Asymmetrical Information

Hi Jane,glad to have you back.

The only thing to take from the recent events (since the dems convention) is that Kerry is (French) toast. The spinners can spin all they want to but the American electorate, while somewhat somulent, is not stupid. They can see a phony from a thousand miles away. Of course you can always cite Bill (I did not have sexual realtions with that woman) Clinton, but the fact is he was sold as a phony from day one. He has never pretended to be otherwise and he was extremely good at it. They only thing that Kerry seems to be truly good at is schtuping rich women.
His senate record is nothing to brag about which is why he is not mentioning it except when cornered.

Note to the ABB crowd-- Its over, probably a 1/3 of you won't even be able to get up the energy to make it to the polls.
No loss, Ignorant people shouldn't vote anyway.

The Dems managed to narrow it in 2000 through a rather nasty "November surprise": the hushed up DUI conviction, which was publicised just days before the election, leaving the Bush campaign no time to respond.

That is until attorney, and former Democratic candidate for Governor of Maine, Tom Connolly alerted local media to the facts, just days before the election. The local press confirmed the story with the public record, and went with the story that quickly went national.

The rather tight timing of Connolly's informing of the press was made possible by the fact that everything was in the public record, and not "hushed up".

Aren't these polls all more indexes rather than absolute measurements of the current state of the electorate? If so, they certaining indicate a troubling trend for Kerry but by no means predict the outcome of the election. And most are national polls and the election of the president depends on the outcome of 50 State elections.

The anti-Bush whack jobs have created a situation very similar to what the anti-Clinton whack jobs created; the rhetoric and vitriol has become so over the top that measured, sober, criticism is discounted. If this 60 Minutes/Dan Rather fiasco plays out as it now appears it will, with blatant forgeries put forth by a major news network, Bush will be effectively immunized from further attack, no matter how substantive.

I don't think Kerry will win by making himself look good or revitalizing his image as you suggest. He can only win by dragging Bush into the media spin cycle and making Bush look bad, amplified by the national media megaphones. He can only do this by attacking Bush's perceived strengths. For example, when Kerry hoisted his Vietnam service as a strength, the Bush supporters hoisted the Swifties in response, and quite effectively according to the polls. And when Bush says he's got what it takes to stick it out in Iraq Kerry's supporters have come back with attacks on his National Guard Service (or lack thereof), which if it stays alive long enough, will probably have a similar measurable effect on Bush's polling. In short they need to produce negative sound bite fodder and do whatever it takes to get Bush's name continually associated with these things on all the 24-7 ADD ritalin deficient cable news nets.

Jane:

1. I think that I've misunderstood you somewhere. You say that "it's historically very hard to reverse leads after Labor Day. The Dems managed to narrow it in 2000 through a rather nasty 'November surprise….'" But I believe that Labor Day in 2000 fell on Sept. 4 (or 9/4/00) (see http://www.smart.net/mmontes-cgi-bin/ushols.cgi), and the polling information I can find (see http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm) appears to show that Gore had leads of ever-changing sizes (incl. a couple of double-digit leads) over Bush for about a month starting just before Labor Day. So in 2000, I think the numbers firmed up in October. (I admit that I'm terrible with dates, and remain unsure that September is the ninth month after counting twice). What am I missing?

2. Also, I respectfully disagree with the claim that Kerry needs to forcefully make clear his plans for the future. No one listens, believes in, or even understands the plans that most candidates talk about; Ownership Society - does anyone think that's going to happen? Certainly, Kerry has to distinguish between himself and Bush, but he should just try to imagine what Dean (or Clinton) would have said and say it. As long as it's minimally coherent and sounds like it's different, people will be fine with it.

Elections that include incumbents are generally referenda on those incumbents. Among Kerry's many problems are: (a) he can't or won't make the easy case that Bush (and by extension, his Administration) is a likeable incompetent, (b) he is not so much a-charismatic as anti-charismatic - he's actually managed to suck the charisma out of Edwards, and (c) he hired the same Mission Impossible team who lost an unloseable race in 2000 (why weren't the SS#'s destroyed so that they could never work in US in any job again?). But, yes, (d) he talks to much about Vietnam, is also true. I don't really care what Bush did about getting out of Vietnam - Clinton did the same thing, and I would have too if it had applied to me. Welcome to shortening the g'dam risk. Every time he talks about Vietnam (back in the Time No One Cares About), he misses an opportunity to talk about the problems today. Which is great, because I can't think of a better strategy for a challenger than ignoring the mess the incumbent has made of the world.

As I've said before, if we lose this election, it's our fault. This one is almost as much of a gimmee as the last one should have been. Hopefully, it'll be the last one we need to lose before we restructure the top-end of the party.

Jane, welcome back, and I am sure I speak for everyone on your great blog in offering you my sympathies on the passing of your grandfather.

I have been a strong believe for some time that this election will not be close. When push comes to shove and middle of the road voters get in that booth they will not be able to pull the lever for Kerry. They might not love Bush but they will remember 9/11 and think of our safety and Kerry has done nothing to make them vote for him in this regard or any, since he has no position on anything, other than raising taxes and being anti-military his entire life.

Like it or not, people in this country feel that Kerry is not the man to lead this country in a time of war. Times like these require men of courage and conviction, and Kerry has never shown any of that, and please do not bring up his 4 months in 'nam. Courage is enlisting before your deferments get rejected and then enlising for the Marines during a ground war, not the Navy. I am not disparaging anyone who served in the Navy, just making a simple point that Kerry's actions were not as corageous as he would like them to appear.

SomeCallMeTim; you need to get a bit of a grip. First of all, if he says what Dean would say then he has no chance of winning, and he can't say what Clinton would say because Clinton just babbled BS, but people bought it cause he was such a great salesman, Kerry is no Clinton, so he could never get away with "it depends on what is is."

Your contention that Bush is incompetent is the usual left wing bomb throwing. What has made him incompetent? Oh, you don't like fighting an offensive war so he is incompetent. No, incompetent is letting our buildings get bombed for eight years and launching a couple of Tomahawks at a pharmacy in retaliation. Or is it the loss of jobs, which of course blames Bush for losing a million jobs in the first four months of his presidency when that is what Clinton left him with. Or that the economy is not picking up as quickly as you would like it to, although we have taken a tremendous hit from 9/11 plus energy prices which have risen astronomically through no fault of Bush's either.

You are right though, if the Democrats lose this electio it will be their fault. With all the propoganda and lies being thrown at Bush (CBS now has proven that they are just another one in the crowd that will throw anything they can to overthrow Bush), you still can not win the election. Two elections in a row the Democrats have thrown out complete incompetents to run for the most powerful office in this world. There are a lot of good democrats out there but Kerry and Gore do not fall in to that category. Have you seen Gore's rantings recently? It is hard to beleive that he was almost President of the USA, he has shown himself to be the exact person that this country thought he was, because to lose after what Clinton left him takes a real loser.

It's time to start questioning the democratic leadership in this country that has gone so far off the left edge that they have to run on a republican platform in order to just run a close race. No one wants what Daschle and Pellosi are offering this country, which is why they run for election as someone else.

Jane, you said:
"I find it unlikely that the Dems have a similar bomb in their arsenal this time;"

Why?

I have a strange feeling Bush will blow one or both debates...

Jane: What do you think of the possibility that Ra*th*ergate was scheduled for the last week of the campaign but was pulled from the quiver early because of the unexpected traction of the Swifties? This would work whether or not the documents are bogus, but it's obviously not the kind of story you want to give too much time for mature reflection.

judson,

I have my doubts about Bush blowing the debates. Everyone thought Gore would mop the floor with him in 2000, but the end result was that Gore came across as robotic, stiff and unappealing next to Bush's "just plain folks." Kerry has even less charisma than Gore (to the extent that's possible).

Mike Hill,
I can't imagine Rathergate was supposed to be the "October Surprise." The contents of the memos would have zero impact on the general public even if true -- absent the forgery issue, no one cares about this stuff.

He can only win by dragging Bush into the media spin cycle and making Bush look bad...

Bush is out of the media spin cycle? Since he's the sitting President, isn't he always in it?

And once you've equated a man with Hitler, a chimp, the Anti Christ, etc, what's left? "Yeah, he's Satan incarnate and wants to eat the babies of liberals. And I hate his health plan."

I don't think attacking Bush is the solution. Present an optional course of action, run it up the flagpole, and see who salutes it.

The problem is that Kerry's credibility is completely shot at this point -- if he were to unveil a grand scheme that appealed do 90% of the population, only a small fraction would believe that he actually meant any of it. The GOP has done a good job of emphasizing "There's what John Kerry Says ... and what John Kerry Does."

It's too bad the Dems haven't put forth a man with any ideas. Instead of putting forth a contrarian candidate that just slams the incumbent without presenting a consistent plan of his own, I wish they had a candidate that had some ideas. The public debate should be over policy, not ancient history.

Democracy requires constructive opposition to work. Without it, it becomes Facism. But of course, we've already heard that's what the Repubs are all about, yeah?

absent the forgery issue, no one cares about this stuff.

Wow, I've seen many posts by people on the far left who said "if the public pays attention to these memos, Chimpie is toastie!"

People care about things insofar as they think it will benefit their team.

Megan,

Bush does have a lock on it. Zogby said to Al-jazeerah that he was sure Kerry would make his case to the voters. Zogby is clearly partisan and pro-Kerry. His polling was more accurate prior to the point his Arab-American ideological disparity came to influence his work.

Arizona, as an example, was neck and neck two months ago. Now Bush is ahead 58% to 43%. Kerry has pulled his TV advertising for September and has basically given up on the state. Why? Because he has to defend states like New Jersey which were supposed to be a Democratic lock.

Kerry has way too high negatives. His wife has too many negatives. His past philandering ways and being a male gold-digger doesn't help much either--he was worth only 150k when he married Theresa Heinz and her billion dollar fortune.

If past trends are indicative of future elections, Bush has a chance to come close to equal the sort of victory which Reagan had in 1984. Naturally, you wont hear that from the left.

SDAI-Tech1

PS
Welcome back Megan. My condolences on your loss. Your absence was noted. So much so..I bloggerfied you. Hope you don't mind. ;-)

I agree with the posters who have said that Kerry does not have a strategy - a vision - for the future. If I was on his staff I would tell him to support the war and condemn the nation building. Bush has made the same mistakes as in VN. 1) By buying into the notion that there is one country in Iraq instead of three, Bush is committed to trying to get three very disparate groups to agree on a common government. In VN it was the Catholics coast dwellers and the Buddhists in country. Today we have the Shites, Sunnis and Kurds. The only thing they truly agree on is death to the Christians and Jews. 2) The second big problem with Bush's strategy is that he is simply not there to kill as many Islamists as he can and then get out. He has the military building and protecting infrastructure like electricty and pipelines. It's stupid. I believe if Kerry were to concentrate completely on supporting the killing of Islamists and disengaging from nation building that he could win in November. Of course, that betrays his facist liberal supporters but the idea is to win.

If you look at the polls so closely you may have noticed that Bush's lead has been falling and, in an IBD poll out today, has disappeared. Rasmussen has them practically tied as well. Your own Economist poll has Bush up only by one, and that was last week and since then most polls have seen a drop. Newsweek had a 5-6 point drop in Bush's lead in one week.

But more importantly there is the underreported story of Kerry's lead in battleground states. IN every poll that I've seen that has a separate breakout for battleground states Kerry is doing about 5 points better than in the national sample. This includes the CNN, ABC/WP, Rasmussen, Zogby, and today's IBD poll. I may be missing one. That probably explains why, despite Bush's lead in the national polls the websites that track EC status have shown Kerry in a mcuh stronger position (http://www.electoral-vote.com/).

This is pretty remarkable. The 5 polls I mentioned use different methodologies, have different results at the national level yet they all agree Kerry is doing much better where it counts, in the battleground states.

Last year it took the press about two months to realize Bush's job approval numbers were no longer high. Bush had dropped to the mid 50s and columnists and journalists still spoke of his job approval in the high 60s. I guess once the press agrees on a certain meme it takes a while for reality to seep in.

I have no idea who is going to win. But you can't look at the polls and not notice that Bush's lead has dropped a lot and that Kerry is doing very well in the states that matter. Winning Texas by 50 points is not going to help Bush.

Well, Bush must be counting his blessings. If the War on Terror had been successfully concluded, he'd be toast.

No wonder we hear talk of war that will last generations.

Kerry shouldn't flip-flop. He should've stuck to his Christmas In Cambodia story. Maybe he could've gotten Dan Rather to show a video clip of Nixon speaking from the Oval Office in '68.

GT, while Bush's bounce may be fading, comparing IBD to, say, Time or Gallup, is comparing apples to oranges, to some extent, because of their different methodologies. The more interesting metric is to compare these polls to themselves, earlier -- and by that metric, Bush's numbers seem to be getting better, not worse. (IBD doesn't have an earlier number on polling report for me to compare it to).

Newsweek, Rasmussen, and IBD all had an improvement for Kerry.

I think Bush is ahead nationally but by a smaller margin than last week.

And the swing states seem more pro-Kerry than the nation as a whole.

I agree the Dems muffed their convention, but not because they spoke about Kerrys service at the cost of more relevant, current issues. Bush spoke no more of his future plans and his record as President than Kerry spoke of his future plans or his record as a Senator. The big difference was Bush spent three days attacking Kerry, while Bushs name was mentioned about twelve times at the whole Dem convention. Negative is what moves polls, the Dems should have focused on Iraq, the loss of millions of jobs, outsourcing, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, and the fact 5 million Americans have lost their health care after Bush promised an increase in health care that covered every child. And since the Reps want to focus on Kerrys record as a Senator, the Dems should have pointed at Arbusto, Harkin, the Texas Rangers, and every other private business that went bankrupt while the idiot prince was running the show. Negative works.

Welcome back. Rather than comment on the snapshots of the moment, I'll try to explain the divide between say, Zogby and other polling organizations. Zogby adjusts his numbers to reflect overall party identification statistics. For example, if his random sample did not produce a number of Democrats that is reflective of stats for the general population, the Dem responses in his sample will be given greater weight, to correct for the perceived disparity. Other pollsters don't make such adjustments, either to keep the purity of the random sample, or on the theory that party identification itself is more fluid than Zogby thinks it is (a position held, iirc, by Dick Morris). Zogby's method worked well in the 1990s, as it matched increasing GOP registration relative to Dem registration. I'm not as sure it works as well now that there is relative parity in registration and and partisanship.

It's almost like no one is reading Ruy's excellent post on how temporary noise in party identification and likely voter screens issues are giving goofy results:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000663.php

There's always someone who wants to believe something so badly, they'll distort all reason to achieve it.

Of course there is a donkey rising. After all, where else could they go? After all the hoopla over the 1992 presidential election (won by a Democrat with well under 50% of the vote - where were the electoral college complainers then?), the Democrats have lost the House of Representatives, the Senate, the presidency, and most governorships. Oh - and all the while having an advantage in voter registration over any other party.

When you are face down in the gutter, there is only one other direction.

Now that's just mean.

:)

(won by a Democrat with well under 50% of the vote - where were the electoral college complainers then?),

You might want to think that through a little more. You do realize Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote by a sizable margin, right?

Comments are Closed.