I've been phone banking a little for Edwards in Georgia. Bet you can't wait to see who I endorse. Anyway, when I talk to people that like both candidates I convince them to vote for Edwards to keep him alive. I'm hearing from a lot of Democrats who would love for both to be on the ticket. Since they think a Kerry candidacy is inevitable, I tell them to vote for Edwards as a VP vote. They love it.
Kerry is said to be looking for a VP candidate who can carry his own state. Richardson qualifies, but New Mexico only has 4 electoral votes. I have my doubts about Bayh. Even though Edwards might not be able to carry his own state (and then again, he might) voters in every state like him a lot.
If Edwards were to become the nominee, he may face an onslaught of negative advertising that brings down his positives, but as the VP it will be hard to focus this on him and the Bush/Cheney team would look petty for it anyway.
With Edwards on the ticket the Democrats send a good message of inclusion to the South. Of course we don't answer the root claims of the Zell Millers but then again I reject those complaints anyway. Zell basically wants to be a member of a conservative party (something, btw that he never wanted until 2001 or so) but doesn't want to call himself a Republican because his mother would roll over in her grave. That's his problem, not mine.
Edwards on the ticket would address the perception that national Democrats don't care about the South, and that's what really upsets self-identified Democrats accross the spectrum in this state.
Finally, using a VP to cherry pick a state is a pretty bad electoral strategy. Lord knows Bush isn't going to fall for it, and neither did Gore who came about as close as possible to winning without actually winning last time (even though lets face it if his voters had done a better job in Florida he would have).
If Kerry actually plans on winning, it makes a lot of sense to have a vibrant Southerner on the ticket who can campaign for Congressional races in areas of the country where Kerry might not be strong. And just think about the asset that Edwards, as VP, would be in 2006 when Democrats would seriously want to contest Congress.
In fact, about the only people I can think of who would really be against Edwards as VP are politicians with their own ambitions. If Kerry-Edwards wins, you could very probably shut out any other Democrat from making a shot at the White House for 12 years. And, if Kerry-Edwards loses, the same applies as Edwards would be the early favorite for 2008 as well. So what I'm basically saying is don't let Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton and Jennifer Granholm's ambitions stand in the way of a winning ticket.
Can any one out there who actually has a subscription to National Journal tell us how they arrived at the conclusion that Kerry is the most liberal senator. From what I understand they only used about 70 "key" votes and, according to their homepage many "conservative" senators have (to the conservatives suprise) been lumped in with moderates this year.
I'm willing to bet that they had a provocative conclusion in mind (Kerry most liberal) and chose which votes to highlight accordingly. I'm also willing to bet that Kerry missed a number of these votes due to campaigning for President and therefore they might be operating on a pool of votes as small as 25 to make their decision. The margin of error (if we viewed these votes like a regular survey) would be huge.
One final note: I'm not necessarily defending Kerry. I never said there was anything wrong with being a "liberal." One possible benefit of a Kerry candidacy/Presidency is that we'll have a guy on our side whose seen as a real tough guy standing up for the left. If Kerry delivers on the Clark candidacy's promise, it will really help Democrats in the long run. This seems to be the rationale for a lot of Kerry primary supporters. It makes GREAT sense if it turns out to be true, I'm just not convinced it will be.
I'm with Wes on this one. Catching Osama probably isn't the election day cure-all for the Bush team. God knows gay marriage, Medicare, the prospective veto of the highway bill, the Thanksgiving Day Iraq trip (which was the right thing to do for the troops), the aircraft carrier landing (which was the wrong thing to do) and every other recent political stunt haven't been.
If you apprehend bin Laden then to many American voters the war on terror is over. It may not be in reality, but when you personalize a war the way this administration has that's the risk you run. Of course, we know what happens when voters aren't voting on national security concerns anymore.
Other than that, catching bin Laden this late in the game may make the Bush team look fairly incompetent. After all, if you can't (or don't want to) catch one of the world's most recognizable men for 3 whole years then maybe you're not the best anti-terrorism team. Personally, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt because I think it's likely bin Laden is dead or hiding out so effectively that he wouldn't be able to direct any terroristic efforts anyway. I wouldn't bet on October surprise. I just don't think this group is competent enough to pull off something like that even if they wanted to.
ARG has released their new Georgia poll which shows a tighter race than Zogby. Not too much to say. I missed Edwards' rally today because I rode MARTA instead of driving and there was a 30 minute delay for a train. I heard from reliable sources who were there that it wasn't just the same old stump speech but a few new lines were peppered in and it was the best appearance they'd seen of him yet.
Will it matter? I'm not sure. ARG and Zogby both make it seem unlikely that Edwards will pull it out, but ARG and Zogby have been wrong. Specifically, ARG greatly underestimated the number of non-Democrats who would vote in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. Their poll, weighted 2-1 in favor of registered Democrats showed a tightening race in New Hampshire. What actually happened was that Democrats preferred Kerry over Dean by about 5 points while independents broke for Kerry by a much larger margin. On election day the ratio of Indys to Dems was about 1:1.
Another thing that happened in New Hampshire was that the registered Dems broke for Edwards over Clark by about 16-11 but Clark won the independent vote by similar margins. For some reason the media kept Dean alive (although Iowa and NH were perfect predictors for how well Dean would do down the road and the media KNEW it) and Clark's outsider appeal and 500 votes here (NH) and there (OK) kept him alive long enough to spoil Tennessee (Virginia isn't a real Southern primary state anymore) for Edwards. Mr. Edwards has just had back luck this primary season.
Anyway, my point is that independent voters in New Hampshire helped Kerry and Clark and were underrepresented in a lot of polls. In Georgia, the opposite will happen--they'll break for Edwards. If nothing else, I can't imagine that only 12% of the electorate on Tuesday will have an unfavorable view of Kerry, or that 24% of voters will still be undecided about Edwards. I expect this race to be a lot closer than the polls show. As always, remember, I've been wrong before.
Here is the AJC's um, helpful voter guide for the Presidential election.
Under the issue of trade the paper completely gives a pass to the steel tariffs for the President. Initiating the steel tariffs is the most blatant anti-free trade move a President has made in at least 20 years. And yet no mention from the AJC. They continue "...Advocates streamlining regulations for small businesses to boost job production."
The non-market prices small businesses that produce products made from steel have to pay for steel these days surely negates any streamlining of regulations. What exactly those streamlining of regulations are the paper doesn't say. I sure can't think of them. I guess this is what we can expect from our paper of record this election year -- taking Republican claims at face value while actively seeking out discrepancies in Democrats' records.
Kudos to at least a few Montanans. My biggest problem with the whole creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution debate is that if evolution is successfully challenged by scientists and a new theory (or even creationism) emerges in its place, I'll gladly put my trust in evolution aside and accept the new CW. Scientific thought is fluid anyway and we accept and incorporate today what the best research and thinking has provided us up to the present time.
On the other hand, with creationism you're dealing with a belief that by design can not be proven wrong. It's a belief that I personally have nothing against. If the religious right wants to get behind religion classes in public schools that teach about (key word: about) the beliefs of numerous world religions and not just Protestant ones, then there is your venue for "teaching" about creationism (although most of the people who care already send their kids to Sunday school anyway).
Defenders of evolution need to understand how the debate is being framed. Ultimately it is not about teaching a range of views for creationists. They aren't interested one bit what 'scientists' with opposing viewpoints might say about evolutionary theory, unless that opposing viewpoint endorses creationism or ID. They aren't even interested in creationism alongside evolution. Their goal is not to teach scientific theory that contradicts Biblical teaching at all.
And defenders of evolution need to realize that while they themselves are trying to have an honest debate about something they think is verifiable, such as who is the tallest person in the room, the religious right is having the debate about something entirely subjective -- who's the prettiest.
I don't know if postmodernism is the right word. But I have this feeling that the country is about to be ushered into a "new seriousness" when it comes to politics. The WaPo says that American's aren't buying Bush's Medicare reforms. Good for them!
The lesson of Bush's first two years in office that Karl Rove and Bush seemed to learn was that the appearance of doing something was more important than what you did. Who was the bigger obstructionist when it came to Homeland Security? Was it Max Cleland et al who held up the bill because of relatively minor work provisions, or was it Bush himself for opposing the bill outright for 9+ months only to change his mind at the last minute? Duped voters thought it was the Cleland's...and Bush ran with it.
The Medicare bill, unfortunately for Bush, is the perfect example. When confronted with all the gory details in the legislation, pretty much everyone but the most partisan K-street hacks would have preferred no bill at all. Liberals and centrists such as myself like the idea of a prescription drug entitlement, but would prefer it to actually kick in to help a larger number of poor seniors (which it does not) and would like the government to have bargaining power with drug companies so that our money goes further.
Conservatives didn't want to give out a new entitlement, and are enraged at the cost-efficientness, or lack thereof, in the bill. Everybody pretty much agrees that it doesn't comply with the values of the free market when the government has to pay private insurers to "compete" with what the government can essentially do cheaper.
Finally, results seem to matter more than appearances. Bush should think about this, now that he's agreed to meet with the 9/11 commission selectively -- and for only one hour. The public's not buying what he's selling anymore.
The AJC has endorsed John Kerry for President.
Remember though that this is the paper that didn't endorse Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor (D) last year (the highest ranking Democrat in Georgia now) and also messed up in it's endorsement in state House District 52, throwing their weight behind the eventual winner instead of me!
Chrisishardcore.com endorsement on the flag and the President to come on Monday.
Via Mickey I see my input is requested on the Georgia primary race. Edwards is definitely in play here. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Agricultural Commissioner and over 50 legislators endorsed him at an event at the state Capitol on Tuesday.
Ironically enough, a number of state House members from conservative districts who had already endorsed Bush at a fundraising event pre-Iowa came out and officially endorsed Edwards yesterday. It will be interesting to see what they do if Edwards wins the nomination.
One rural Georgia state senator who is a friend of mine (but not a Bush endorser) told me that Edwards is the first national Democrat she has endorsed in recent memory. She added, "I've been too embarrassed by the rest of them."
One thing that's not getting enough play in the press is Edwards' outspokeness on NAFTA. Clinton's enthusiastic support for free trade hurt him in the South as much as his personal issues and Edwards is the first prominent Democrat in a long time to come along and speak to these fears.
My personal feeling is that Kerry's advantage in "electability" is more fragile than ever. The latest big Fox poll showed that voters favor Republicans by a +23 margin on terrorism but only favor Democrats by a +11 margin on the economy. This split means that on election day the economy better out-prioritize national security by a margin of 2:1 or even Kerry, who is seeking a fight with Bush on national security grounds (and probably accounts for the narrowing from +34 to +23 in the poll) , will have a hard time winning.
Conversely, it seems like a no-brainer that Edwards will have a much easier time framing the debate around economic issues and that he could even possibly open up a lead on Bush regarding the economy to even out Bush's lead on terrorism.
Kerry gets a slight edge among elected officials from metro Atlanta. Edwards has racked up big margins from rural Democrats. It's sad to say but everyone's eyes are on the AJC to see who they endorse. Key newspaper endorsements in Wisconsin helped Edwards turn a 30 point gap into a strong second place showing. In Georgia he's already within striking distance and if things go his way I think he'll be able to win on Tuesday, possibly setting up a good showing for him in "Southern" Tuesday the next week.
It's just so unfortunate that when Republicans want to legislate morality Democrats come along and point out how they aren't moral people to begin with.
Here's something to ponder: can you think of another time in history when someone has successfully modified the constitution to rescind rights.
Just remember that conservatives were saying this about the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment:
An amendment barring gay marriage but allowing civil unions is "like a 14th amendment that said you can own people but just don't call it slavery," complains Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, a Christian social advocacy group that lobbies on issues ranging from abortion to pornography.Appalling.
Typical Broder column today. His main thesis is that candidates like Dean, McCarthy, Goldwater and etc change the country more by losing than winning.
With Goldwater, especially, the storyline is well known. He lost, but Reagan won and vindicated his platform blah blah blah. While some of that is undoubtedly true, Carter's mishandling of the hostage situation had a lot to do with Reagan's victory. More than anything Goldwater did or didn't do 16 years prior.
Additionally, Clinton's moralistic miscues made it possible for a bumbling low profile governor to win the White House solely on the basis that voters found him "honest" and "likable."
I'm not sure if it's not polite to point it out, or maybe pundits just don't think about it, or don't think voters understand this argument. But politics, especially presidential politics turns on personality to a great degree. Look at the personalities you had bubble up in the last 40 years and consider the "great" ones. The Kennedy's (Robert and John), Reagan, Clinton, MLK. The Democrats got extremely unlucky in the assassination lottery these past few decades. The Republicans, thankfully, got lucky since both Ford and Reagan had shots fired at them and Reagan was hospitalized by his assassin but everyone lived.
Now, what's my point? My point is that later this year or maybe in 4 or 8 years some sunny personality (John Edwards?) will run for President and his or her campaign will more or less resemble the Dean campaign in design (crucial) and issues (issues isn't a problem as the Democrats more or less agree on most everything). Pundits will say "Dean has been vindicated by Edwards's victory" but what it will really boil down to is that Edwards (or whomever) is a more likable candidate and that's a top issue for a huge bloc of voters.
So, John Ellis thinks this is good news for the President. So basically if every single voter who thinks Bush is stronger on national security makes national security their top issue, Bush barely wins. Otherwise, he's in big trouble.
One thing that annoyed me today watching CNN was the network reporting that Edwards has 192 delegates but Dean who has *dropped out* has 202. Can't be good for Edwards, right? Well, actually at least 68 of Dean's delegates are super delegates or party officials from states who haven't even voted yet. Surely these elected officials will now back someone else (or no one at all) instead of sticking with a loser. They want their vote to count, don't they?
This kind of lazy media coverage always pisses me off, but it's par for the course. Dean's 2nd place showing in the delegate count is just part of the Dean fantasy -- nearly a third of his delegates come from the overinflated influence of party insiders. Edwards's delegate count has been hard won the old fashioned way by piling up lots of strong second place showings and one win in South Carolina.
It would make a lot of sense to just not include super delegate votes in the count at this stage -- surely it would "hurt" Kerry the most, as his super delegates inflate his total count proportionally much more than Edwards. Another good idea would be for politicians not to endorse at the last minute. It says a lot that Barnes and Cleland stuck out their necks early on for Edwards and Kerry respectively. It says a lot less for a Mark Warner, Jennifer Granholm or Tom Harkin to jump on the train just as it appears to be leaving the station.
As with everything in life though, I'd probably be singing a different tune if my candidate were getting these late endorsements :)
I guess I just don't learn my lesson, but for some reason I never cease to be amazed by Republicans' ability to condemn something when Democrats do it and then go ahead and do it 10 times worse when they get the chance (and often at the same time).
I thought their most convincing argument regarding Democratic redistricting was that "voters should pick their representatives and not the other way around." It's a morally sound argument but I don't think it carries much sway with voters -- and neither do Republicans.
Their new Senate maps are prettier than the Democratic maps, but they break every single "principle" that the Democratic maps do and in one area go a lot further.
Sure, they've put opposition Senators in the same district as each other, notably rising stars David Adelman (D - Decatur) and Steve Henson (D - Tucker). But they went a step further -- they identified potential challengers in the current districts and drew them out entirely.
They don't want to fight it out with the Democrats' maps, but they don't want a fair fight either. Hopefully Murray Campbell, Gary McConnell, Clem Doyle and even Charles Walker will be able to slug it out regardless of what happens. It's not surprising.
During the first round of redistricting, Eric Johnson even said he didn't know why Democrats were drawing such partisan districts, conceding that Republicans hadn't been doing well in numerous competitive districts during the '90's. Well, I may question why Democrats needed to draw such inspired districts, but given Eric Johnson and the rest of the Republicans' history I don't have any doubts about why they have chosen to.
Canadians just do not get it:
O'Brien threw matches down our national fault line wrote a commentator in the Montreal Gazette. "I wonder how he'd feel if we let Canada's Insulting Beaver Puppet loose on U.S. TV to yuk it up about Sep. 11th.First I'm sure that Canada's Beaver Puppet is insulting, but Conan's puppet is an Insult comic. Note the lack of the -ing. And I'm also sure America would not have been happy if Canada's beaver did come across the border on September 11th to make fun of us. Of course, Quebec separatism hardly competes with September 11th as a national tragedy.
One man, one vote; One man, one woman... The Republicans sure have a theme going this session, don't they?
Well, Edwards has scored the endorsements of both major Wisconsin newspapers. Just in case anyone is still paying attention.
Under no scenario can I imagine Dean getting the nomination. Under a far-fetched, but still plausible scenario can I see Edwards getting it. However, with Dean in the race I don't think Edwards will have enough of a chance, as he seems to draw from the same pool of voters as the North Carolina Senator. Dean has hinted that he knows this is true, suggesting that Edwards would make a better Presidential candidate or President than Kerry.
So, if Dean really wants to give the voters a choice, then I would say he's got to drop out after Tuesday -- unless he wins, in which case my entire analysis would be wrong (I just don't think he will).
Otherwise, it's one thing to have supporters who believe in the impossible on the way up (I would say up until the Iowa caucuses) but it's a wholly other thing to take advantage of their idealism on the way down, as Dean's doing now. So dropping out would (I think) prevent further alienation down the line.
I really recommend the Boston Globe's John Kerry series. Who knew Kerry was also a trial lawyer for some time? I didn't until I read this series. Anyway, since Kerry has a pretty good shot at being the nominee you might as well get to know him.
Well, you wouldn't know it from reading today's AJC online, but AG Thurbert Baker (D) has notified the governor and other interested parties that he intends to appeal the redistricting decision handed down in Larios v Cox and ask for an immediate stay so that this year's elections can go on as planned.
I'm not sure exactly what to make of it -- a stay would seem to be good for Democrats but it would give Republicans the chance to make it an issue in this year's elections. On par though, the districts where redistricting is an issue are already represented by pretty conservative Republicans so it might not make much of a difference at all.
From reader Will Moore we get the following analysis:
24 states assumed a 10% safe harbor during redistricting.
3 states assumed a 5% safe harbor.
3 states had abnormally high safe harbors and probably weren't considering deviation at all.
3 states have deviation but it's unclear if they assumed a safe harbor.
8 states did not assume a safe harbor but had notable deviations nonetheless.
3 states had practically no deviation in district size (less than .5%).
I'd say Zell Miller is now officially the overflowing toilet of Georgia politics. Just when you think your troubles can't get any worse, they do. Not having to run for re-election has really liberated Sen. Miller. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Serial. A man says to a woman, the problem with you is that you confuse being liberated with being a bitch.
It's so insulting to sit in the Rules committee and hear again and again how the proposed amendment to the state Constitution will help any children in the state. Of course I wish every child in Georgia could have two parents, and from personal experience having a mother and a father helped. But I fail to see how banning two men or two women from raising a child together will make a single mother or father's job any easier.
It seems there is a much stronger argument (though also wrong) to be made against letting single parents raise children. In the case of a single father, if he dates one woman after another having a new "mother" figure in the picture every couple of months can't be healthy. Having two steady moms or dads and not a changing cast of charaters must be preferable.
I'm encouraged by polls that show younger voters supportive of civil unions (and maybe even gay marriage) and opposed to constitutional amendments or discriminatory laws. At the same time I'm disapointed that the opinions of older Americans may be strong enough to crystalize the status quo for decades after they are no longer even alive.
Here's one thing to ponder: Why didn't conservatives ever propose amending the Constitution to outlaw interracial marriages? Or did they and have I just missed it? What's changed so much in the past 40 years and (speaking non cynically here) what can we do to truly improve the tone of politics?
Throw out everything you know about Georgia politics.
MORE: Here's a very helpful webpage. By my count, there are at least 25 states whose districts could be vulnerable. Does the Supreme Court want to open up that pandora's box?
PS: It seems pretty clear to me that if Georgia's state legislative maps are held to be unconstitutional under this court's ruling, so would the Texas Congressional maps.
PPS: 2 of the 3 judges issuing the decision in Larios were appointed by President Clinton. The other is a senior judge appointed by President Nixon in 1970.
I thought of something just now that sums up my feelings on draft dodging/evasion/military service/personal responsibility.
Imagine two students, one studies hard and gets an A. We'll call this person John Kerry. The other student skips class and gets an F. We'll call this person Bill Clinton. The actions of both men determined the outcome, and each can live with that. George Bush is the kid who skipped class but because his father was the superintendent he got an A anyway.
Although it may be a moot point, it would be nice (and easy to accomplish) if exit pollers in primary states would ask who the second choice candidate of each voter was. And for Republican and Independent voters voting in the Democratic primary, who they would vote for in the general election if their man did not get the nod of the Democratic party.
I don't begrudge anyone for not wanting to serve in the Armed Forces during any war and especially Vietnam. If you believed in the war and volunteered your time -- I salute you. If it weighed on your conscience and you either did what you could to avoid serving or just got lucky and didn't get drafted, then I don't hold it against you one bit.
The problem with Bush isn't that he was AWOL from the Guard, which looks likely. The problem is that when other 25 year old men couldn't sleep because of the personal anguish they were experiencing about the war, Bush couldn't have cared less. It didn't touch him - because his father was well connected.
Here's a man who more or less admits he wasn't that serious until he was 40 years old -- after he had children, mind you -- and woke up feeling terrible after a particularly bad hangover. People change. I understand that.
But ask yourself this - was your life so unserious before you "grew up" (at age 40!) that the worst thing you'd ever personally experienced was a bad hangover?
Postscript: Richard Cohen says it better than I do.
My friend George Buck and I spent the night calling Democratic primary voters in Tennessee. It's my first time phone banking and it wasn't half bad. If you look past the bad numbers and hang-ups, about half of the numbers get you either an answering machine or a real live person. And about half of the time, that real live person actually wants to talk to you about the election and who they're going to vote for. Fun!
I hope today doesn't find you on this list.
First of all, thanks to the blogosphere. I slept in today and didn't watch MTP but from what I understand I didn't miss much and Bush managed to underperform even my own low expectations. So much for misunderestimating.
Got new data from the Michigan and Washington caucuses reflected at left. As you can see, Kerry, not-Kerry and un-allocated all have about an equal amount. As Kaus notes it still is plausible that someone other than Kerry could emerge as the nominee. As favorable as Super Tuesday is to Kerry, at this point, assuming a Southern (Clark/Edwards) alternative emerges the post-Super Tuesday calendar in March (FL, Miss, LA, TX, KS, WY, IL) seems to lean to that anti-Kerry. If he emerges.
Another thing to think about: It seems that all the talk about the 'electability' focus of voters really only applies to that specific Democratic primary voter who was only deciding between Dean and Kerry. Those voters who've switched from Dean have made the right choice (in my opinion) but (also my opinion here) voters backing Clark, Sharpton, Lieberman and Gephardt have shown no such enlightenedness in not backing Edwards instead. Ha, is that too much favoritism for you?
An amusing article in Slate gives advice to wine drinkers on how to vote in the general election.
It unintentionally makes a pretty interesting point - many Democratic voters (liberal cultural elites) have a lot to gain from free trade and not much to lose. Of course, many Republican voters (and Democratic ones) have much to lose (their jobs) and not much to gain (maybe $3,000 a year saved at Wal Mart and the grocery store).
Many of the culturally conservative lower middle class voters who have trended Republican (not just in the South) since the 1960's are being personally hurt by the economic policies generally embraced by Republicans and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Suburban dwellers, on the other hand, who were once solidly Republican, are trending Democratic and benefit in myriad ways from free trade -- goods are cheaper at Target, more luxury wines should be availalbe, etc.
Now, Democrats have a choice: Go back on the Clinton legacy of free trade and try to win the votes of culturally conservative voters whose economic security has been damaged by economic conservativism. Or, embrace Clinton's forward thinking, knowing that the number of factory workers in the previous example are shrinking every year while the professional middle class should grow.
Ultimately, I would prefer the latter -- embracing free trade. Kerry seems to have the preferable stance compared to Edwards, but I do think that Edwards embrace of protectionism is more empathy than anything else, and he would ultimately continue to move the country forward, as Clinton did, while seeking out solutions to trade problems, such as steel tariffs, that would try to level the playing field (bailout of pension problems) so that the industry could be given a fresh start to have one last chance at competing with foreign firms instead of reactionary tariffs that hurt the world economy overall.
In Edwards' defense, 2004 provides a unique opportunity to be both free trade and protectionist. Bush's record on trade is so bad that Clinton's is golden in comparison and even a hard-line protectionist like Gephardt should be preferable to all but the most ideological conservatives. Edwards' free trade position would be preferable to Bush's, but instead of using protectionism that hurts other countries and the global economy as a whole, it would be pretty easy to use repeal of upper-tier tax cuts to achieve similar goals (worker retraining, pension socialization, etc).
In fact, Bush's economic record is so bad and the circumstances are so unique that, for at least one election cycle, the right kind of candidate may be able to convert socially conservative poor voters to vote their economic interests instead of their moralistic ones. It's been a fantasy for some time among Democrats that something like this would happen at least once. If you read this blog and you're planning to vote based on electability, please take this into account and ask yourself which candidate can actually appeal to these voters. Hint: It takes more than just reminding them that they aren't voting their interests. They already know that.
Let me clarify something below. I don't think a long primary is necessarily bad. I'd prefer a primary schedule that was something like 8 weeks long. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to have 1 caucus/1 week, then 1 primary/1 week, then 10 primaries/1 week, then 2/1, then 1/1, then Super Tuesday.
I think it would make a lot more sense to have something like 2 or 3 primaries a week each week. You could have one northeastern state each week, one southern state each and one western state. That would winnow down the field almost right away to two or three strong regional candidates.
My plan isn't perfect -- you'd have to have some firewall states. So maybe something like 3 states for a couple of weeks, then 1 important state to eliminate 1 or 2 candidates and then a few mini super-Tuesdays with say 5 states each after that.
My calendar would go something like this:
Week 1: Iowa (I know, pander to farmers but no one takes this state seriously anyway)
Week 2: NH, SC, NV, OK
Week 3: PA, LA, WA, AZ
Week 4: MO, FL
Week 5: ND, NM, DE, MI, TN
Week 6: TX, NJ, ME, VA, DC
Week 7: GA, CA, WI, MN, IL
Week 8: Everyone else.
Under this scenario I think the primaries would be playing out thusly: Kerry eliminates Dean in Iowa and NH, Clark takes NV and OK and Edwards takes SC. Then Kerry does well in PA and WA while Clark takes AZ and Edwards takes LA. Then the three do battle in Missouri and Florida, two key swing states. My guess would be that Clark or Edwards would be eliminated and then you'd have a two person race that didn't really favor one or the other geographically and a victory for Edwards in Michigan or Kerry in Tennessee would send an easily interpreted message that one or the other was actually the stronger candidate. But what do I know?
Michael Kinsley has an interesting column in the WaPo and Slate today about the obsession with electability among Democrats. It has a funny but I believe incorrect conclusion because I just don't think primary voters are wisely looking at 'what other people [non primary voters] want' in a candidate. That is, they may be voting their gut but if they really want to vote strategically they could do a little research and come to a conclusion other than just Kerry.
While I applaud McAuliffe's front loading of the primary I sympathize with Carl Levin and Ed Rendell in wanting to give a state other than New Hampshire a shot at being the earliest primary state. Of course, now that Levin's endorsed Kerry I don't see what his big problem is with letting New Hampshire pick the nominee he wanted anyway.
My own primary schedule would have Iowa caucus first, and then have New Hampshire, a choice between Illinois/Florida, between Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania and between S Carolina/Tennessee/Arkansas go next, all on the same day.
I'd also have a "3 Weeks & You're Out" rule. Yes, Dr. Dean, I'm talking to you. At this point the great danger of Dean's small donor funded campaign is that he's most certainly not going to be the nominee but he keeps milking ideologically comitted donors (many first time contributors) as the ship goes down. If you thought Clinton alienated a lot of first time voters by promising health care reform and then not delivering, just imagine if they had all donated their own money to his cause.
I blame the media for running an issueless primary (the Dean scream) that has hurt my candidates of choice and helped Kerry, who I consider to be quite boring on the stump. They almost have no choice with the current 1-2 layout of Iowa and New Hampshire, needing to immediately annoint a winner (Kerry) and loser (Dean).
With multiple states voting on the same day, we would either have one legitimate big winner but more likely multiple winners. The focus would likely be on which 2 or 3 candidates who'd already shown an ability to win in different regions would be the best general election candidate. Instead Kerry gets a free pass while Dean gets an undeserved beating and I believe the Democratic Party as a whole is the real loser.
I don't know whether to feel sorry for tobacco farmers in Kentucky's 6th Congressional District or to be angry at them for being so dumb. Their congressional district has been represented for some time by a Republican and there has been no tobacco buyout. Now the Republican Speaker of the House comes to their district and tells them if you elect a Republican you will get your tobacco buyout.
Obviously a tobacco buyout would have been a huge win for ex-Congressman now Governor Fletcher -- if Hastert and national Republicans really wanted to help Kentucky tobacco farmers they would have done it while Fletcher was running for governor -- he could have coasted to election (it was relatively close) and the 6th district seat wouldn't even be in play for Democrats.
If a tobacco buyout had lost by one vote last year and that vote had been Fletcher's then electing a Republican might make sense. As it is, it won't change the partisan makeup of the House and it won't change the vote tally on the tobacco bill. Kentucky's 6th district voters can send a strong message to the House leadership that threats and empty promises is no way to govern, if they're smart enough. Then they might see some action on their buyout.
I started the Convention Sweepstakes thing back in December. I had moved into the anti-Dean camp and was disturbed by the media frenzy that was annointing Dean the inevitable frontrunner, the same thing that's happening to Kerry now.
In December, I put all the primaries into a spreadsheet and plugged in as much state-by-state polling data as I could locate. What it showed was that Dean was the frontrunner but only had enough poll support (at the time) to garner about 10% of the delegates if a "national primary" were held. Undecided back then was a massive 66%, which meant that even a candidate like Kerry (who scored a measly 4%) could take the nomination if he could start getting momentum and converting those undecideds.
The highest Dean ever got in my calculation was 16%. When you factored out undecideds the highest he ever climbed was 34% -- the day before Iowa. Now Kerry's adjusted number is 45%. Which is a way of guessing that if a national primary were held today with the remaining four candidates their delegate totals would be about 45% for Kerry, 20% Dean/Edwards and 15% for Clark.
So what's that mean? Well, for starters it means that the field has to further winnow down for Kerry or anyone else to win outright. If I were a Kerry supporter, I'd be most optimistic. He should rack up some wins in delegate rich territory this weekend. It doesn't necessarily put him that much closer to the nomination, but it makes it that much harder for his opponents to catch up.
If I were a Dean supporter, I would not be enthusiastic. His 14 showing breaks down thus: 10% actual delegates in the bag, 90% future polling projection. He has no room for error. As he's basically conceded every primary but 1 this month, he'll go into Super Tuesday with less than 10% of the delegates needed to win the nomination. He'd need to win something like 75% of the delegates that day to stop the momentum that either Kerry, Edwards or Clark will have and I just don't think that's likely.
Edwards can hold out some hope. Even if Kerry goes into the Tennessee and Virginia primaries with big victories this weekend, he'll still only have about 20% of the delegates needed to be nominated. If Edwards wins there, he would play a big catch up game. Kerry would still have more delegates, but if Edwards goes into Wisconsin and Super Tuesday with momentum it won't matter.
Then there's Clark. I don't think Clark can win. He was the perfect anti-Dean (in fact, my graphs chart amazing correlation between the two candidates) but since Dean is a goner Clark's raison d'etre no longer really exists. The one thing Clark is doing is robbing Edwards of the chance to make this a two man race with Kerry - a scenario that most likely would greatly benefit Edwards. Clark skipped Iowa and South Carolina and beat Edwards in New Hampshire and Oklahoma by about 2,000 votes total. Edwards has suffered from extreme bad luck. The fact that he came out of nowhere and outpolled Kerry in Oklahoma and nearly beat Clark should have been the story, but the media just isn't sophisticated enough to explain why Clark's victory is actually a great disapointment.
Virginia and Tennessee will vote and the outcome will probably be very similar to Oklahoma with Clark, Edwards and Kerry splitting the vote. If Edwards comes out on top, he may be able to convert that into momentum to really challenge Kerry. But he hasn't gotten a break like that yet. Stay tuned.
About the "Convention Sweepstakes" thing I update on the left side of the page.
I started keeping track (back in December) of polling data for all the states that are holding primaries and caucuses this year. I set up a spreadsheet that had the states, the days that their primaries or caucuses were held, and the number of delegates to be awarded at the conclusion of each contest.
Once states held their election, I manually entered the number of delegates each candidate was awarded. I predict the delegate counts each candidate will get from future states based on their standings in the polls. Further, future states' results are discounted based on how long it is until their primary.
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Missouri and all the other states who have already voted are weighted 100%. Super Tuesday states like California are currently discounted to 60%. If you're familiar with the stock market and how future earnings are discounted because they haven't happened yet, then this will kind of make sense to you. Analysis in the next (previous) post.
Non farm payrolls are up 112,000 this month. Somehow this news isn't that encouraging when a) you know someone personally who has recently lost a job and b) it will take 275,000 jobs added each month from now until the election just to cut in half the number of people who became unemployed in the last 3 years.
It would take 400,000 jobs per month to get employment up to the "status quo" of the Clinton years. Since most of January's new jobs (76K) were added in retail we're most likely talking about people who, though employed, can barely afford health care for their families and most likely will be going without it.
So the conventional wisdom is that Kerry is the most electable candidate. Look at the table below, compiled from exit polls in the first 7 states where they were available. I have to conclude that if you're looking for someone who can win states that will have big liberal turnouts, Kerry is your man. I can very plausibly see how Kerry wins the nomination only to see his entire agenda DOA in what will still be a strongly Republican Congress.
| % of Voters who Describe Themselves as: | ||||
| State | Lib | Mod | Con | Winner |
| Iowa | 56 | 37 | 6 | Kerry |
| NH | 47 | 45 | 10 | Kerry |
| MO | 40 | 44 | 16 | Kerry |
| AZ | 49 | 37 | 14 | Kerry |
| DE | 50 | 42 | 8 | Kerry |
| SC | 39 | 44 | 17 | Edwards |
| OK | 31 | 48 | 21 | Clark |
Here's how Republicans in three key states voted in the Democratic primary:
| MO | OK | SC | |
| Edwards | 37 | 30 | 54 |
| Kerry | 30 | 7 | 16 |
| Clark | 4 | 13 | 5 |
I can't speak for Oklahoma or Missouri, since outside the South is not my area of expertise. But, I can practically guarantee that those Republicans who voted in South Carolina's primary used to be Democrats. They just haven't had that much of a reason to vote (D) since the '70's.
Now, if Republicans were voting strategically they'd be voting for Dean...but they're not. When you combine the not insignificant protest votes against Bush in the states that are having Republican primaries with the generous support crossover voters are giving Edwards, I'd have to conclude that Edwards is the most electable.
Just think of it this way...will any Kerry or Dean voters have qualms about voting for Edwards in the general election? I don't think so. But will "Edwards Republicans" be ready to abandon ship to vote for Kerry? Not as likely. Edwards would also seem to have more coatails in the states where the Senate will be decided -- the Carolinas, Brad Carson in Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia (if we can get a candidate). Attention Democratic party leaders eager to jump on the Kerry bandwagon: Electability is about more than just the top of the ticket.
Back when W. was riding high in head-to-head matchups with Kerry/Dean/Edwards/etc the story line was "do Democrats even have a chance this November?" Now that Kerry and Edwards are both besting Bush in head-to-head matchups CNN is careful to report something along the line of polls taken for theoretical matchups this far out don't really mean much.
Well what is it? Either they meant something when Bush was outpolling Democrats and the Dem nomination was viewed as a curiosity -- kind of like some media masturbatory exercise to pick the winner of the losers since the general election wouldn't even be close -- or they didn't and they should have given the exact same disclosure.
On a personal note, I (and most pollsters) think the only important number in polling this far out is the incumbent's re-elect number. It doesn't matter if Bush is matched up against a magical un-named candidate with the military experience of Kerry and the personal appeal of Edwards or anyone else. He was polling in the low 50's when he was unbeatable and now below 50 when suddenly these polls don't mean anything at all. Both numbers should have signalled vulnerability but I think ultimately the media doesn't think it's audience is smart enough for such sophisticated analysis.
Well, the big day is upon us. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win 4 states tomorrow. I think the easiest thing to do is just pick how many primaries Kerry will win instead of who will win what state. Predict away in comments, if you so desire.
It's worth remembering that the theory of evolution is a little bit different than the "theory" of creationism or "intelligent design." You can believe anything you want -- that's your right. But you can't teach science based on a belief system. You have to pretty much accept the whole scientific theory thing -- hypothesis, testing, theories, modifications to those theories over time. Otherwise, you're not really teaching science and the kids that you're not really teaching will not really be discovering new cures for illnesses and not really designing new technologies to better mankind's existence.
That said, I have a "theory" for how Kathy Cox got elected Superintendent of Education in the state of Georgia. It has something to do with Georgia's 50th in the nation education system and the fact that "K" and "C" sound an awful lot alike.