Posted on 11/01/2004 5:05:06 PM PST by LS
WORD FROM OBI-WAN KENOBI [11/01 07:25 PM]
After a busy day, had a chance to talk with Obi Wan Kenobi, the longtime GOP operative who is rapidly becoming a favorite of Kerry Spot readers.
The very short version: Can Kerry win this?
Obi Wan: I don’t see it… unless there is a sudden and big break to Kerry tonight.
The longer version:
While I (Jim) initially thought the bin Laden tape meant a Bush landslide, Obi Wan had a doubt or two. Not that the tape would hurt Bush, but that it might freeze things in place as the voters mulled over new information - and the bin Laden tape was a big piece of new information. While some folks like myself have been focusing on what bin Laden said, a certain segment of voters were and are just reacting to the reappearance of bin Laden. Their reaction to what he said will come after they have “digested” the fact that he is alive.
More Obi-Wan:
There is not much significance to the fact that many respondents to polls say the bin Laden tape will not affect their vote. A majority of voters said the Bush DUI wouldn’t affect them in 2000, and they were right, in that they were already committed to Bush or to Gore. The important respondents weren’t the ones who said it wouldn’t, it was the four or five percent that it ended up actually effecting.
The ghost of the 2000 DUI has been haunting Republicans throughout this election. It was a traumatic event on Republican expectations - and all year long, Republican voters and analysts have been waiting for some other October surprise that is going to knock down their man another four or five points.
But that was four years and a completely different electorate ago. This is the post-9/11 election world, where Bush is no longer an unknown quantity, but a president who has been tested and proven by the worst crisis to face a president since 1941. Almost no one had terrorism on their mind in 2000.
This weekend, voters were ‘digesting’ the bin Laden tape, a process that continued as they came back to work on Monday, and talked around the water cooler, listened to the radio, talked to coworkers, etc.
Each time there has been a significant event in the campaign - the conventions, each one of the debates - the poll numbers have returned to a small but significant, outside-the-margin of error lead over Kerry within about four or five days. During these initial events, the polls have bounced around, sometimes showing Kerry surging, but the numbers always settle back to the Bush 49ish Kerry 44ish area.
So, the bin Laden tape appears, and is the equivalent of one of the debates, or a vice-presidential pick, or some other event that focuses the public’s attention. They think about it Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday - and on Tuesday, were tomorrow to be a normal Election Day, it would return to that Bush ahead by four or five points again.
Having Halloween on a Sunday, and the final weekend of the campaign, complicated matters. You had parents, suburbanites, and all kinds of people out of their houses.
Obi-Wan also wonders if some major pollsters have been “Zogbified.”
Zogby in recent days has discussed how he adjusts his “formula” for turnout when his polls get a result that differs greatly from his expectations. It is a natural instinct when one gets a wacky result (“Bush within four in Illinois? That can’t be!”) but a pollster has to be careful when he decides to start fiddling with which voters are likely to show up on Election Day and how many.
Obi-Wan wonders if the polling industry is going to confront a “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment, where their methods are proven out-of-date in a rapidly changing world. When you have polls coming out on the same day showing such massive variance as Quinnipiac showing Bush ahead in Florida by 8 and Fox News showing Kerry ahead in the same state by 5, someone is going to be proven wrong. Rasmussen has Bush up 4 in Ohio while the last Gallup has Kerry up 4. Gallup has Bush up 4 in Pennsylvania while SurveyUSA has Kerry up 4. Mason Dixon has Kerry up 2 in Wisconsin, while Gallup had Bush up 8.
How are people really going to react? Take a look at the internals of the polls, which doesn’t have such wild variances. Obi Wan points to (ironically, in light of many people's opinion of the two organizations) the New York Times/CBS poll out today. The poll showed Bush leading, 49 percent to 46 percent.
But the internals - well, PoliPundit summarized it:
48% of voters will vote on national security issues; only 33% on domestic issues.
By a 54%-29%, voters believe the Bush Administration has made them safer.
53% of voters do not think that Kerry agrees with their priorities, his worst number ever.
48% of voters do not think that Bush agrees with their priorities. 49% believe he does share their priorities.
52% of voters think Kerry has leadership qualities, his lowest number ever.
62% of voters think President Bush has leadership qualities.
57% of voters are uneasy with Kerry’s ability to handle a crisis.
60% believe Kerry says what people want to hear. Only 36% say that about President Bush.
This poll was conducted Friday and Saturday. Is this any sign of a surge to Kerry? Hardly.
So why is this race so close? Because, Obi Wan suspects, voters know the course that Bush has charted is hard, and will have hard moments. They know that bringing democracy to the Middle East and crushing militant Islamists, rogue states and terrorism is going to have frustrations, setbacks, and casualties. If the world didn’t need this task done, Americans would prefer to stay home and re-live the 1990s.
But Americans know the world changed. The sudden reappearance of the bearded psychopath playing pundit in Arabic on Friday was just the latest reminder. And Americans won’t vote for the candidate of the Global Test.
Amen to both of your points. Well said.
If liberals are such great people, how come conservatives are fun and liberals are dour and spiteful?
Rubbish. Not even LBJ-Goldwater or Reagan-Mondale was such a rout. 65-34 would mean Bush won every state, and even DC. This cannot happen. A landslide nowadays means 55-45.
Bush 341, Kerry 197 ev.
That's more like it. We could get there with a 52-48% victory.
We were very united on 911. What happened was the media working with the DNC decided the only way to take out the President was to cast doubt on the war on terror. They did a brilliant job of propaganda, trying to effect a bloodless coup. Let's just pray that they were not successful. We shall all know tomorrow.
well stated!!!!!
That's what I call home schooling. The Coral Spring's Sam's by any chance?
Bump
I realy don't think that's the problem.
I really think that no matter what, 25-33% of the electorate is 'terminally lib,' and that goes if 9-11 victimized 6,000, 9,000, 12,000 or 15,000. Their minds just filter and register things a certain (odd) way. Their reaction is superficially the same.
I think, similarly, that 25-33% of the electorate is 'terminally conservative,' and react to things also according to their world view.
The balance, the middle 34-50%, has no particularly strong opinions either way. I don't think that they would be reacting much differently if 6,000 people were killed om 9-11, or 12,000. Some will gravitate to the right, others to the left, others will be terminally 'open minded,' which is to say 'empty headed.'
None of this really has much to do with a body count. People belive what they believe. That's all.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
You know, I saw a film on 9/11 about New York City through the eyes of six filmmakers, and one idiot bald-headed guy with four earrings said he was "most worried about what 9/11 would do to our domestic politics" and he marched against the Iraq war. Sick.
I sat on my floor and cried. And I HATE New York. No, my point is that the deaths of 3,000 Americans was not sufficient to galvanize the rest of the United States to unite and destroy these SOBs.
I'm sure many undedcideds have been holding their breath waiting to see if we would be attacked by terrorists before the election.
Given that so many voters are numbskulls (and my life depends on their 'wisdom'), I'm beginning to like Heinlein's Starship Trooper notion that only people who have done military (or equivalent) service of some kind are qualified to be citizens and to vote to choose a government.
No, we weren't united. I recently saw an HBO movie about six NYC filmmakers and their "takes" on 9/11, and one of them, a baldheaded dude with six earrings, said he was "most worried about what it would do to our DOMESTIC politics," and he "marched against the war." Sadly, we have NEVER been united in this fight.
Yah, I think you're right. But how, then, in WW II, did the country get almost 98% of the people united? I mean, look at the list of HOLLYWOOD people who VOLUNTEERED!! (Borgnine, Holden, Bronson, Stewart, Savalas, Curtis . . . . on and on!) Even elite execs resigned positions and joined up.
I understood your initial point perfectly. Ignore those with limited ability for abstract thinking.
ALL good points.
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.