[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Right. You're going to get one of these once a day between now and Tuesday. They're mostly directed at my friends who are feeling mopish about the potential for a Kerry victory.

Today, I've got an Al Giordano essay for you. Al is one smart cookie. He predicted Kerry's victory in Iowa. He knows Kerry and Kerry's people really well. He is not randomly making stuff up to make himself feel better.

See, here's the deal. Kerry fits nicely into the frame of "another boring liberal from Massachusetts." If you want to take the lazy way out, you just recycle all the Dukakis stories and you've got yourself a news cycle. Now, I liked Dukakis -- but Kerry is simply a tougher candidate. He knows what it means to be on the national stage. He is the guy who refused to let go of the BCCI scandal, he's the guy who defeated an incredible popular William Weld in his last election, he's the guy who wins.

If Kerry wasn't charismatic -- if he wasn't good at what he does -- Nixon wouldn't have singled him out for special attention in the 70s. Nothing's changed. The media frame is wrong. Kerry is not Dukakis.

Read Al's piece. More tomorrow.

Comments

[rfrancis]

Did you catch Zogby calling the election in Kerry's favor on the Daily Show last night?

-R

[bryant]

I didn't, but I heard about it. I take it with a grain of salt since I don't see why I should trust Zogby when I don't trust any other pollers -- nobody's polling cell phones, and that's gonna be significant. But it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and he's been pretty solid so far.

I'm keeping an eye on his site for that prediction, and it'll be one of my daily posts if he posts about it.

[rfrancis]

Mostly I was just startled by his lack of squirming. He was quite forthright -- Bush is the incumbent, Bush's numbers are less than half, undecideds break against the incumbent, ergo Bush loses. Of course, the problem I see with that argument (other than your observation about cell phones, which Zogby himself mentioned, but also said that he thought that cell-only people were very likely to be tilted towards Kerry as well) is that it tells us what the _popular_ vote will do, which as we all are thoroughly aware is not the whole story, or even perhaps the important part.

On the other hand, it might break down similarly -- it's just harder to see. I looked at Zogby's latest Florida poll which has 48% Bush and 47% Kerry and nothing really on the radar for anyone else. Now, that's 27 electoral votes for Bush, except the undecideds (5%, apparently) breaking for Kerry changes where those go (fraud and mishap questions about Florida determinedly aside for the moment.) So who knows? Definitely polls don't show Bush substantially ahead in anywhere near enough states to lock it up -- I notice in Virginia's latest Mason-Dixon poll that the percentage ascribed to undecideds is at least enough to tie it up, which is not what I'd expect to happen in Virginia.

So in short: I dunno. :)

-R

[bryant]

Oh, yeah. The undecided thing is really important and really clear.

When you look at the polls in the battleground states, I think you see the same dynamic in play. National polls aren't all that important right now -- it's Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And if you apply the undecided rule to those, by most polls, Kerry wins enough.

Which is why I'm confident.

Hey, speaking of which -- how're things looking in Oklahoma in the Carson/Coburn race?

[rfrancis]

Like I want to hit myself in the head with a ballpeen hammer, repeatedly.

Let's be honest. Carson is an embarrassment to even the most moderate Democrat. He savages Coburn for being against the Patriot Act (one of Coburn's very few virtues) and, well, everyone should know the list by now. On the other side, Coburn is a nut, an annoyance even to the hardline Republicans because of, I dunno what you'd call it, his literalist interpretation of old-school conservatism. (Which I sometimes have some sympathy for, honestly, since at least he's consistent about it, but still. Nut.)

As far as numbers, last I knew they were still polling well within the margin of error. Neither is incumbent to the senate seat and both held the same freakin' house seat serially, so I couldn't begin to guess where it'll wind up. Me, I'm trying to decide whether to vote for the independent, who believes the government put a radio receiver in her head in the 70s.

-R

[multiplexer.livejournal.com]

Michigan will not go for Bush. Of that much, you can be certain.

Hold me, Bryant

[bluegargantua]

I've been out to Nebraska where the only Bush/Kerry stickers we saw were on two out-of-state cars (and one of those was from MA!).

Also, I'm not mopish so much about Kerry's chances of winning. I'm mopish that this is even a contest. Kerry should be winning this by leaps and bounds. The country continues to polarize and I dunno what we're going to do about it.

mope
Tom

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

Sadly, I can't help with that mope. I think the divisions in this country are incredibly worrisome and I don't particularly have much hope. Except maybe if Bush loses and the Republicans put their house in order. Sigh.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[mcurry.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I think Bush losing might be the best thing for the long-term interests of the Republican party, if only because it'll demonstrate that a complete disregard for truth and the rule of law isn't a winning strategy. There are saner heads among the Republicans who would probably love to clean house, and Bush losing might enable them to get that done.

Of course, if Bush manages to win, the Repubs seem likely to go spinning off ever further into the fantasy-based world.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

I agree.

I think, actually, that the most significant Senate race of this quarter century was the Kerry/Weld race in Massachusetts. Obviously if Kerry had lost, he wouldn't be running for President -- but more significantly, if Weld had won, it would have had significant repercussions for the Republican Party.

Weld was certainly considering a run for the Presidency in 2000. If he had been able to win, I think he would have run, and I think he would have had a very good chance of winning as a moderate. After Newt's disastrous Contract with America, there was a period during which the Repubs were uncertain of their direction. Consider a New England moderate senatorial block with Jeffords, Chafee, Snowe, and Weld -- it probably winds up including Arlen Spector, and you've got the basis for a pretty strong caucus there.

Could Weld have beaten Bush for the nomination, and would McCain have still run? Dunno, but I'd be willing to bet that either a) McCain would have run stronger if he'd had the imaginary moderate NE Republican block behind him, or b) Weld would have been running with McCain's support.

So yeah. Kerry/Weld was a very pivotal moment, there.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[rfrancis]

Not to keep harping on Zogby's appearance last night, but another interesting thing he said is right along the lines of your comment -- something to the effect (sadly I can't find a transcript yet) that there are effectively two countries now vying for dominance. That's an appalling thought, particularly how well that's gone historically.

-R

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

One of my serious answers to the question is that I think the United States ought to decentralize significantly. Not dissolve, but put more significant power back in the hands of the states. I might think that Texas (sorry, Ginger) would be worse off if it didn't have a liberal federal government preventing certain things, but that doesn't mean I think that Texas shouldn't have the ability to make its own mistakes.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[rfrancis]

I tend to agree that the argument can be made that increased federalist tendencies on both sides of the aisle, in particularly on some hot topic issues, have rubbed the country pretty raw. On the other hand, states rights have been used to back some awful things in the past. Democracy is hard.

And now I go to lunch. :)

-R

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I just think that all the crazy free market republicans should take their ideologies to the logical extreme and stat that the only states whose electoral votes count are the ones that pay mroe in taxes then they get back in bnefits. Oh wait, those are mostly traditional Democratic states....

[head58.livejournal.com]

I think I'm feeling a little better about Kerry's chances than I hve in the past but still not gleeful. Slate has him up in enough states to put him over, but Wisconsin and MN are teetering. If I were Kerry, I'd forget Florida this weekend and work on shoring up those states, while chippng at Iowa. And tagging Ohio one more time can't hurt.

But then, I always lose at election-type boardgames.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this, Bryant. The sun came out after I read it and a cute little kid sat down next to me while I was eating lunch and mimicked my posture. Maybe all is not lost.

[bryant]

Truly my pleasure. The cute little kid gouged me for ten bucks but I figure it was worth it to bring a smile to the face of my fave PhD.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Hee.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Um, that post will make very little sense to those who don't know I was talking about I Heart Huckabees before & thus riffing on how random events can seem fraught with meaning.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

I saw a sixteen year old kid on my street wearing a Dead Kennedys T-shirt last night. I too have a renewed hope for the future.

[lintra.livejournal.com]

Yes, please keep giving us these, because even in my very liberal workplace the Bushies and praying like all get out.

The sports angle is funny, because one of our repubs is following the polls like sports statistics.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

In my darkest, most cynical moments, I think that the polls are simply laying the groundwork for the GOP to steal this election. With the electronic voting and the like on the go, on election night they could call the election a win for Bush and who could say it was a lie? I mean, the polls were inconclusive either way before the election, so it's not like there's even that to "fact check" against.

I suspect Kerry is going to need an overwhelmingly clear victory to gain the Presidency, otherwise this is going to be played out in the GOP court for months.

[multiplexer.livejournal.com]

I believe the only state in the Union to overwhelmingly use the electronic voting machines is Maryland, and in the Liberal Jewish Republic of Maryland, the Bushies all have to come from Virginia.

It's a little worrying about Florida, though. I'm firmly against the electronic voting machines until they pop out receipts like ATM machines. I've used the Diebold machines before, though, and there's no way to tell if your vote goes into a hopper or not. I assume it does but who can tell?