At least not team sports, as Peter Gammons revealed, and as rugged as he looks in his publicity photos, we know now that he throws like a girl.
Posted on 08/13/2004 12:50:06 PM PDT by veronica
KERRY IS NOT THE FAVORITE: As Mickey Kaus pointed out yesterday the conventional wisdom of the Washington punditry appears to be coalescing around the idea that "this is now John Kerry's contest to lose."
ABC's The Note stepped onto the John Kerry bandwagon with a laundry list of why Bush is going to lose. National Journal's Charlie Cook chimed in:
President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen.
The University of Virginia's Center for Politics Larry Sabato shook up quite a few Republicans with his recent speech to the Business Council of Alabama where, more or less, he suggested President Bush is finished.
The Bush campaign knows it is in deep trouble.... He really will need a miracle to win, and the last miracle was for Harry S. Truman.
While I don't want this to simply be a rehash of my comments a couple of weeks ago, I still don't understand all of this Kerry bullishness. Clearly, President Bush is not a lock to win in November, but the prospects for his reelection are considerably better than the current conventional wisdom.
To start, I think it is unwise to make such definitive statements about where this race is until we get at least a week past the GOP convention and the anniversary of September 11.
Even from the standpoint of the national poll numbers, I don't know where all the optimism for Kerry is coming from. Simply put, I don't find his 2-4 point lead in the post-convention head-to-head and three-way polls all that impressive. He should be ahead by more - and the fact that he isn't suggests bad news for his ultimate chance of winning.
I don't know what kind of bounce President Bush is going to get from his convention and the 9/11 anniversary. Perhaps, like Kerry, the President may get little or no bounce at all. But it appears all the prognosticators writing Bush off this past week seem to be totally ignoring the possibility that the President could get a real and significant bounce from these two events. It doesn't seem that far-fetched that Bush could move out to 2-5 point lead after all the dust settles in late September.
As I've said before, I think the biggest mistake many people seem to be making is misapplying post-WWII polling and electoral history to the current political situation. It is this type of backward-looking analysis that failed to anticipate the possibility of the unprecedented GOP victory in 2002.
This is the first presidential election post-9/11 and it is not an insignificant fact that we are very much involved in a war. That reality is constantly being underestimated in trying to make sense of all the disparate polling information, and I think Sabato, Cook, Halperin and the rest aren't giving it enough due in their analyses.
Our lead op-ed on Wednesday was the NY Times' Nicholas Kristoff writing persuasively about the potential reality of a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan killing some 500,000 people. We have over 150,000 troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan battling terrorists and insurgents. Economically we're dealing in a post-financial bubble, oil at $45 per barrel (and rising), and we're saddled with all the additional inefficiencies associated with the constant vigilance and increased security associated with defending against a possible terrorist attack that could come at any time, any where.
Is it any wonder why the polls pick up angst and nervousness among the public? The mistake here is interpreting that angst and nervousness as a repudiation of President Bush and his administration. Maybe it is, but it is not inconceivable that by mid-late September when the public if forced to focus on the real choice between the leadership of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, this race may appear to be quite different.
What perplexes me most about all the negativism over Bush's chances is the failure to explain - even absent a decent bounce for Bush in the national polls in the next 4-6 weeks - exactly how John Kerry is going to get to 270 electoral votes. Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that Kerry can't get to 270 or beyond, just that given the current position the President is in, I think Bush has an easier route to 270 than Kerry.
From an electoral college standpoint, the race is somewhat easy to analyze because most states are going to follow the Bush-Gore 2000 results. Because of reapportionment, this year if all states stayed the same Bush's total would rise to 278 from 271 and Kerry's number would fall to 260 from Al Gore's total of 267. (Late clarification: Officially Gore received 266 electoral votes, because of one abstention form the District if Columbia.) So the question for the Democrats is how does Kerry get to 270?
Let's stipulate up front that if Kerry wins wins either Florida or Ohio Bush is more than likely finished. But if we leave aside Florida and Ohio for a second and assume they stay in the Bush column, suddenly Kerry's path to 270 becomes very difficult.
Realistically, Kerry would have to sweep the trio of New Hampshire, Nevada and West Virginia - which would be the political equivalent of drawing to an inside straight. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely.
New Hampshire is by far the most likely Kerry pickup and, for the sake of argument, we'll give that to the Dems. So with NH's 4 electoral votes Kerry gets to 264. WV and NV have 5 electoral votes each, but the problem for Kerry is 269 is not going to get it done because the House will split the 269-269 tie in Bush's favor.
So in reality he will have to win all three states. (Theoretically he could carry WV and NV, lose NH, and get to 270, however everyone agrees that NH is his best chance for a pickup so its hard to imagine a scenario where he carries NV and WV, but not NH.)
But West Virginia is the real issue here. Winning NH is easy for Kerry - if not probable - and winning NV is very doable, but it would seem impossible for Kerry to win West Virginia while at the same time losing Ohio. Coal, Guns, God and Country aren't going to be working for John Kerry in West Virginia.
Kerry supporters might ask, "well aren't there other states our man can win to get us over 270?" The problem for the Dems is, what are they? Again, assuming FL and OH are off the table for now, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado and Arizona are not exactly high value targets. It's not that Kerry can't win one of these states, it's just that if Bush does win FL and OH the chances of Kerry winning any of these states is less than 5%. It just isn't going to happen.
Which brings us to what the election really is going to boil down to, at least today, Florida and Ohio. Given the electoral math, one would have to assume that the pundits predicting defeat for President Bush are calculating he will lose at least one of these states. The problem with this analysis is it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to suggest that Bush will "need a miracle" to carry both Florida and Ohio.
Maybe people are putting a lot of stock in the Florida polls that show Kerry ahead. I don't. In my estimation Bush will have an easier time winning Florida than Ohio. Don't forget all the big talk from Terry McAuliffe who declared that "job number one" was to send the President's brother packing in 2002. Jeb Bush went on to win by 13% and the GOP swept the state from top to bottom.
This year, there won't be any boost in the Jewish vote from Lieberman, African-Americans don't seem particularly excited about John Kerry, Florida's a big pro-military state, and George W. Bush will still handily win the Cuban-American vote - especially if Mel Martinez is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.
So, if the Democrats' optimism comes down to a couple of Florida state polls taken in mid-summer, I think they're making a big mistake. Let's see where these same polls are October 1, and if the FL polls are still showing the same type of Kerry lead at that time, then I would agree that the Bush reelection will be in serious trouble.
Bush doesn't need a miracle in Ohio, either. Even today in the period after Kerry's convention, the polls in Ohio are split. With Gallup's just released poll showing Bush ahead nationally by 2-3 points and his job approval above the supposed magic 50% level at 51, I'm perplexed why the Democrats are so confident the Kerry/Edwards ticket is going to carry a state that typically is two-four points more Republican than the national vote.
So I'll reiterate what I said a couple of weeks ago:
Let's wait and see how things look after the conventions and the anniversary of September 11. It's quite possible all this midsummer optimism about a Kerry victory might look very different in mid-October.
What's amazing to me is that he is even close enough to be considered to have a chance to win. How half the country can support that boob at this crucial time is beyond me.
The other half of this country needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
LOL.
"unless you happen to be Dick Morris, but in that case you already said it anyway."
I do not enjoy having my toes sucked by prostitutes. And my wife would not like it if I did, nor I may add my children or grandchildren.
That's the same argument put forth every time concerning the swing states moving together. There's certainly some truth in it, but if that were the case then Dubya would have lost WV and maybe AR last time around. Not to mention FL. Gore had to draw an inside straight last time to win, and he almost did it with the help of a premature FL call. Kerry's in a worse position IMHO.
Pundits want attention. Pollsters want to get hired. The media want people to watch. The perception of a close exciting race helps them all.
I am confused....After the Dem convenion and the non-bounce for Kerry, all the pundits and polls seemed to be doom and gloom for Kerry-Edwards. Now a few brief days later, it's all over for GWB?! What exactly is going on here?
I agree with the article for the most part, except for one thing; the abovementioned October Surprise..
It may well be. That's why it was at the end and with multiple question marks. But talk to me after Labor Day. :-)
Now that the Dems have a real candidate for governor in Missouri, there is a decent chance that they can win the state. All the polling Ive seen has been very close and Kerry and Bush campaigns have both spending a lot of time here.
Virginia has been getting less and less Republican by the year. You got a ton of federal employees and lobbyists living in the northern part of the state. Colorado is in play with Ben Nighthorse Campbell not running for reelection. You can bet the Dems will spending a lot of money on getting out the vote for the Senatorial campaign. Louisiaia has two Democrat Senators so with fraud and a little luck they could come close there if things really go bad for Bush.
Your comment about the difficulty of Kerry winning the new states that he needs (outside of Florida and/or Ohio), also holds true for Bush. Bush won a number of states by small margins. It will almost be as difficult for Bush to hold all the states that he won before if Iraq and the Economy continue to drag him down.
I have a very bad feeling that this election is goign to go to the House of Representatives for resolution. 269-269.
Yeah, but Bush won MO last time.
At least not team sports, as Peter Gammons revealed, and as rugged as he looks in his publicity photos, we know now that he throws like a girl.
And Kerry was a successful fallback only because the DemocRat core saw Kerry as a military antiwar candidate. When the Swiftboat Vets charges against Kerry stand as the truth, and Kerry's courage in battle is recognized as only padded tripe, his usefulness as a veteran antiwar hero candidate will be finished. DemocRat Bush haters will stay home in droves swallowing psychogenic medications and alcohol on November 3. The landslide will not be due to votes for the President; it will be due to haters failing to vote against the President.
The Pentagon is already worried that they are going to have difficult time getting ballots out to the troops in the field (which by the way is where most of them are). In Missouri this has been further complicated by the Dems currently having the results of the election two weeks ago in limbo. Secretary of State cant print absentee ballots until the court case is resolved and that may not be until sometime after Labor Day. Im sure they will figure out a way to get ballots out for Nov 3 but the military on active duty could get disinfranchised.
On Florida, I wouldnt be so optimisitic. Blacks had huge turnout in 2000 but the idiots that bussed them to the polls gave them bad instructions. They told them to vote for Gore and to write in Liebermen. They lost over 25,000 votes statewide because idiot voters voted twice. I find it hard to believe many Republicans would be that stupid.
Bush is behind in all of those states at the moment. I wouldnt count on him winning any of those unless he wins by a landslide.
Even better thaan the Bushes working on a Habitat for Humanity house would be for Kerry to. Can you imagine the pictures of him trying to drive a nail or hang drywall?
Love the Grand Canyon in the background. Trouble is, when sKerry was here, all he had to say about it was negative stuff...like the park is a mess, etc. Not a real positive guy! Needless to say, that didn't go over too well with us 'zonies.
The predictive models all are on Bush's side. The polls mixed, but slightly on Kerry's side. Who'se right? Based on what we've seen in Missouri and Colorado, I think that the pollsters are simply (for some reason) not getting their "mix" at all correct.
Actually, I had completely neglected to consider the McGreevey situation when I made that comment. I think if McGreevey could be forced out early enough to trigger a gubernatorial election this November, then things could possibly get interesting again. Otherwise, I think Kerry has enough of an inherent advantage in the state to carry it.
Are there a lot of voters in Mizzou who can't figure out which candidate (party) is most in line with "marriage protection"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.