Thursday, October 28, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)
So who's going to win the election?
I don't know.
You don't know either.
Oh, and if you think you know, well, you're full of it. [I know, I know!!--ed. No, no you don't.]
There are now a lot of sites providing Electoral Map projections, and all of them showing a close race in way too many battleground states. But these are all based on polling techniques that, in recent years, have elevated margins for error. Over at Slate, William Saletan, David Kenner, and Louisa Herron Thomas have a summary of the various bells and whistles each polling service has -- but none of them can correct for the problem of declining response rates. Richard Morin makes this point in today's Washington Post:
Keep this in mind when someone trumps a one or two point lead by their candidate. And check out Mark Blumenthal on the cell phone issue.
There is one wild card, however, that I haven't seen discussed all that much. While much of the concern about third party tickets is whether Ralph Nader would get votes for Kerry, this Electoral Vote Map points to another potential third-party spoiler:
I've largely tuned out on the polls, but I don't think I've seen many of them with Badnarik included. With the number of states within the margin for error, that three percent could matter. UPDATE: The Weekly Standard's Rachel DiCarlo runs with the Badnarik meme, observing, "In September, a Rasmussen poll gave Badnarik three percent of the vote in Nevada, and in August Rasmussen showed him taking five percent of the vote in New Mexico--both considered potential swing states."
Readers are invited to suggest the biggest factor that is not showing up in the polling data but could decide the election -- as well as who you think will actually win.posted by Dan on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM
Two factors: The incredible mobilization of progressive organizations to GOTV, and the shocking mobilization by Republicans to disenfranchise voters.
Regardless of who wins though, it will be a victory for the progressives, thanks to bush (the uniter). They have created a coalition of highly organized, well funded organizations which empower citizens, not the 'Democratic party' or big business. There might even be a good chance for democracy to realize it's potential, undistorted by special interests. My cynical side keeps reminding me that 'power corrupts', but I'm sticking to optimism for now.posted by: kamajii on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Every four years we read stories predicting record high turnout, and they're almost always wrong. It does stand to reason, though, that the efforts made in many states to make it as easy as possible to vote will drive up turnout at least somewhat. We really won't know until after Nov. 2 if, for example, people allowed to vote early here in Georgia are mostly people who otherwise would vote in the normal way, but early voters could include many who would otherwise not vote at all.
What difference this could make I can't say. The rules are not the same in all states; Georgia is expected to go solidly for Bush and has only a few contested races down the ballot, so this state may not be typical. It could be that voters most easily discouraged -- the apathetic, the ignorant, the very young -- are more likely to vote Democratic, but on the other hand marginally engaged voters are also most likely to vote for people whose names they recognize, in other words for incumbents.
Nationally I don't know what is going to happen. What I think is going to happen is a win for Kerry in an election that will not be as close as polls now suggest. There are just too many things now that people are either unhappy about (Iraq), nervous about (terrorism) or both (the economy) that can either be blamed on President Bush or appear more than he is able to deal with. My own doubts about Kerry are great enough that I am voting for Bush, but if this election does turn out to be mostly a referendum on the incumbent Bush won't win.posted by: Zathras on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Sure am glad I haven't spent the last few months assiduously tracking the numbers! Polls may be a useful tool for plotting strategy but they're a really cheap form of news. I for one, wouldn't mind seeing a whole lot less of them.posted by: JM Hanes on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Excellent post. You are dead on right.
What is the missing factor?
I honestly believe the progressive GOTV drive is the missing denominator.
Contra Zathras, I don't recall hearing about high turnout every election cycle. I tend to remember the opposite. I seem to remember reading that Americans seem as disengaged from the process as ever before.
And then Bush rode into town ...
Bush has done what the Democrats, in all their bungling, could never do. Unite the Left. Liberal folks are _pissed_ and highly, highly organized. Bush is the Martin Luther King of the new century, but not in the way that is helpful to his cause.
I simply don't sense the same passion and cohesion from the right. Sure, the commentators and bloggers are blustery, but my conservative parents from Georgia are leaning Kerry. Anecdotal, sure ... but damn.
Sure, some Democrats have come out for Bush, but that is no big surprise. Democrats are a notoriously befuddled group. But the fact that some leading conservatives and conservative publications have come out against Bush should frighten anyone who is part of the typically (admirably) tight, and on message Republican organization.
Polls try to gauge your belief while you are sitting on a couch. Voting requires you to get up, stand in lines, and make your beliefs known.
On Election Day, there will not be a single progressive butt on the couch. But there may be a few conservative ones. Enough to swing the election.posted by: Tito on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Here's a case of - hold on to your hats - an illegal alien who's a deputy registrar of voters in Racine, Wisconsin. Just how ironic would it be if Bush's general Open Borders policies come back to haunt him in a big way?
With or without the illegal alien vote, I think Kerry's going to win. People are going to have a last minute realization of just how inept the Bush administration has been. Constant news about al Qaqaa, the flu vaccine shortage, and all the rest is going to dominate the media for the next few days. Of course, if there's a big splashy drive on Falluja people might actually buy it. Or, they might realize our war president is playing politics with peoples' lives and decide it's time for a change.posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
this might be interesting for those who want to play along at home:
its a small free election prediction application for windows.posted by: mouser on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I think the biggest factor that will prove polls wrong is the underrepresented young and new voter registration that tilts sharply to Kerry but yet isn't picked up very well in polls. This will make Kerry win the election (I'm saying 50-48 Popular, 304-234 electoral.) And there is going to be no Schilling factor anywhere much less New Hampshire. He's a pitcher, anyone who votes Bush because a pitcher tells them to was going to vote Bush anyway.posted by: Erik on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
For partisans it is agonizingly close. I continue to believe that Kerry will win some of the very close races. OH + NH and holding PA + MI + MN, losing NM + IA is the most likely scenario.
The Badarnik issue may be a factor in NV and NM, where there is a strong libertarian streak. Maybe in AZ as well, but that state doesn't look in play.posted by: erg on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I know one factor that will have NO impact on the election: self-important declarations by the likes of Drezner and Andrew Sullivan that they're voting for Kerry. Why a self-proclaimed Republican (that's you, Dan) would very publicly announce that he's voting for the Democratic nominee simply escapes me. Good luck finding work in a Kerry administration. Oh, and do you think the GOP will welcome you back with open arms? Ask Bob Smith, who's squatting on a toadstool somewhere in Florida as I write this. Elephants, God bless 'em, never forget.
This imperative you hawkish bloggers feel to tell the world that you've given up on Bush strikes me as utterly irrational. Your single vote is, of course, almost meaningless, and I really doubt this blog reaches enough people to persuade many fence-sitters to break Kerry's way. The costs to your career, Dan, far outweigh any conceivable benefits that your declaration for Kerry can possibly create. Haven't you learned anything about simple economics at the U of C?
I suppose behavioralism, not economics, supplies the only plausible explanation here. The hawks' urge to publicly come out for Kerry stems, I think, from simple narcissism: "Look at me! I blog! I'm rad! I'm voting for John Kerry! And I'll never work in a Republican administration ever again! Woo hoo! Look at me!!"
Or am I missing something?posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
It has been estimated that 8-10% of the US has already voted in early voting. I assume they are estimating that based on a voter turnout similar or slightly higher than last election. Anyway, those sort of number mean exit polling is probably going to be worthless and we are going to have another late night of news orgs calling the wrong winner, and many a prematurely popped cork.posted by: Ernie Oporto on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I do think it is incredibly close to call, and I do think that there are many, many potential surprises in the battleground states.
At the same time, I have to admit Bush has been consistently ahead in the broad polling.
So overall, I would give Bush the edge going into the weekend, but it is still too close to call.
As a Bostonian and a huge Sox fan, I do think Schilling could sway a few voters. It won't have a material effect in Massachusetts, but it could in Maine and New Hampshire, where the Red Sox are every bit as popular and the polling is closer.posted by: William Trippe on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Who's Manny (that's Ramirez, not Ortez, Sen. Kerry) the newest citizen on the team endorsing? I'd pay money to hear that one.
As someone who worked the polls in our new electronic touchscreen age (in off years, mind you), I'm predicting a number of deaths in the lines--of boredom. Older voters (whose fingers tend to be dessicated and do not easily register onscreen) and those who are not, shall we say, comfortable with modern technologies (a good half the population--don't believe the hype) are going to snarl things up for everyone. After 45 minutes of an unmoving line the only people remaining will be the unemployed, the students and the other elderly.
I once sat in line for three hours to vote for senator of North Carolina. Why? The rumor was that Jesse Helms' minions broke the machines in the heavily Dem. Durham district, so we had to wait ages for the few good ones. True? Who knows. But if that kind of thing happens next week, the lawyers are moving in with their posse.
People are not going to pay hefty late pick-up fees to their babysitters or daycare centers to be able to cast a vote for a guy they don't like much (which one?). This means that large numbers of people who have EVERY intention of voting next week will in fact NOT cast a ballot. This in turn renders the polls worthless. It's a crapshoot people. Live with it.posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
1. Popular: Bush 52%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%.
2. Electoral: Bush 280+, Kerry under 258.
3. Bush gets >15% of the African-American vote.
4. Bush gets >35% of the Hispanic vote.
5. Republicans pick up 1 Senate seat.
"Stealth" reasons (in no particular order of importance):
1. Swift Boat Vets.
2. Gay marriage.
3. This isn't Spain.
4. Teresa Heinz Kerry.
5. Backlash against Big Media.
"Constant news about al Qaqaa, the flu vaccine shortage, and all the rest is going to dominate the media for the next few days."
al Qaqaa seems to have dissolved as new information has come out. The flu shortage is the result mainly of changes that pre-date Bush. Maybe what you mean is that imaginary problems, and stuff that isn't Bush's fault, will be blamed on Bush. But I'd gotten the impression you were referring to actual incompetence.posted by: clarence on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
First, as to d.j.'s comments -- Drezner is ending his career? Say what now? A vote for Kerry is hardly a death knell in the academic world in which Drezner works. And let's not forget General Clark. During primary season, I heard he had voted for Reagan back in the day (as did a whole host of people, though I can't fathom why). Point is, someone who voted for a Republican in the past actually was in the Democratic presidential primaries! So maybe it's just a touch to soon to think that Drezner will forever be barred from setting foot in the GOP camp again. Not all are as vindictive as Karl Rove. Wasn't that McCain I saw on stage in NYC...? Yes, I do seem to recall that Bush-criticizing AZ senator returned to the fold. Finally, this is not a question of economics. Economics says the best person for the job would be hired. This is politics. And yes, we do have some game in that department here.
As to the unaccounted for factor, I'm placing my money on the youth vote. (Oh, if wishing made it so.) There are colleges in every state and I'm counting on their mobilization efforts to swing this election the right direction. Polls track LIKELY voters. Young voters, by definition, are not included, because they haven't voted before. Twice as many people watch The Daily Show as Hardball, The Wash Post reported. No, we're not watching for the news. We're watching for the satire, because we're as pissed as JS. We're a large generation and have the numbers to make a difference.posted by: lmc on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
We're witnessing the death of polling.
I hope.posted by: h0mi on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
DJ's a moron. At a minimum, Dan's admission that he's voting for Kerry is strong evidence that a significant portion of the reasonable Republican party either is going to do the same. Nor is Dan likely to be lonely - there are lots of the Reasonable Republicans out there who have quietly and not so quietly criticized this Administration. So if he lost a career opportunity, it's the opportunity to work for the mouth-breathers that drive GWB's wing of the party. Small beer indeed.posted by: SomeCallMeTim on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
al Qaqaa seems to have dissolved as new information has come out.
Quite the opposite. I'd suggest checking all the links here.
But, in the unlikely event that al Qaqaa "dissolves" you seem to have missed the bigger picture. The bigger picture weighs hundreds of thousands of pounds. Saddam had the fourth largest arsenal in the world. We've only managed to account for around 500,000 tons out of 1 or 2 million tons. Imagine that: 1 or 2 million tons of war materiel.
Some of that will be found, and some of that has been destroyed. However, the bottom line is invading Iraq as we did dispersed Saddam's arsenal to the wind. In other words, it had the opposite effect to what we were promised.
If Bush is reelected, get used to seeing al Qaqaa-style coverage over and over again.
The flu shortage is the result mainly of changes that pre-date Bush.
That's partially true. However, it's also irrelevant. The Bush administration had a fiduciary duty to ensure that America would get the proper number of flu shots.
All our "eggs" were in two "baskets." As they say, when you put all your eggs in one (or two) baskets, you better keep your eye on those baskets. Did they keep their eyes on the two remaining flu vaccine suppliers upon which America was relying? No.
The FDA had discovered problems at the Liverpool plant in 2003. And, they knew (or should have known) that the plant had a "history". It had changed hands a few times in recent years.
Despite all that, the FDA did not inspect the Liverpool plant throughout all of 2004.
A whole lotta links here.
For those who want the short version, see "Without a Clue on Flu: A Hapless Performance on the Flu Vaccine".posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Tonight I caught ten minutes of Hardball--bring back the World Series, please!--and what do I see? A "huge" breaking story about...Halliburton. Apparantly the civil servant (black, female) in charge of seeing that minority and female owned small businesses get their piece of the military pie has been shocked (shocked) at the way in which Halliburton swooped in and kept all that Iraq business from small shopkeepers. She's a brave whistleblower, blah, blah.
This is called throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks. Chris Matthews has fallen into a pit (and he can't get up) with crap like this, and former viewers like me won't soon be back.
Individually these crappy little stories may work. Collectively they stink to high heaven. It will backfire, like the Guardian's brilliant scheme to write to all those ignorant fools in Ohio. If that little stunt cost Kerry Ohio, what irony then?posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I just discovered the secret factor that will swing this election Bush's way! It's SomeCallMeTim and the rest of the Michael Moore lunatic left who can't play nice and are single handedly responsible for scores of Reasonable Republicans (such as, I'd submit, me) to pull the lever for Bush. So long as con artists and name-callers like Michael Moore and Tim are the face of the Democratic party, I'll vote GOP every time. And so will many, many other people.
As for Dan. lmc makes a good point: Drezner's public support for Kerry no doubt earned him some back slaps from his leftwing homies in the academy. Maybe he'll even make tenure now. But it'll be lonely in that ivory tower, as Dan watches those libertarian Republicans who opted to work within the Party (instead of publicly and faithlessly turning away) as they continue to fight hard making sure the GOP stands for free trade and lower regulation and skepticism toward international institutions. That's what I'll be doing. Without Drezner, I'm afraid...
Come on Republicans - admit that Bush was never a good Republican (swollen deficits, unfunded mandates, goofy views on science, not one veto, a huge expensive and incompetent medical plan, etc. etc.) Further his ability to ask hard questions is embarrassing. Iraq has not been handled well.
Let Kerry, who I have absolutely no faith in, try and fix things. Then there will be a repeat of 94 with greater Republican influence. Right now the current Republican leadership has gotten incompetent and corrupt. Get rid of them. Bush never held accountable anyone under him for the many, many screw-ups over Iraq. That means the buck stops here. If we don't get rid of him then he'll destroy the Republican party.posted by: Clark on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
D.J., in your first post lambasting Drezner for endorsing Kerry, you asked what you were missing. I believe the words you're searching for are "integrity" and "intellectual honesty". Strange and incomprehensible ideas to many in the currently ultra-partisan Republican party, I know, but it need not always be thus. Once we throw Bush et. al. out on their collective rumps, and the Republican party finally cleans house a little, we may actually get back to the days when integrity and expertise meant more than partisan loyalty. Anyway, here's hoping...posted by: Greg on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
h0mi beat me to expressing exactly my thoughts about this post.What a healthy thing it would be for politics if the Age of Polling is really drawing to a close.posted by: Steve LaBonne on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I have heard that since the "do not call" law that the telephone polls are working much better and that the problem of people hanging up on telephone polls has almost completely vanished.posted by: spencer on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I see no reason[s] to alter my prediction
DISCLAIMER: I am a Kerry supporter and will
Kerry wins 315 EVs - I think Bednarik is certainly an overlooked factor (lost in the silliness around Nader) and I think the news of the last week or so is what the undecideds have been waiting for. They seem to be looking for something (anything) to convince them to vote for the incumbent and instead there's been a lot to sway them in the other direction. Blame the MSM all you want - Rudy Guiliani blaming the troops ain't the MSM's fault.posted by: Tony Patterson on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
As to what Republicans are going to remember, let's consider that since Ronald Reagan left office the GOP has nominated a member of the Bush family for President in four out of five elections -- in other words, whenever a Republican stood a realistic chance of winning.
If Bush were to lose next week, the party would be batting one for four, the one being the elder Bush's victory in a competitive race against one of the weakest major party candidates in recent history. Only Democratic election officials in Palm Beach County, Florida who couldn't design a ballot that would keep thousands of elderly Jews from having their votes counted for Pat Buchanan four years ago raises the Bush family's batting average to .500.
If Bush does lose next week, after having focused as intently on the mechanics of his reelection campaign as any President in modern times, lots of Republicans will remember this record for years.posted by: Zathras on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Who will win? Too close to call at this point, although John Zogby unhesitatingly said "Kerry" on the Daily Show last night (repeated at 7pm Eastern time, worth watching) The reason: Incumbents polling below 50% on election eve usually become ex-incumbents.
Factors not being accurately reflected by the polls include
But the #1 data point that's not being adequately measured is turnout. If the turnout is over 120 Million, Kerry wins going away. If it's less than 110 Million, it's four more years of misery.posted by: uh_clem on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Ha! Greg joins the name-calling chorus at danieldrezner.com! Hey Dan, look at who you're breaking bread with in the Kerry camp!! It's no wonder your apostasy was such a hard decision for you.
President Bush may not win this November 2; and if he doesn't, I'll be bummed (as a Republican), but I'll be certain to do my best (as an American) to make sure that President Kerry keeps his word and fights this War on Terror until we win. And I'll sleep well at night knowing that (unlike Drezner) I never joined ranks with the likes of Michael Moore, SomeCallMeTime, and Greg. They're poisonous people. And our country doesn't need that.posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
D.J., in your first post lambasting Drezner for endorsing Kerry, you asked what you were missing. I believe the words you're searching for are "integrity" and "intellectual honesty".
Well, Kerry certainly is.posted by: Bithead on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Time for another update, Dan. New question: who got to Curt and why?posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Drudge is now reporting a news conference at the pentagon where an officer claims to have been in charge of removing and destroying 200+ tons of explosives from Al Aqquqauqaua in April 03.
Apparently the explosives were shipped to Syria, stolen by Russian intelligence, looted by terrorists, and destroyed by GIs. Not necessarilly in that order.
This is confusing for us, but it shouldnt be. We may want to remember that during this time period there was a 'war' going on. The military had the small issue of winning it without incurring massive Fortress Baghdad casualties on themselves and Iraqis to worry about. Fog of war folks. God only knows if we're ever going to get a definitive answer, but Kerry is being reckless and unfair to smear Bush with this story before all (or even most) of the facts come out. Same for his campaign aides at CBS and NYTs.posted by: Mark Buehner on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Apparently the explosives were shipped to Syria, stolen by Russian intelligence, looted by terrorists, and destroyed by GIs. Not necessarilly in that order.
You forgot to add:
The Excuses Administration is always prepared.posted by: uh_clem on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I wrote: "D.J., in your first post lambasting Drezner for endorsing Kerry, you asked what you were missing. I believe the words you're searching for are "integrity" and "intellectual honesty".
DJ then responded: "Ha! Greg joins the name-calling chorus at danieldrezner.com!"
Ah, my apologies. I didn't intend that to be name-calling, DJ, though I can see how my wording could be misconstrued. I'm not saying that you're "missing" integrity and honesty, as in you personally are lacking those qualities. I'm saying that you missed, i.e. overlooked, the fact that these were the motivations for Drezner's decision.posted by: Greg on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
"The Excuses Administration is always prepared."
Wouldnt matter what excuses they had if the story had been thoroughly researched to begin with. Generally the party making the accusations is expected to have their s&*t together.posted by: Mark Buehner on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Hi, I'm thinking of running off a few hundred copies of this poster and mailbx-dropping them in a heavily Republican area near where I'm living. Think it'll help?posted by: Alex on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I dig, Greg. You can understand how the company you keep (SomeCallMeTim, Michael Moore, Guardian readers) would lead me to conclude that the ambiguity in your rejoinder was just one more incoherent slur.
And forgive me for any hotheaded language I might use. Like many Republicans, I was skeptical about going into Iraq in 2003. I wasn't fully convinced by Powell, Rumsfeld, Condi and all of them. They made a good case, I thought, but I was squeamish. It took the persuasiveness of the likes of Drezner and Andrew Sullivan and other libertarianish hawks to make me finally see the light. And now that these guys have decided to jettison Bush in favor of a man who, I think, will clearly cut and run in Iraq at the earliest chance and (worse still) coddle the nuclear dictators of North Korea and Iran -- well, that's a betrayal.
If Dan and Andrew Sullivan's judgment with respect to John Kerry is as sound as it was with respect to going into Iraq, I think Kerry-leaning voters should have second thoughts...posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
It'll be interesting to see what the MSM's and Republican party's reaction will be if Badnarik plays the role that Nader allegedly played in 2000. My prediction: MSM will ignore it and the Republican party will quietly move back towards small govtism.
Personally, I'm hoping for that, plus Bush winning the popular vote and losing the electoral one.
I have this idealistic belief that such a result would puncture a lot of self-righteousness. I'm probably wrong, of course.posted by: dubious on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
SLightly OT, but in response to DJ;
It strikes me as insane, that the Kerry supporters are so into making noise over about 400 tons of explosive power, when their guy is ready to hand over MEGATONS of explosive power in the form of nuclear material, to Iran...posted by: Bithead on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Indeed.posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I expressed this point in an earlier thread (narcissistic? OK):
"Let's say I'm in the booth next week, and considering a vote for Bush. I want to pull the lever that reads, "OK, I don't like the job you did, but I'll give you one more chance, and I expect big changes in the way things get done."
Of course, there is no such lever. If Bush is reelected, he will see it as no less than full and complete validation of his job performance."
Well, I see now there is such a lever - for Badnarik.
(but I.. I.. I can't.... just CAN'T do it)posted by: wishIwuz2 on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
You live in Chicago. Don't they announce the results of elections the day before there?posted by: nospam on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I now see that OBL has a new tape out, in which he aligns himself with the Dmeocrat party and is campaning against the president.
To which I respond:
Do we now allow OBL to dictate our election process, America?posted by: Bithead on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
President Bush may not win this November 2; and if he doesn't, I'll be bummed (as a Republican), but I'll be certain to do my best (as an American) to make sure that President Kerry keeps his word and fights this War on Terror until we win. And I'll sleep well at night knowing that (unlike Drezner) I never joined ranks with the likes of Michael Moore, SomeCallMeTime, and Greg. They're poisonous people. And our country doesn't need that.
I don't like "liberals." But, I'd rather join hands and sing Kumbaya with Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and Susan Sarandon while eating granola out of a non-styrofoam cup inside the Berkeley Starbucks than have four more years of the Bush administration.
Those of you on the right side of things might want to do some reflecting and some research, and seek to overcome absolute party loyalty, and try to understand why I would make this decision. Maybe you'll change your mind.posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
I see that OBL has a new tape out, in which he aligns himself with the Dmeocrat party
You are expressing an ANTI-AMERICAN sentiment by saying such a thing. Do you have any respect for Democracy whatsoever?
This is deeply offensive to everything that America stands for. Go fuck yourself.
P.S. JOHN KERRY WOULD HAVE HAD HIS HEAD ON A PLATTER BY NOW.
Lonewacko, your last post is singularly unhelpful. The best I can infer from it is that you've concluded that Republicans who vote for Bush are partisan zealots without the intelligence to understand that Kerry will clearly make a better president. If that's your point, that's not an argument; it's just the same old Michael Moore, SomeCallMeTim poison we've been hearing from the Left since Bush took office.
Forgive me, but I won't play that game. Thoughtful people of good will can go through their own personal exercises and conclude that Kerry's the man for them. I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're stupid. I don't understand two things, though: (1) Why somebody like Drezner who was so persuasive on the war could now risk that enterprise on a man who clearly has no interest in seeing it through; (2) Why a Republican like Drezner would so publicly announce this choice when his own self-interest would seen to militate against such disclosure. Call me a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, I guess.
By the way, the real question now isn't the Schilling factor; it's the Osama factor. Does his apparently explicit endorsement of the Michael Moore 9/11 narrative help or hurt Kerry? I confess that I think this helps Bush by reminding us all that W is a crazy MF who, given the chance, would cap Osama in Madison Square Garden on live TV -- and that John Forbes Kerry would rather be mountain biking.posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
In all honesty the biggest factor influencing the polls this year seems to me to be the fact that polls are so ubiquitous and seemingly manipulated that people either aren't answering the phone, aren't answering the questions or are outright lying.
I also think the animus of this particular campaign is pumping up Kerry's numbers. If you're an ABB voter, and a pollster calls you, you're delighted to tell them in great detail why you'll be voting to oust the President on November 2. Bush supporters have been made cynical of the media and polls for years and don't strike me as as enthusiastic to tell a pollster what issues are important to them, how likely they are to vote, who they voted for last time, etc.
Whether this translates to more enthusiastic voter turnout for ABB than for Bush remains to be seen. In my view, a very silent but very significant slice of America, even in swing states, is just going about its business and waiting till Tuesday to vote to re-elect the President and get on with the war on terror. I think the polls share the media's exaggeration of Kerry's support.posted by: Matt on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Bin Laden as critic:
One thumb up for Michael Moore (your momma must be SOO proud!).
One thumb down for President Bush.
Who needs another reason to vote Bush next Tuesday?posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Bush ? He used to think a lot about Osama before he decided not to think about him, and then he told us that he had said no such thing ..
Actually anyone who's read the transcript will see that UBL knocked both Bush and Kerry by saying that he doesn't care who is US president.
Of course, if one needed a reason not to vote for Bush, it could be in wondering why UBL's still alive ...
MB: "Fog of war folks."
Obsolete concept. Bush's mistakes illuminate everything now. There was nobody stopping him from picking up the phone and diverting some troops to secure those bunkers.
I think the overlooked factors are:
1) the economy.
2) how the public really views Kerry - are they comfortable/happy with him?
I have always thought Kerry was going to win, but over the last couple of weeks I've changed my mind. I'm another RWer who'll be fine with a Kerry win (mostly for the "process" reasons, like fostering gridlock, torture and civil liberties policy, good cop/bad cop, de-energizing the LW crazies, etc., not for DD's reasons), but I'm not so sure I think Kerry's campaign was very effective. If I'd been Kerry's campaign manager, I'd have pounded Bush on fiscal policy (i.e. the deficit) - an issue I think ordinary people understand and care about - and chosen at least one or two more similarly simple (and Clintonian) domestic policy points to emphasize. I think by putting so much weight on Bush/Iraq, Kerry kept his base happy, but Bush keeps his (Kerry's) base happy pretty well without Kerry's help....
The best I can infer from it is that you've concluded that Republicans who vote for Bush are partisan zealots without the intelligence to understand that Kerry will clearly make a better president.
From posting and reading threads at FreeRepublic and from reading threads at other sites, I'm quite familiar with "BushBots". Let's put it this way: there's an anecdote about toadies bowing to the chamber pot of Louis XIV as they passed its bearers in the halls of Versailles.
If Bush decided to invade Luxembourg and convert its inhabitants to Scientology, there are millions of BushBots who would immediately not only support the move but call anyone who dared criticize it a traitor. It isn't so much a lack of intelligence as a reflex that "R" means "good" always and forever.
[puts words in my mouth](1) Why somebody like Drezner who was so persuasive on the war could now risk that enterprise on a man who clearly has no interest in seeing it through;
Kerry has clearly stated over and over he's going to win in Iraq and continue to fight terrorism. I have no doubt that he'll do it more intelligently and competently than Bush. If he wavers, patriotic people on the right such as myself shall be there to criticize him and make sure he gets back on the correct path. That's simply not possible with Bush. He does what he wants to do, the facts and the opinions of the American people be damned.
(2) Why a Republican like Drezner would so publicly announce this choice when his own self-interest would seen to militate against such disclosure.
I have no idea, but, as someone else pointed out, perhaps it has something to do with character?
I confess that I think this helps Bush by reminding us all that W is a crazy MF who, given the chance, would cap Osama in Madison Square Garden on live TV -- and that John Forbes Kerry would rather be mountain biking.
What do you think the world is, a Steven Seagal movie?posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Give it up, Lonewacko. You're out of your league.
At any rate, this election just ended. With Osama's tape and Kerry's feckless and hyper-partisan reaction to it ("I'd have gotten the guy at Tora Bora! I've got a plan!!"), he's shown himself to be shallow and desperate.
Next question: Where do the Democrats go now?posted by: D.J. on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
http://www.You may find this guest column in today's New Hampshire Union Leader interesting. I examine the failure of President Bush to acknowledge errors and mistakes in Iraq, in contrast to the apology that Ronald Reagan gave in March 1987 after the Iran-Contra scandal had unfolded.
Reagan saved his presidency by taking responsibility for problems that occurred on his watch. His speech to the nation was pretty masterful and something Bush has not done.posted by: Josh on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
You are expressing an ANTI-AMERICAN sentiment by saying such a thing. Do you have any respect for Democracy whatsoever?
Given OBL has come out attacking Bush, and basicly motuthing the Democrats talking points, try again, Uh-clem.
And defending against such people IS American.posted by: Bitehad on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
P.S. JOHN KERRY WOULD HAVE HAD HIS HEAD ON A PLATTER BY NOW.
Think I'm kidding? Let's keep in mind the last Democrat administration; You may even recall that under the Clinton misadministration, that the most frequent foreign 'dignitary' to the WH was another murderous terrorist bastard... Afafat.
Explain to me how Kerry wuild handle the situation differently.posted by: Bithead on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Where do the Dems go now? Hillary. Note the extremely limited campaigning of Billy on Kerry's behalf. He went out there and wowed them; Kerry's numbers went up; Bill took a rest (must be the ticker). Note also that Hillary herself says very little about the WOT, and what she does say is reliably hawkish, much moreso than mini-JFK's statements. Moreover, Illinois' anointed one, Obama, has staked his claim to an aggressive WOT--the auditions for Hillary's number two slot are well underway, and he's in the lead for now.
JFK-wannabe says in today's paper he will do "whatever it takes" to track down and kill terrorists. I take that to mean that entire villages may be blown up in pursuit of miscreants. A new hamlet policy for Iraq?
As if we couldn't have killed every member of AQ had we been willing to use the excessive force, take the civilian casualties it would have entailed. Mr. Nuance appears to be the victim of too many Steven Seagal movies, not Bushie.
Don't think the whole Schilling question is closed in New England, either. Voters are not stupid--the guy can go around Disney world one day, but can't sign a few baseballs in New Hampshire the next? People read that the team owners have given well over half a million dollars to Dem causes in the past couple of years, they know exactly who Werner is dating, and what Ms Couric's leanings are. Springsteen can wipe Kerry's butt for him but Boston's ace, a 38 year old man, can't come out publicly with his personal political opinion? No, that won't go down well.posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Let me see if I understand you, Mark B. We accuse the Administration of allowing tons of HE to go missing through poor planning, and unless we can determine exactly what happened to them then we don't have our feces together and the Bush Administration is acquitted?
Are you on Scot Peterson's defense team? If we can't determine exactly what happened to his wife, he walks? You have the burden of proof backwards: the loss of the HE is a documented fact on the ground (see the ABC video and experts agreeing it is the now-missing stuff). The fact you can't even converge on one excuse, but instead spew many mutually-contradictory ones proves our point.posted by: Andrew J. Lazarus on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
"Who's Manny (that's Ramirez, not Ortez, Sen. Kerry) the newest citizen on the team endorsing? I'd pay money to hear that one."
Kelli - That's too funny coming from a frothing at the mouth Bush supporter pretending to be Red Sox fan. (It's Ortiz, not Ortez, Kelli.) How could such a real fan possibly have misspelled the ALCS MVPs name? Or perhaps you missed the series against the YANKS????posted by: DavidOrtizFan on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Kelli, in her/his disturbing 12:57 post, states "Apparantly the civil servant (black, female) in charge of seeing that minority and female owned small businesses get their piece of the military pie has been shocked (shocked)"
She's the top civilian in charge of contracting period. It is a high enough position that it is not governed by the civil service regs. And, what in god's name makes you think that Mr. Drezner's blog is an ok place to engage in sexist, rascist discourse? While I may not agree with some of the more conservative posters here, I have never seen the exchange of ideas sink so low that it would be considered acceptable to say someone is "black,female" and therefore imply that they are unqualified, have their own agendas separate from what is good for the country, etc.
Please, would the people who may agree with Kelli on issues related to politics, the war, economics, etc., please take him/her to task for this particular post if you believe it is unworthy of this blog? Call me naive, but man, that was real Jim Crow-like.posted by: altec on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Pile on Kelli time, I guess.
Kelli - Go read the posts at BostDirtDogs. Even the Bush supporters were posting that Schilling's timing was piss-poor. Sure, he has a right to support whoever he wants. He has vocalized his support for Bush in the past. But, the morning after the World Series win was not the time to urge people, on national television, to vote against the 20 year Senator from the state and city that just won the Series. Most Bostonians are passionate about baseball and politics. It was innappropriate to mix them at that particular wondrous, historic moment when the whole Red Sox Nation was feeling warm and fuzzy towards each other and the world. Also, on DirtDogs, you'll see the apology that Schilling posted and his reasons for doing so.posted by: DirtDog on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
And the companies that handled all the advertising, phone banks, surveys, printing, travel, etc.posted by: Jon H on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Bite me. Your guy Kerry has been quoted in a dozen publications with the "Manny Ortez" oops, "David Ortez" double blooper. Why don't you try reading for a change?posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Sorry. Total coincidence, right, that the person in question is a black woman and 90% of African Americans vote Democrat, and the story broke one week before the election and....but polite society can't point such things out? You can bite me too.posted by: Kelli on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Looking at the wingnut criticisms of Kerry, I see a valid point.
If the most important thing is the war, and you feel that Bush has been incompetent at it, your only alternative is to trust Kerry to do whatever he thinks best. He says he'll win that war, but he also says he'll get the troops out in 4 years when Bush says it will take at least 10 years to win.
I'd like to explore that a little.
First, it's possible to say the war is actually going well. You might claim that all the bad news is exaggerated and there's lots of secret good news that would reveal how well things are going except we can't see it because it's secret. I find this is hard to believe. It used to be if the US Army painted a school or cleaned up a street or paid iraqis to shovel out a clogged sewage line the media could go interview them and take pictures. But now the media is scared to go, when 8 months ago they weren't that scared. That says things have gotten a lot worse, the secret good news must be military secrets that would turn into liabilities if the enemy found out.
Then, it's possible that the bad news is not Bush's fault. When the military experts told Bush that we needed a lot more troops to invade iraq, they weren't telling him to invade iraq with a lot more troops. We plain don't have those troops. They were being defeatist and telling him not to invade iraq in 2003. If we *had to do it* then it wasn't incompetent to go ahead anyway. When you have to fight then you do it with what you've got and then you hope and pray. Maybe Bush went in halfassed with best-case assumptions because that's what he had to do, waiting would be even worse than risking everything on the hope that it would turn out good. What if Saddam had been about to get nukes? What if he'd been only 6 months from it? Waiting to build the force we needed for the occupation, or waiting for foreign allies, either one would mean Saddam with nukes. And there's a chance that Bush actually believed that. The CIA tried to tell him different, but Cheney stomped on them. Maybe the nuke story wasn't a cynical powerplay that Bush did to fool us into war, maybe it was a cynical powerplay that Cheney/Rumsfeld etc did to fool Bush into war. We shouldn't blame him if it was an honest mistake. He could get rid of Cheney and Rumsfeld etc and avoid that kind of mistake with his new advisors. But he hasn't done that and there's no reason to think he will.
Since Saddam didn't have nukes and the Bush administration should have known he didn't, would it have worked to spend 2 years building up our forces and invading in early 2005, 2 years later? Sadly, it likely wouldn't. If Bush had gone to Congress and told them he needed to pay for a bigger army, would they have given it to him? Almost certainly not. We were already spending about as much military money as the rest of the world put together. Would they have believed we needed even more? Not likely.
So if we were going to invade iraq at all, the way Bush did it was probably just about the only way. The only alternative I can think of would be for him to tell the truth about why we needed to do it -- and he surely had good reason not to do that or he would have. The real reasons must be things that have to stay secret.
So, let's say the secret reasons were good reasons that had to stay secret, and you believe that. We're stuck in iraq without enough troops because the gamble didn't pay off well. What now?
Kerry can't get enough troops. He talks like he'd get them from our allies, but how could he? Who has them? The egyptians are about the only possibility. Kerry will be stuck in iraq without enough troops.
Bush can't get enough troops. He can't get them with a draft, it takes too long to train draftees and they aren't good soldiers. Better to recruit more -- but it takes just as long to train volunteers. He hasn't even started! But we say we can train iraqi troops in 2 months, why does it take so long to train US troops? Because we train US troops to win, and we're training iraqi troops to die.
Frankly it looks real bleak. If we're going to win, we have to do it without many more troops than we already have. Our troops are tired and their equipment is worn. We have to win some other way. Bush got a temporary boost with the "handover" and he got another one with the show of electing the temporary advisory board. Maybe we'll get a bigger boost with the real elections. And soon after the elections, maybe they'll tell us to send the troops home.
I just plain don't see a candidate who can give us a military victory in iraq. We don't have enough ground troops and we can't get them. It would be better if both candidates could give us a win. Everybody likes winning, it would be an obvious best thing to do. Kerry says he'll win, it's the obvious best campaign promise but do you believe him? Failing a guarantee that either of them would win in iraq, it would be good if one of them could give us a win. Then we'd know who to vote for. But I see no evidence whatsoever that either candidate can win iraq. The best they can do is set up a real representative government that then will do whatever it chooses.
Sorry. Total coincidence, right, that the person in question is a black woman and 90% of African Americans vote Democrat, and the story broke one week before the election and....but polite society can't point such things out? You can bite me too.
Kerri, you are not a polite person.
In no particular order,
1)Swift-boat vets and Viet Nam POW's calling in their chits.
... with the country itself following suit shortly thereafter.posted by: Bithead on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
i think kerry should win cause bush sucks.... the reason i say that is because who practicly ran when he should of been fighting for our country? bush... why cant anyone get a job? bush... there are plenty other good reasons to say he sucks but that right there is enough for me... vote kerry screw bush. and if anyone thinks otherwise they must know something i dont but unless its good screw them too.posted by: elayna on 10.28.04 at 04:53 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: