It's a close race, but Kerry is in the driver's seat

Despite all the talk about how close this race is, a close look at the polls suggests that Kerry is the candidate with a clear edge.

Why? Four reasons can be found in the polling:

1) Even though the two candidates are running essentially neck and neck, when an incumbent is doing no better than even only three months before election day, the incumbent usually loses. Why? Because undecided voters almost always break for the challenger.

2) Bush's job approval rating is below 50%. Re-elections are largely referenda on the incumbent, and when less than half of the electorate views an incumbent's job performance positively, the main rationale for reelection in the minds of many voters is gone.

3) Bush's "reelect" numbers are below 50%. This is the standard question about whether an incumbent deserves reelection. This question is essentially a way to get undecideds to offer their views on the incumbent and if an incumbent can't get to 50% on this, it is a signal that he won't get 50% of the vote.

4) If you look at state-by-state polling, Kerry is in better shape than Bush, needing only one of six states in which the election appears to be the closest (see earlier post).

But don't take my word for it. Here is the esteemed inside-the-Beltway guru Charlie Cook's take:

"The dynamics of this race do not look good for President Bush. The political mortality rate for well-known, well-defined incumbents tied at 45 percent is extremely high, even if there are 3 percentage points or so that are likely to go to independent and third party candidates. The mortality rate for incumbents with 48 percent job approval ratings is not much better. While this is almost certainly going to be a very, very close race, I'd rather be John Kerry today than George W. Bush."
(From "TO THE RACES: After The Bounce", Charlie Cook, National Journal© National Journal Group Inc.Tuesday, July 13, 2004)

"Last week in this space, I discounted the widely held view that the knotted polling numbers between Bush and Kerry meant that the race itself was even. I argued that given the fact that well-known incumbents with a defined record rarely get many undecided voters -- a quarter to a third at an absolute maximum -- an incumbent in a very stable race essentially tied at 45 percent was actually anything but in an even-money situation. "What you see is what you get" is an old expression for an incumbent's trial heat figures, meaning very few undecided voters fall that way.

"A recent survey by Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio (Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates: July 6-7, 1,000 likely voters in 19 battleground states), underscores my point. Fabrizio's poll shows that undecided voters in those states have more pessimistic views than all voters in those states. Just 23 percent of the undecideds say the country is moving in the right direction, compared with 40 percent overall. And just 21 percent say the economy is in excellent or good shape, compared with 33 percent of all voters in those states. Those who are undecided are also slightly more apt to disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president, 46 percent to 40 percent.
This is certainly not to predict that Bush is going to lose, that this race is over or that other events and developments will not have an enormous impact on this race. The point is that this race has settled into a place that is not at all good for an incumbent, is remarkably stable, and one that is terrifying many Republican lawmakers, operatives and activists. But in a typically Republican fashion, they are too polite and disciplined to talk about it much publicly."
(From "OFF TO THE RACES: Red Alert," Charlie Cook, National Journal© National Journal Group Inc.Tuesday, July 20, 2004)

Convention Recap

Still blogging...still not in Boston...

Kerry was good last night
I'm not a huge John Kerry fan -- scroll down if you don't believe me -- but I want to become one over the next 100 days, so the fourth night of the convention was a big deal to me. And I have to say that I thought Kerry gave an excellent speech. It hit the right themes, gave the audience some memorable lines and photo-op moments, and generally showed the guy to be both a real person and a more-than-plausible Commander-in-Chief. Nice job.

His daughters were excellent, hitting exactly the right notes, and the bio film was a good one, too.

I think most people who were really trying to take the measure of Kerry for the first time last night will say they came away impressed. We'll have to await the polls.

Interpreting the bounce will be a big post-convention story. Given the historically low number of undecideds and Kerry already being at 45% in the polls, there is little possibility of a double-digit bounce. If so, the Bush campaign will go into red light terror alert panic mode.

Edwards wasn't as good as he should have been on Wednesday
Why he gave a retread rather than a fresh and better speech is beyond me. At least he didn't overshadow Kerry, but there was no way he would have.

Obama shining
Since I've been supporting this guy for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat since he was an obscure no-name last year, I'm biased. And enough has been said about him already. It's time that we have a leader who is black rather than simply another black leader. The expectations are going to be tough to handle. See next entry.

A Deep Bench
It's hard to imagine that there's not a future president among Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

Start to Finish it was a good convention. From the Carter, Gore, and Clinton speeches to Obama's to Edwards and Kerry's acceptance speech. Weak point was Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech, which was too long, in too good of a time slot (though no networks covered it), and too self-absorbed. (It must have been tough to grown up as part of the colonialist elite in Mozambique, then come to America to date and marry the heir to a catsup fortune. That's a classic coming-to-America immigrant story if I've ever heard one.)

State-by-State Polls: Pre-Convention Bounce

A summary of state-by-state polls (pre-convention bounce)

(270 Electoral Votes needed to win)

Kerry leads in 22 states with 261 electoral votes.
Bush leads in 23 states with 195 electoral votes.
The two are tied in 6 states with 82 electoral votes.

Some states have no polling available, but are considered locks for one candidate, so they are included in the above totals.

If we remove the states in which a candidate's lead is within the polling margin of error (but still include the "lock" states):

Kerry leads in 12 states with 174 electoral votes.
Bush leads in 20 states with 166 electoral votes.


This is from the highly respected "Hotline", and is based on a compilation of statewide polls over the last six months. The main caveat here is that there are no recent polls for Washington.

The six Purple states, their EVs and their 2000 EV:
Florida (27) Bush
Iowa (7) Gore
Missouri (11) Bush
Ohio (20) Bush
Washington (11) Gore

The most recent polls from these states, with sponsor, dates, and margin of error:

FL(27)
Bush-Kerry
50-47 CNN/USA Today/Gallup 7/19-22 +/-4
48-46 Mason-Dixon 7/19-21 +/-4
45-45 Los Angeles Times 7/17-21 +/-4

IA (7)
Bush-Kerry
47-47 American Research Group 7/26-28 +/-4

MO (11)
Bush-Kerry
44-48 Research 2000 7/20-22 +/-3.5
48-48 CNN/USA Today/Gallup 7/19-22 +/-5
44-46 Market Research 7/13-20 +/-4

OH (20)
Bush-Kerry
47-44 Columbus Dispatch 7/14-23 +/-2
45-51 CNN/USA Today/Gallup 7/19-22 +/-4
45-47 American Research Group 7/20-22 +/-4

WA (11)
Bush-Kerry
43-43 Moore Information (R) 6/23-24 +/-4
45-44 Moore Information (R) 6/9-11 +/-4
42-46 Mason-Dixon 6/9-11 +/-4

Blogging from Boston: Day Three -- Free Bird!

I'm still not in Boston; I will be going there next month, however.  But I'm as exhausted as all the people you're seeing on TV. 

Having watched Edwards give his "two Americas" speech several times during the primaries, I thought the speech fell flat -- or at least that he wasn't as good as he can be.  But it raises the question of why he reprised the speech at all?  Does Edwards not have anything further or new to say at this point in the campaign?   It's not like people were yelling "Free Bird" when he came out on stage.  I wanted to hear something new, perhaps a recitation that put some heft on the "Strength at Home, Respect Abroad" theme.  It seems kind of lame and lazy for him to just give the same basic speech with a few references to Kerry wedged into it.

Maybe the speech played better to first time Edwards viewers. 

Here are a couple of takes on it: David Corn's, Jason Zengerle's, and Bill Saleton's.

 

B(log) O(f) T(he) D(ay)

New feature:  The Blog of the Day, or BLOD, for short.

William Saleton in Slate on Teresa Heinz Kerry and Barak Obama.  He thinks it's silly to give the First Lady so much play in the presidential campaign, and he thinks most of her speech was silly, too.  As for Obama, another favorable take, but a bit more measured than the ga-ga's he got from the television pundits.  He absolutely "melted" Mark Shields, David Brooks, and Chris Matthews. 

 

 

Kerry gets a personality transplant

 
See the photo:  http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040726/i/r4086761383.jpg

Blogging from Boston, Day Three Preview

First of all, a reminder, I'm not really in Boston. 

Last night, we had Barak Obama's "one America" speech.
Tonight, we have John Edward's "two America's" speech.

 

Blogging from Boston, Day Two: The Barak Obama Show

OK.  I'm still not in Boston, but here are some highlights from Day Two:  Barak Obama. 

A big thank you should go out to Jack Ryan and the Illinois Republican party for helping send Obama into the political stratosphere.

If Obama were still enmeshed in a competitive race with Ryan rather than a shoo-in, would he have been selected for the Keynote Address?  I doubt it.  He would still be getting noticed at the convention as a "rising star," and perhaps would have been given a speaking slot, but probably not the keynote, because what if he went on to lose the general? 

Anyway, it was a great speech, the best since Mario Cuomo's 1984 Keynote:

Here's some key parts of it:

"My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.

"They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential....

"Now don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to.

"Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.

"Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach our kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

"People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice...

"If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

"It is that fundamental belief, it is that fundamental belief, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

"E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

"The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

"We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

"John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope."

Full transcript here.

From Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech:
"My right to speak my mind, to have a voice, to be what some have called "opinionated," is a right I deeply and profoundly cherish. My only hope is that, one day soon, women­ who have all earned the right to their opinions­instead of being labeled opinionated, will be called smart or well-informed, just as men are."

Full transcript here.

Blogging from Boston, Day One

I was a little envious when I read that the DNC was giving out credentials to bloggers for this year's convention. Maybe if I had just blogged harder last spring, or come up with a more clever name for my blog (note clever new blog name), or maybe if I had actually continued to blog between April 11 and, well, right now, I might have had a chance.

But as the first day convention missives from the Boston Bloggers reveal, they could have covered the story better by sitting at home with basic cable and letting traditional journalists deal with the dreariness of actually going through the ordeal of attending the convention.  That's the way I felt when I attended the 1992 Democratic National Convention in New York.

There is no real story in Boston.  It is a stage-set for a television extravaganza, where thousands of delegates must be moved into place and kept there during prime time.  It's actually a good thing for the hapless local party workers that prime-time coverage is down to an hour or two each night, because they don't have to sit in the convention hall for so long. It's no big deal to have empty seats in the hall when the TV cameras are turned off.   Otherwise, it's excruciatingly boring (and usually hot, even in the smoke-free air-conditioned era).  All an average Joe or Jane Delegate can do is chit-chat with fellow delegates (probably a good thing, as it cements ties among these party activists when they return home), try to spot celebrities, and, if all else fails, listen to obscure but symbolic speakers rattle on.

For the average delegate, going to the convention is like going on one of those bank club vacations where you always have to wear your nametag and all of your time is scheduled, much of it moving from this place to that.  Your day begins with a Delegation Breakfast at the hotel, attended by several speakers, usually an in-state politician or two plus a visiting celebrity.  It continues perhaps with a delegation outing of some sort, followed by a luncheon outside the hotel.  Accounting for logistics/travel time, this brings us to mid-afternoon, at which time, delegates have a couple of hours to have dinner and get ready to go to the hall for that night's big show. At 11 p.m., the convention recesses and delegations usually have one or two late-night party options.   Mostly hung-over, they do it all again for three more days, until they roll home on Friday to sleep it off for the weekend.

 

Red, Blue, and Purple

Feeling bewildered about all this Red America/Blue America stuff? 

If you want to know whether you live in a blue zone or a red zone?  Just answer the following simple questions:

Do you live closer to (A) a Pottery Barn or (B) a Wal-Mart?

Do you live closer to (A) a Thai restaurant or (B) a Bob Evans?

How hard is it to get the New York Times delivered to your home?
          (A) So easy I sometimes get two
          (B) I can get it but I have to make a few calls 
          (C) I can only get it by mail three days after the publication date

How often do you see a rainbow bumper sticker?
            (A) Daily          (B) Every once in a while          (C) Never

How many TV ads have you seen for Bush and Kerry so far?
            (A) None         (B) 14,678

If you answered (A) to each question, there’s little doubt that you live in Blue America. If you answered (B) or (C) to the first four questions, and (A) to the fifth, you are firmly ensconced in a Red Zone.  But if you answered (B) to the last question, you live in Purple-land, and since you are reading this blog, you’d better make damn sure you vote this year!

If you want to know whether you yourself are Red or Blue, I have found the single question that captures the essence of redism and blueism.  Simply answer the following:

Have you ever vacationed in -- or thought it would be "fun" to vacation in -- Branson, Missouri?

Still not sure?   Take the Slate quiz. 

David Brooks’ Atlantic article on the subject is here.  Brooks recently came out with a book-length version, On Paradise Drive. Michael Kinsley’s review of it is also worth reading.

Back for the General Election

Since last we talked, the Bush campaign has spent millions of dollars trying to “define” John Kerry as a liberal flip-flopper.  The Kerry campaign has spent most of its time raising money and standing aside while events play havoc with Bush’s reelection rationale.

If voters knew a little more about Kerry, or if Kerry was simply a moderate Southerner, I think he would have a commanding lead at this point.  There is clearly a Democratic majority out there for the taking this year, but undoubtedly there are swing voters who figured they would never have to cast a vote for a “Massachusetts liberal” like Kerry.  A Clinton or a Gore, OK, but John “McGovern-Tip-Teddy-Dukakis-in-a-tank” Kerry?  There is a massive hesitation among the undecideds, who are more than ready to jettison Bush but are waiting to see if Kerry can convince them that he is not some kind of wild-eyed liberal.  It doesn’t help that the convention is in Boston, but this Thursday is Kerry’s biggest opportunity yet.  Given his speaking style, though, it’s probably just as well that the undecideds have 437 cable channels to choose from.