't understand what our troops were won means so I won't comment.) However, the issue is not that, but the way we went about starting this war and then the way things were handled afterwards. We live in a global society and benefit greatly through this society in our economic ordeals. We get goods from other countries and we sell to others, thus making money and bettering our economy. What Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all understood is that the negative of this is that you have to take the opinions of others in the society into account for things to work. You can't reap the benefits AND do whatever you want with little regard to others. Either Bush and his major advisors don't understnad this or don't care (most neo-conservatives I know don't seem to understand this concept), because ultimately they want to be in control...it is the ultimate pissing contest. He tried to do this with Iraq, couldn't convince our allies and then decided to go it alone. This is the wrong approach for a country who should be a role model and not viewed as a bully. Yes Saddam is gone, but the ends cannot justify the means. If I kill three people and one of those was going to blow up a building, I still would go to prison even though I did the country a great service. The ends do not justify the means. As for the aftermath, it started with disbanding the Iraq military instead of taking them over like we did in WWI and WWII. This led many of them to join several anti-US terrorist groups. The no-bid contract has cost the tax payers billions because no competition was used to establish pricing. We have lost more people since Saddam fell than before and Bush tried to use it as a cheap political stunt and it backfired (I want to see the carrier footage in a 527 commercial...That could become nasty.)
And for the record, I loved Clinton, but John Kerry still has my trust. I may not like him as much as Clinton, but I think he will get the job done.
Posted by: Michael at September 2, 2004 11:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"It's now being said that Kerry's "reporting for duty" opening to his nomination speech may have cost him the election."
Mark, I am looking for justification of this but have found none except from Far-right Blogs. Please explain...
Posted by: Michael at September 2, 2004 11:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Not sure about size of bounce; I tend to agree with Jason's assessment of the GOP convention's recent speakers: the Democrats should see if there are any more Zell Millers available to campaign for Bush. Though the Iowa Election Market that Jason gave the link for seems to indicate Bush strength, at this point, contrary to what Jason suggested.
The main benefit to the Republicans of their convention, I think, is being able to highlight the nut-case protesters as the type of people that they are helping to keep out of office.
What I think is more instructive is longer term swing state creep. There are a lot of polls out there these days that I think are suspect -- I think PA is pro-Bush about as much as I thought NJ was only barely pro-Kerry a couple weeks ago when a poll showed only a 1% Kerry advantage there. I'd almost shift 2-4% from Bush to Kerry on any Strategic Vision poll, just as a matter of course.
But the believable things are interesting. I don't think Rasmussen leans for Kerry, but he shows CO dead even, which I never would have expected. TN looks even-ish (I think Zogby shades favorable for Kerry), which is also unexpected to me. NM looks safe for Kerry, which was no gimme. WV looks now like its safe for Bush, but I only thought it might be otherwise for a brief moment. OH might be becoming safe for Bush, but that's based on a Strategic Vision poll.
Unless PA turns out really to have shifted a lot toward Bush, it looks like most of the swing state slippage has been favorable for Kerry. Probably the Swift Boat nonsense hasn't yet gotten into some of the states' latest numbers, and it will ding Kerry, but I think there is a general long term trend away from Bush in the swing states. There will be more Swift Boat-type nonsense, no doubt, to contend with, and Bush will likely open up the government's coffers in timely ways, but that's not news.
The one thing I worry about is the suggestion that some Democrats may be preparing to vote for Bush out of fear, and are unwilling to admit it. As some have pointed out, this seems more likely to be a phenomenon of non-swing states, but still ... I'd like to see informal opinions from professional pollsters (I wouldn't include Strategic Visions in that category ...) about who they think will win the election in various states. They naturally have to use a very thoroughly prescribed method to get to "likely voter" determinations, but their gut impressions might be more accurate.
It's too bad Kerry isn't a particularly inspiring candidate; if he were, this election would be wrapped up.
Posted by: Marsden at September 2, 2004 12:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My prediction for the after convention bounce
for the Bush/Cheney ticket is similar to that
one Kerry/Edwards got-a small 2 or 3 movement.
I think, thought, that by the end of next week
Busch/Cheney will be trailing once again. The
next week should be VERY INTERESTING as there
are going to be a number of things happening that
will reflect poorly on this sorry administration.
Posted by: Alex Gray at September 2, 2004 01:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rasmussen's tracking poll today showed substantial movement towards Bush, but one can't take tracking polls (especially one day) too seriously. I seem to recall someone saying that Rasmussen had Bush up by 9 points the day before the 2000 election---does anyone know if that's true?
Posted by: science at September 2, 2004 01:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"It's too bad Kerry isn't a particularly inspiring candidate; if he were, this election would be wrapped up."
Damn you for being right...but you are...
I think Edwards would be up by 5-6 points right now. Oh well, at least it isn't Gephart. I respect the man, but he would be getting thumped.
Posted by: Michael at September 2, 2004 02:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's doubtful Zell Miller is going to play at all well to blue states, especially when the voters there find out he plagiarized from a debunked right wing agitprop emailer.
Posted by: joseph at September 2, 2004 03:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gephardt would have gotten creamed. Fairly or unfairly, he invokes memories of Al Gore, and not good ones. He's a sincere guy who seems like a phony. His blue-collar campaign themes are up my alley, but not up the alley of coastal liberals who'd be more inclined to stay home or vote for Nader had Gephardt won.
I told myself during the primaries that Edwards was the only one who could win, but in retrospect, I don't think he could ever shake his "no gravitas pretty boy" stigma. Perhaps solid debate performances would have helped him out, but I have my doubts he could have won in 2004, even with substantial greater foreign policy credentials than Bush has.
Ultimately, I'm relieved we don't have Dean or Lieberman. Dean was such a loose cannon that his campaign would have been in non-stop damage control mode, and even under ideal circumstances he would be a tough sell in most swing states. A McGovern-sized defeat would have been very likely. If Lieberman was the nominee, I probably wouldn't have voted Democrat. I'm willing to put up with centrist Dems for the most part, but when there's virtually no difference between a Democrat and Bush on every issue except social wedge issues, what's the point? Had Lieberman been the Dem nominee, we'd probably see Nader pulling in 15% of the vote and Bush winning more than 40 states.
Posted by: Mark at September 2, 2004 03:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gephardt would have gotten creamed. Fairly or unfairly, he invokes memories of Al Gore, and not good ones. He's a sincere guy who seems like a phony. His blue-collar campaign themes are up my alley, but not up the alley of coastal liberals who'd be more inclined to stay home or vote for Nader had Gephardt won.
I told myself during the primaries that Edwards was the only one who could win, but in retrospect, I don't think he could ever shake his "no gravitas pretty boy" stigma. Perhaps solid debate performances would have helped him out, but I have my doubts he could have won in 2004, even with substantial greater foreign policy credentials than Bush has.
Ultimately, I'm relieved we don't have Dean or Lieberman. Dean was such a loose cannon that his campaign would have been in non-stop damage control mode, and even under ideal circumstances he would be a tough sell in most swing states. A McGovern-sized defeat would have been very likely. If Lieberman was the nominee, I probably wouldn't have voted Democrat. I'm willing to put up with centrist Dems for the most part, but when there's virtually no difference between a Democrat and Bush on everything except social wedge issues, what's the point? Had Lieberman been the Dem nominee, we'd probably see Nader pulling in 15% of the vote and Bush winning more than 40 states.
Posted by: Mark at September 2, 2004 03:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Please guys forget the POLITICS. This is
supposed be about meta-POLITICS. The inside
game if you will. So this post will be
not about policy, but about process.
It is always extremely difficult to unseat
an incumbent President.
Carter beat Ford, who was unelected.
Reagan beat Carter since he was a MUCH BETTER
politician.
Clinton beat Bush I because Big Dog is, simply,
the best politician of our generation. Arguably,
the best politician of the 20th Century.
For Kerry to beat Bush II he will need to be a
better politician than W/Shrub. (I'm trying to
avoid policy here and concentrate on process.)
Up to now, Rove is winning. And perhaps, Bush II
cannot be beaten regardless of opponent.
In a nutshell the problem any 'D' would have ...
If he ignored the war to concentrate on Economy,
Taxes etc. (where he would win HANDILY)
"Are you NUTS, Don't you know there is a WAR on?"
If he campaigned as anti-War
"Are you NUTS, Don't you know there is a WAR on?"
If he campaigned as pro-War
"Are you NUTS, don't you know there is a WAR on -
and the PRESIDENT is fighting it"
So ... in reality ... there was no way Kerry
or Lieberman or Gephardt or Dean or Graham or
Kucinich or Braun or Sharpton was EVER going
to win.
Comments?
Again avoid your POLITICS and write about PROCESS.
Posted by: pragmatist at September 2, 2004 04:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
No, actually, Rove is *not* winning. An incumbent who isn't ahead right now is behind, and Bush is *not* ahead.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 2, 2004 09:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"That is not accurate. Bush was ahead in the two official ones. The AP results from a year later were different. They had about 7 different types of recounts and came up with Gore winning some and Bush the others. The biggest irony would be if the votes were counted by the Bush standard, Gore would have won, and if the votes were counted by the Gore standard, Bush would have one."
I believe you meant "won", but I do not go on to spelling errors to disprove someone. I could say you pulled Kerry, but that would mean you change it from "one" to "won" to "one" and back to "won".
When I have more time I might address your post, but like I said I have to leave for the ship in a few days.
Posted by: Howie at September 2, 2004 10:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Howie,
Fair point...and funny Kerry slam in that too. I liked it almost as much as my Bush comment. Kudos. I actually was teasing you on the Could couldn't thing...It wasn't meant to slam you..I do it myself sometimes. If it came across that way I apologize.
Thanks for serving. Just because I am not in favor of the circumstances in which the war was started (although since we are in Iraq, I don't want to leave as I think that will cause more problems), doesn't mean I don't support our troops 100% (I have several family members fighting overseas). That is the one nice thing about Iraq vs Vietnam...THe protestors are not taking it out on the soldiers; they seem to understand that the soldiers are doing their job and the issue is with the people who make the policies. I wish you a safe trip and hope you return very soon to banter with me again; I enjoy the exchanges, no anger just good conversation...and please don't think I am being sarcastic, as I have never been more sincere in my life.
Again, good luck overseas and may you have a safe and quick return.
Posted by: Michael at September 3, 2004 01:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Rasmussen's tracking poll today showed substantial movement towards Bush, but one can't take tracking polls (especially one day) too seriously. I seem to recall someone saying that Rasmussen had Bush up by 9 points the day before the 2000 election---does anyone know if that's true?"
That's very true. I used to read rasmussen and zogby in 2000, and at the end, zogby was more accurate. Rasmussen has gotten better this time around, and if you compare it to zogby, it's normally 3 or 4 points off. So if rasmussen shows Bush ahead by 5 points, it probably means he's ahead by 1 or 2 points. I call it the Ed correction factor.
Posted by: Ed at September 3, 2004 02:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dear Poll watchers
I have nothing personal against you but let me say this. You are enetitled to your opinion as to what is better for this country and who is the most qualified person for the job.
the problem you have is that you can not separate your desires from your analytical skills.
Example: Ed Fitzgerald EV analysis: Kerry 300 Bush- 238
Come on Ed you can do better than that. Why don't you follow Wayne in Missouris's example for an unbiased EV analysis: Kerry 257 Bush 281.
By the way my analysis yields: Bush 289 Kerry 249.
Good luck in your personal endavours. WalterAlonso
Posted by: Walter Alonso at September 7, 2004 03:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment