[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

[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.