chrisishardcore.com

311-227

Here's my prediction for the Presidential election on Tuesday, barring any true October surprise. I'm predicting that in the states that are solidly red or blue, Bush or Kerry will get more than 55% of the vote. In the lightly shaded states, Bush or Kerry will win but with less than 55% of the vote.

As far as the popular vote will break down -- I have no idea. How could I? Could be a blowout either way, could be down to the wire. But this is my prediction for how the states will vote. Notice that there are quite a few more solidly 55%+ Bush states. Could that explain his lead in a lot of the tracking polls, but Kerry's lead in the battleground states, which will truly be battlegrounds?

Don't know. Guess we'll have to see. See you on Tuesday.

Attention Swing Voters

One thing I think most people genuinely believe is that everyone should vote, regardless of who you intend to vote for. At the direction of the Republican Party in Ohio, local GOP activists have been challenging the registration of hundreds and hundreds of voters.

Here is the gist of what happens. When someone registers to vote, your county election office will send a letter with your precinct information to you. If the letter is returned to sender, they will investigate and if it looks like the voter doesn't really live at the address (or the address doesn't exist) then the voter is removed from the rolls after they verify that the registration is suspect.

Overzealous activists or local parties that are up to no good also do this every once in a while. If two roomates live in an aparment but only one's name is on the lease and the bills, sometimes activists will try to claim that the other person doesn't actually live there. In DeKalb County, the local election officials are pretty good at picking out suspect challenges and working to maintain the integrity of the voter lists.

Back to Ohio. The Republican Party sent out registered mail that must be picked up in person to black voters in certain precincts. A large number of them weren't home when the mail came and had a note on their mailbox saying they needed to go to the post office (and wait in line) to sign for a letter from the Republican Party. Most of them probably thought "to hell with that."

So, after a week or two of not picking up the mail, the Post Office returns it to the GOP as undeliverable. Then the GOP uses this as "proof" that the voter registration is suspect and challenges it. One of the voters challenged showed up in court (as did many others) and asked Howard Calhoun, the GOP activist who challenged their eligibility, "Why'd you do it? Who the hell are you?"

Calhoun replied "What the hell do you care?" What the hell do you care. Calhoun challenged a man's right to vote simply because he probably won't vote for his candidate. Millions of Americans have died for that right to vote. And his response is what the hell do you care. If you are still undecided, then obviously both candidates appeal to you somewhat. To decide, why not look at who supports them. And ask yourself, if scum like Howard Calhoun will literally do whatever it takes to prevent people from voting for John Kerry, are you sure you want the candidate he supports to win?

Ahem

I am glad that Andrew Sullivan is officially on board for John Kerry. I do object to one thing he says in his editorial, though. He claims that President Bush has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. Hardly! A drunken liberal Democrat may have spent similar amounts, but the choices of what to spend on make a big difference.

This is one of the reasons that Bush hasn't been able to "buy" the election with his massive spending increases -- they don't actually go to people. Sure, corporations get a lot, specifically drug companies and defense contractors, but when it comes to actual benefits to voters, there isn't much there.

They were promised a drug benefit -- and the drug companies benefited from Bush's bill. They were promised education reform, and local school boards and property owners got the bill. They were promised a leaner defense department and instead money has been spent unaccountably in Iraq. So I would say to Andrew Sullivan that, no, he hasn't spent like a drunken liberal Democrat -- unless that Democrat is seriously impaired.

Wolves

I'm with the rest of the blogsophere in thinking that the wolves ad the Bush campaign has out is pretty pathetic as well as misleading. To most Americans the phrase "after the World Trade Center was attacked" means September 12th 2001 but to the BC04 advertising department apparently it means 1993. Technically true but then again so is the statement "I'm not sure whether George Bush was a coke addict in his 20's"...

Anyway, regarding the Wolves ad. If I were the Bush campaign and I were in charge of making a new "bear" ad, I would do things pretty much entirely different. The Wolves ad is the worst case of Zell Miller fearmongering -- basically if you elect John Kerry you will die of a terrorist attack. The problem with this line of attack is that the official Bush distinction between the two candidates is that one thinks state sponsored terror is the biggest threat to America, and even when it turns out a dangerous state wasn't really that dangerous it was right to attack, and the other candidate thinks states and non-state actors should be weighed on their own merits as to how threatening they are to the United States' security.

Now, knowing that, I would make the wolves ad different were I the Bush campaign. My script would more or less be that there are wolves in the neighborhood. We know some of them are rabid and we can't be certain about the others. Given the choice, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry?

That is a better ad on so many levels. It taps into the uncertainty that Americans feel over terrorism (compared to the non-uncertainty that you will be attacked if you elect Kerry) and it also acknowledges that while Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction we're better off finding out that they didn't than doing nothing and being attacked by them.

Using wolves as a metaphor, it's also a more realistic metaphor. When your children (or whoever) are in danger from wolves, the choice isn't usually between putting them in the hands of someone who promises nothing will happen if he is in charge (but offers no specifics) compared to turning them over to someone who you are almost certain will let the wolves eat your children. No, the choice is whether you personally do something about those wolves or not. And most parents choose to be proactive, better safe than sorry. That happens to be the message of the Bush campaign. Too bad they're too stupid to realize that and make an ad that might actually help them.

Survey USA to Bill Clinton: Come on Down!

Survey USA released 6 state polls yesterday. Kerry leads in Washington, Pennsylvania, Florida and California. He trails closely in North Carolina (50-47) and Arkansas (51-46). Interestingly, in the states he leads in he is doing better among Democratic voters than Bush is doing among Republican voters. That's something we haven't really seen in most national and state polls lately. In North Carolina and Arkansas Bush enjoys more solid support among Republicans than Kerry does among Democrats.

In the two Southern states, Kerry loses a not insignificant share of Democrats. This is most likely due to the fact that there are some older white voters in Southern states who are not ready to shed their Democratic self-ID (see Zell Miller) but vote for pretty much every Republican candidate on their ballot except for sherrif and county commissioner.

Now, these numbers overall look pretty good for Kerry. In states he must win, he's consolidated support among Democrats to levels greater than Bush has shown among Republicans. In each state, he's got a healthy lead among independents.

But what about Arkansas? If you look at the poll results, and especially compare the Presidential results to Blanche Lincoln's senate race (who looks set to romp), demographically it seems that Bill Clinton could seriously help Kerry make up some ground. Democrats and Independents make up a whopping 70% of Arkansas likely voters, and a 5 point net shift among these two groups would put Kerry ahead of Bush. If Kerry gets 2/3's of the current undecideds he'd only be behind by 4 points and would only need to take slightly more than 3 percent of the non-Republicans away from Bush.

Isn't Clinton scheduled to go home to Arkansas to recuperate from his surgery this week? Doesn't his library open soon, and doesn't he love media attention?

AJC buries the lede

The AJC has written three stories based on 1 poll they commissioned last week.

Here are the two stories they emphasized on their website with big headlines:
Georgia Sticking With Republicans
Democratic Georgia Grew Into a GOP Peach

Here is the story they buried:
Perdue vulnerable in '06, poll shows.

Here is what their poll showed:
Bush 51 - Kerry 41. 2000 results Bush 55 (-4) - Gore 43 (-2). So, a net loss of 2 points (and actually greater because of the incumbent rule in polling) and "Georgia sticks with GOP" is trumpeted. More like GOP loses ground in Georgia. And then they write a story about Georgia turning into a Republican state and use 3 solidly Republican counties that voted for Jimmy Carter and no other Democrat in the last 45 years as "proof."

So now they have this poll with Sonny Perdue's job approval rating at 43% and theoretical head to heads with Mark Taylor or Cathy Cox tied in the low 40's. That is a terrible poll for an incumbent. Roy Barnes didn't drop below 50 until the last few months of his re-election campaign, Perdue is already there.

They also say that his 43% job approval rating isn't that much worse than his 46% rating a year ago. That may be true, but the rumor is that his disapproval rating is above 50 by an amount outside the margin of error. In other words, if this is a sound poll, at least half of the state has already decided that it is time for someone new in the governor's office.

The bottom line is that Jim Wooten can argue about how Republican this state is becoming on the opinion page all he wants. But when you commission a scientific survey to actually tell you just how Republican the state is, it might be a good idea to actually report those results without your CW bias seeping through.

Memo to President Bush

If you say you are giving a major poilcy address, don't give a campaign speech. And don't give it in front of a partisan audience that cheers every time you successfully complete a sentence.

And don't mention your opponent. What an asshole.

PS: Maybe your "major policy speech" audience shouldn't chant "flip flop" during your speech either.

Democratic Men???

A lot of weird polls lately. Kerry leads Bush among men in the new Newsweek poll (what happened to their Southern voters breakout?) and trails among women. Odd, but...

In my limited experience looking at Georgia election history and opinion polling I've noticed an odd phenomenon. Many Georgia women are significantly more Republican than their male counterparts. I'm not sure how this can be explained, though I do have my non-scientific theories.

Another thing I've noticed is that younger males seem to be either at a parity or more Democratic than younger females. What gives? I used to think it might be social issues but I'm beginning to think it is draft politics.

Now, the Bush campaign may think it is unfair of me to drag them into this. After all, they are on record as not supporting a draft. But who plans for a draft? Nobody. It's kind of like a tax increase. So you have to ask yourself -- neither candidate wants a draft but it isn't exactly the type of thing you do because you want to, you do it because you have to.

So which candidate's policies would more likely lead to an unplanned draft? Well most voters think that Bush is more likely to start another war, and even if another war was an absolute necessity, Bush is less likely than Kerry to assemble a multilateral coalition to fight it. So that means more troops, and since the armed forces are currently over-stretched, that means some sort of drastic change in the equation to get those troops. I don't see Bush raising pay to recruit troops, it is against his ideology.

So that explains a possible male shift towards Kerry. But what about "draft moms." Maybe it's denial. Maybe "security" is winning out. Anyway, it's possible anyway that you'd have "draft dads" or "draft grandfathers" anyway. Men that are age 50-60 who are likely to have sons aged 18-25 have to know what that creeping feeling their sons are feeling is like. So maybe that explains this bizarre shift.

Of course, it could just be that with a race this close, you're just seeing some normal margin of error nuttiness. Or it could just be an outlier.

Republican PR

The AJC today runs a piece of Republican PR about the state going to the Republicans. Here's the link. Now, the rumor is that they have a little poll conducted at the paper that shows the first Republican governor is not very popular in "Republican" Georgia, but that's beside the story.

Let's look specifically at the counties that they talk about in their story -- Lee, Tift and Houston. All 3 of these counties have seen either a large influx of Northerners move in (who are Republican) or have been "relocation" counties where Republicans moved in from other counties. In Lee's case, Dougherty and Baker counties have gotten more Democratic in recent years (white flight?).

Anyway, Lee County is such a traditionally "Democratic" county that it voted for exactly 1 Democrat for President since 1960 -- Jimmy Carter in 1976 (but not in 1980 when he ran for re-election). Tift County has only voted for Carter (twice) since 1960, and Houston County is the same.

But who are you going to believe? Me, or you own lying eyes. Here is a map (click to enlarge) that shows how the Georgia counties have trended from 1988's (the first year I have data) Bush v Dukakis election to 2000's Bush v Gore election.

Counties that are shaded blue gave Al Gore a higher percent than Dukakis and George W Bush a lower percent than his father. Counties that are red gave Al Gore a lower percent than Dukakis and gave George W Bush a better percent than his father. How do the AJC counties fare? Well, Lee has gotten slighty redder. Dukakis got 25.6% and Gore got 25.4%. Lee has gotten 1.2% more Republican in 12 years. Houston and Tift, on the other hand, have gotten more Democratic, not Republican. Gore did .8% better than Dukakis in Houston and .6% better in Tift. Make your own conclusions.

Georgia polls in 2000

So, we know that the AJC's poll this year shows Bush up 51-41-8. What about 2000? At the end of October in 2000, the AJC released a poll showing Bush leading Gore 53-37-10. Of those 10 percent that were either other/undecided, one could conclude that 6 broke for Gore, 2 for Bush and 2 for other.

You could argue that Gore was the incumbent in 2000 and so these results would seem to go against the incumbent rule. However, in between the release of the AJC poll and election day Bush's DUI was learned about and national polling suggested that this caused the late undecideds to break for Gore.

Whatever the real story was, you can make a pretty good argument that the 50% rule applies to incumbents, and in a race like 2000 whoever was seen to be the winner. After all, in 2000 nobody thought Gore would win Georgia.

I would also point people to those late October/early November AJC polls that showed Barnes leading Perdue in the neighborhood of 48-40. If you recall, Barnes got pretty close to 48 (46 and change) on election day, while Perdue got 40 + pretty much all of the undecideds.

Like 2002, the AJC narrative was pretty much "Georgia Sticks With Barnres." And we all know how that turned out.

Georgia Deadlocked?

The AJC released a poll of Georgia voters showing Bush leading 51-41 with 8% undecided. Inexplicably the headline is "Georgia sticks with GOP." Now, this may be what's actually happening. The poll is by Zogby which a lot of people don't trust, but if you were writing a headline based on this poll a better headline would be "Bush clings to bare majority in Georgia."

Am I crazy? Nope. Does the headline writer know about the 50% and undecideds rule? Nope. Bush is an incumbent President, which means most of those undecideds will break against him, let's say by a 2-1 ratio. If that were the case, Bush could be expected to get about 53% with Kerry taking 47%.

That's not that close, but it is closer than 2000 (when Bush was not running with the powers of incumbency) when the final vote was Bush 55 Gore 43. So, Bush goes from winning the state by 12 points to leading by 10 points (51-41) to what could potentially be a 6 or 7 point victory and the headline is "Georgia sticks with GOP."

The AJC should be smarter than this. First, they should report the actual results of their poll regardless of what the CW is at the paper. They should also recall that their own reporting shows huge gains in voter registration this year (a Newsweek article lists Georgia as one of the few states with a greater than 10% increase in voter registration). These huge gains should place a big astericks in all of their election reporting, and especially considering that Georgia's new registers demographically are more Democratic than the electorate was in 2000 and 2002.

I'm not willing to endorse the notion that Georgia will be that close, but a headline that says "Georgia close" and then says that based on this poll and registration efforts Georgia could theoretically be within 4 or 5 points on election day would be just as valid as "Georgia Sticks with GOP."

Shhhh - she's gay

I agree 100% with Andrew Sullivan's analysis of Kerry's answer to the gay question in last night's debate. Watching the debate, I thought it was one of Kerry's best answers. Only later, when right wing pundits began harping on it did it even occur to me that it was controversal. Call me out of touch if you want, I think it just means that I'm part of a younger generation that views the world differently.

Imagine it is 100 years ago and the candidates are debating women's suffrage. Bush says he's just not sure if women are first class citizens or not -- he doesn't know, the jury is out. And Kerry says I think women should vote, women like the Vice President's daughter. Now, if you think calling someone a woman is an insult, then you would think it was a cheap shot to call someone a woman. Fast forward 100 years. If you think being gay or lesbian is an abomination, then pointing out that someone is gay or lesbian is an insult.

Here is the problem with the right wing attack: Being gay is not a choice and there is nothing wrong with it. No question illustrates Bush's lack of leadership ability better than the question of homosexuality last night. Some time ago, Bush gained a reputation as a leader of morality in America. As a cynical ploy, Bush supported the FMA. Now, plenty of Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality and also concerned in general about marriage and traditional values.

However, only a minority of Americans that will soon be looked on as dinosaurs actually want to restrict the rights of those different than them. This is what Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment does, it is also the biggest problem with Georgia's constitutional amendment. Bush has attempted to hijack a wrong but mostly uninformed fear about marriage and values to crystalize the second-class rights of an entire group of Americans by writing the current status quo into the Constitution.

Kerry has disapointed many liberals with his statement that believes marriage is between a man and a woman. That's something that people on the left have to factor into their judgement. What he has done is oppose the President's FMA for all the right reasons, and he has articulated them. Those same liberals that are upset with Kerry's stand on "marriage" may want to ask themselves whether they thought one year ago that the Democratic nominee for President would stand up for civil benefits for gays and have a good shot at winning and weigh that against any uncomfortability with Kerry's other positions.

Back to Bush, though. The question that the moderator asked was whether Bush believes homosexuality is a choice. Now here is an interesting one. All scientific research over the past 20 years has pretty clearly shown that it is not. The idea that being gay is a choice or that gays can be converted to being straight is quickly losing favor, the major faction that still clings to this fantasy is the religious right (along with some older Americans) and this group also happens to be Bush's strongest supporters.

Personally, aside from politics, I do not believe that Bush thinks homosexuality is a choice. Mary Cheney has made a good living as a gay woman, first working for Coors on gay outreach and then working in politics to try to bring gays into the Republican party. Do I think that Mary Cheney saw that a gay woman could make a lot of money doing this type of work so she chose to be gay? No. I don't think Bush does either.

But Bush is unwilling to stand up to his supporters and tell them what he plainly believes and also what would plainly begin to heal the country -- to unite it instead of dividing it. The religious right trust Bush. They like him. And if he cannot tell his biggest supporters when he believes they are wrong and when it might be a good idea to look within and accept change, how can you expect him to try and influence anyone else?

Kerry, on the other hand, according to the conventional wisdom has everything to lose when the question of gay marriage or gay rights comes up. But he doesn't pander. He says what he believes, and what an increasing number of Americans know is the truth. And he talks about his personal relationships with friends who have struggled to accept what they can not change -- that they are gay. This might upset a housewife in rural Missouri, but so what. Bush clearly knows how to get votes in a campaign, but I think these debates have shown that while he may be good at auditioning for the role of President, he clearly isn't good at being President, or Presidential.

In the debates, and especially in his honest answers to tough social questions on gay rights, abortion and religion, Kerry has shown that he too is good at auditioning for the job of President. But he has also shown something else -- he is Presidential and I believe he has the capacity to be a great President. If you believe that being gay or lesbian is a sin, then you probably don't see eye to eye with me on this matter -- Bush is your guy. But if you're undecided, do you really think that you should be making the same decision as a shrinking group of bigots who truly want to divide this country and world instead of uniting it? It's something to think about.

UPDATE: A commenter bases their objection on the fact that Cheney is a family member and family should be off limits. Certainly if a family member has a DUI then that would have nothing to do with the race (unless the candidate has proposed 0 tolerance on DUI's but pulled strings to get his own son to avoid jail time, etc). The problem with the family thing is that this issue specifically relates to family values and more specifically to making certain Americans second class citizens. The fact that Bush thinks Mary Cheney should be a second class citizen and Kerry thinks she shouldn't is valid because it shows how hypocritical Bush is when it comes to "values." Additionally, you could make a de-facto argument that even though Laura Bush and the twins campaign actively for George's election they are "off limit." That's probably true, but no one seemed to get upset when Kerry said good things about the Bush twins and Laura, and in fact if you look at what Kerry said about Mary Cheney I believe he was also complimenting her.

The real problem with this argument though is that Mary Cheney is a paid employee of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Now, she probably wouldn't work for the campaign if she truly thought her father and Bush wanted to pass the FMA amendment. I think they don't really want to, they are just pandering to their base. And what better way to point it out then to point out that Mary Cheney works for a campaign that holds the official position that she should not have the rights that other American citizens have. The real issue should be directed to the President -- how can you support the FMA and tell Mary Cheney that the way she was born was a choice she made, or how can you cynically say you support the FMA when it's pretty clear that you're just using it as an election issue.

The bottom line: If you think family is off limits then it should be off limits across the board. If Kerry can't pay a compliment to Mary Cheney because in doing so he has to mention that she's gay, then Bush shouldn't be allowed to talk about how great Kerry's daughters are because they are strong women.

Ask yourself this, if Kerry had said the same thing about Mary Cheney but hadn't said the "l" word, would they still be outraged. And would it be right? And finally, when Alan Keyes said that Mary Cheney was a "selfish hedonist" Dick Cheney didn't say anything. When Kerry said she was a strong woman he respected who was a lesbian and that that was the way she was born he said he was an "angry father." Some value system.

Bush's Wonderful Ideology vs Kerry's Grim Reality

Another thing I've been meaning to comment on is the moderate conservative tendency (looking straight at you Andrew Sullivan) to frame their choice this presidential election between Bush, who is regarded as incompetent but in possession of a wondrous ideology of the transformative effect of democracy promotion, and Kerry who seems competent and intelligent but is more interested in fighting an old fashioned war that doesn't so much emphasize democracy promotion.

This is a false choice. Of course Bush's ideology sounds great. Lower taxes. Everyone owns a home. Democracy abroad. The most wonderful healthcare at home. How could you not like this stuff?

Andrew Sullivan seems to be arguing, more or less, that some other more competent Republican would be preferable to Kerry. I would tell him to get in touch with reality. You can't have Bush's ideology and have better outcomes.

First of all, Sullivan is inspired by Bush's belief that Democracy has transformative effects that will end terrorism. For one thing, he certainly didn't believe this pre-9/11. I'd argue that he doesn't believe this now either. He's had limited success in places where he has actually pursued this strategy, and this lover of freedom hasn't done anything about the lack of freedom in North Korea or Iran (two states that are a direct threat to the United States) or Saudi Arabia and Russia (two states where Democracy is in retreat but aren't threats).

In fact, it seems clear that the #1 priority of Bush in North Korea and Iran is securing and eliminating their weapon producing capabilities. And the way he's going about doing it will only strengthen the hand of the dictators already in power. So how can you with a straight face suggest that Bush's ideology of freedom beats Kerry's ideology of competence.

I guess you could say that the jury is out on Kerry's competence. The case is closed on just how much stock Bush puts in his ideology.

Imagine Bush as Andrew Sullivan's deadbeat gay dad who shows up once a year, promises him the world and then goes back to Texas after the weekend is over. And now imagine John Kerry as Andrew Sullivan's custodial gay father who is competent and a good parent but is also strict and realistic. Up until a certain age, the excitement and promise of Bush is hard to say no to. But eventually you learn that he's basically a deadbeat gay dad and you were lucky to grow up with a responsible parent like Kerry.

LIBERAL!!! LIBERAL!!!

As others like New Donkey have predicted, Bush is resorting to the triedest and truest trick in the GOP playbook -- "HE'S A LIBERAL! MOST LIBERAL SENATOR!!!".

Well, OK, whatever. Isn't it just a wee bit disingenuous to level that charge when for better (Democracy promotion) and for worse (huge deficits, huge increases in government spending, huge increases in government entitlement spending) you yourself have somewhat less than a conservative record?

Interestingly, one of the National Journal votes that they used to rank Kerry was on a balanced budget requirement. Kerry voted in favor of it -- and National Journal marks this as a liberal vote. Um, excuse me? Since when exactly? Until very recently "liberals" supported increased federal spending especially if that meant going into deficit.

It seems, basically, that National Journal actually ranked Kerry the most Democratic senator. If a majority of Democrats voted for something it is the "liberal" vote and if Republicans voted for it, the "conservative" vote. Since Kerry has been campaigning, he has mostly cast procedural votes -- which usually break along party line. So it's not surprising.

Survey USA

While I do not expect Kerry to win Georgia, I would caution anyone to take Survey USA's Georgia polls that seriously. I can't comment on other states because I don't live there or know the geography that well, but I can tell you the following:

It seems that SUSA overweights suburban respondents. According to them, only 11% of Georgian's live in a big city and a whopping 55% are suburban. Other polls I've seen do a better job of breaking this down, but usually the urban number (where both Majette and Kerry lead) is closer to 18 or 20, and the true suburban number is more like 35. Survey USA gets rid of the small town choice, so really you're left without that option.

Another thing I'd point out is that their partisan and ideological ids seem to be a little off. 47% of the state is conservative while only 11% is liberal? Probably more like 40% self id's as strictly conservative while closer to 20% id's as liberal. They have Republicans with about a 10 point edge, ARG actually gave Democrats a 4 point edge and other polls have similarly given Republicans a small edge within the margin of error.

They also have Bush and Isakson with astronomical leads among white voters. What this basically says is that the average white voter in Georgia is just like the average white voter in Forsyth County, and I can tell you that the average white voter in Georgia is actually 10-15 points more Democratic than the average Forsyth resident.

So take this SUSA poll with a grain of salt. Maybe it's because they take the first X number of respondents that they get. From what it looks like, they don't do many callbacks or pairings, and other pollsters just wouldn't do that. Now here is the problem with trying to "right" a poll that seems wrong...when you have methodological errors that throw the whole poll out of whack, it's hard to do a correction at all. I could speculate that just talking to voters in Georgia who are at home for the first phone call they get skews the poll Republican -- it certainly seems that way. But there is no way to be sure.

And so the best thing to do is just take this poll with a big grain of salt. Al Gore won DeKalb county with about 71% of the vote last time. DeKalb is about 55% black, 35% white and 10% other. According to SUSA, Kerry can expect to get about 59.5% this time in DeKalb. Do you think that's going to happen?

VP Debate

I thought the VP debate was mostly a draw, but then again I wasn't expecting that much out of it. The questions weren't very good, I thought Cheney did better than Edwards for the first half and Edwards did better than Cheney in the second half.

One thing that did bother me was what some pundits called Cheney's most effective line -- that despite presiding over the Senate he'd never met Edwards. Now, this line is demonstrably false. For one thing, there is this picture:

On the other hand, I seem to remember back in the pre-9/11 days when tax cuts were the order of the day there were a number of votes that were exactly 50-50 that Cheney had to tie-break. The point Cheney was trying to make was that Edwards has missed a lot of days in the Senate, but the point he specifically made was that he's never seen him in the Senate. Cheney may not have chatted him up like he does with Patrick Leahy, but when the vote is 50-50 that means every single senator (including Edwards) votes and Cheney is also in the chamber to break the tie.

The problem with this kind of embellishment of the truth is that if a Democrat did it, Drudge and the Bush campaign would be all over it. When Cheney, or Bush (who lied in Philly about the type of cheese he prefers on his cheesesteak sandwiches) or Arnold or Rudy Giuliani does it, nobody seems to care. Hmm.

Centrism

So, Marshall Whittman, McCainiac #1 endorses John Kerry and joins the centrist DLC. Wither moderate Republicanism? Something to think about over the next few weeks, and especially in light of how the election breaks down, is the future of moderate/conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans.

Of course, a lot of the blogosphere reserves much of their contempt for these two breeds, but the American people haven't been so quick to embrace this contempt. Polls pretty consistently show that about 25% of the population describe themselves as liberal, 40% moderate and 35% conservative. I suspect that the liberal and conservative numbers are actually closer to each other and the moderate number is either a little bigger (including some of the conservatives) or a little lower (bleeding a little to the liberal side).

One of the problems with those labels is that over the last 30 years being a "liberal" is NOT a good thing and being a "conservative" is. A better poll would pick 10 or 15 questions and score people on a liberal/moderate/conservative scale based on their answers and not whatever label they personally feel comfortable with.

I might describe myself as a conservative Democratic but in actuality there are Democrats far more conservative than myself; at the same time a Republican might call me a liberal and not even grant me admission to the moderate's club. On the other hand, I'm comfortable with Democrats far more conservative (or liberal) than me whereas it seems a lot of the GOP power structure would just assume right off the Northeast if they could lock up the South and West.

Which brings me back to the original point I was trying to make, sort of. It seems very possible that the moderate Republican is heading the way of the dinosaur. Is the same thing happening to moderate Democrats or can they thrive? If you look at where we are right now, and think about where support will shift, it actually paints a pretty rosy picture for the DLC types.

Of all of the constituencies that support Democrats, the growing ones (affluent minorities and suburban whites) will look to a moderate force to either sustain their party identification or convert it. Meanwhile, Republican maximization in rural areas depends on a heavy emphasis on social issues which may squeeze some remaining conservative Democrats but makes it even harder for moderate Republicans in suburban areas to form coalitions with their new mouth-breathing cousins from the hills.

Now, back to McCain. Why exactly does he so enthusiastically support Bush whenever he's called on by the campaign? Doesn't make much sense to me. If Bush wins, you will not be the nominee of the GOP in 2008 unless your name is Jeb Bush. On the other hand, if Bush loses, McCain will be looking to revive his brand of Republicanism from what will be a shellshocked party...But why would they listen to him? In his primary he railed against the religious right and corporate influence over the GOP but doesn't seem to have a problem with Bush's pandering and handouts to the same group. It seems more likely to me that a Deaniac conservative will step up in the event of a Bush loss.

Which makes you wonder -- either McCain really has a problem with the modern GOP ala Lincoln Chafee or it's just a nice topic of conversation when he's with his base (news reporters). If I were a moderate Republican I'd be worried when the leaders of my "movement" don't seem to take it seriously and the proponents are seriously considering cutting and running.

Laziness vs Ignorance

First of all, a memo to Kerry supporters: This thing ain't over yet. Keep working.

About the debate: One thing that really came through to me, and I suspect on a below the radar level to many other viewers is Bush's laziness. The misperception, cultivated by Bush and his handlers over the years, is that what makes Bush average is his intelligence and demeanor. They know that, for whatever reasons, a sizable bloc of Americans resents intelligence but respects hard work. Therefor the narrative that they have worked hard to construct is that while Bush may not be the smartest guy (although they never came out and said he was dumb) his heart is in the right place, or he's a good manager -- he hires the best and brightest below him and works as some sort of referee to make the best ideas rise to the top.

What I got watching the debate though was what's really going on. Bush is a smart guy, and has been his entire life. He may have gotten some consideration getting into Yale and Harvard, but he got in nonetheless. And he's always been able to talk his way out of an obligation he wants no part of or a business deal gone awry -- he always lands on his feet and that suggests a great deal of street smarts if not book smarts. The real problem with Bush though is that he's lazy (again, at Yale and Harvard he made straight C's, not because he's dumb but because he was coasting).

It was pretty obvious to me during the debate that the real cause of Bush's poor performance is that he hasn't been challenged on any of his positions by anyone for the last 4 years. Certainly not the Congress or the press, but it seems that he doesn't even bother having debate at all among his own advisors as to what kind of course the country should take. That's dangerous and that's what came through in the debate.

Bush/Cheney has been desperate to frame this election as a choice between a Kerry who is brainy but dishonest and Bush who is dumb but honest and hard working. That's a contest that, in a just world they shouldn't be able to win but in our world it's at least possible. If it turns out that choice is between brainy yet honest and dumb and lazy, they don't have a prayer. Even if Bush is smart and lazy...good luck.

Quite frankly, Kerry doesn't have a panacea for Iraq. The problem for Bush is that Kerry might not know exactly what to do about Iraq but Bush's "more of the same" is what got us in this mess in the first place. In Karl Rove's world, someone who has no idea what to do loses to the guy who messed it up. Bush helped Kerry in the debate by showing that no matter what, he can't be bothered to admit things in Iraq aren't exactly heading in the right direction and then sit down and have a rational discussion and debate to try to fix things.

Voters now know that while neither man has the cure-all only Kerry is likely to sit down, think it out, ask the world for help and at least try to make a success out of Iraq. If the debate were a Mastercard ad, it might say "Advertising pointing out that your opponent changes his mind: $250 million. Showing America that you're stubborn and lazy and that maybe changing your mind isn't such a bad thing: Priceless."