Democrats & Liberals: Archives

From my blog this morning: Kerry has made the right choice by picking John Edwards as his running mate. In previous posts, I have written that Edwards would be a smart choice and provide Kerry the best shot at beating Bush in November. The Bush web site already has a negative response to Kerry’s announcement. Kerry’s choice is the “most politically expedient choice”, so what? Most Vice Presidential candidates are chosen for political expediency. As I have already written in this blog, John Edwards brings an energy, excitement and personality that Kerry has lacked. Edwards presidential campaign effectively stressed his working class background, and Edwards has the chance of helping Kerry capture some of the South. Obviously, Edwards is a political lightweight and Cheney’s years of experience, especially in foreign policy and defense, will be a major point for the Bush campaign. To counter this, Edwards may portray himself as the political outsider who has not been contaminated with years in Washington; this worked for Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, and Edwards is only the Veep candidate.

Kerry now has an excellent chance to take the White House away from the Republicans in November. His campaign needs to create a clear definition of each candidate; perhaps the older, experienced war veteran for Kerry and Edwards the youthful, charismatic southerner made good, juxtaposed against Cheney the heart attack prone, expletive spewing Washington insider.

I highly doubt the stories about an expected 10-15 point bounce by the end of the month, and suspect it’s a Republican ploy to raise expectations to a level that can’t be met. If Kerry goes up even 5-10 points, they’ll be able to claim he isn’t meeting historic expectations.

Bush and Kerry have both lingered in the low to middle forties for months now, with fairly committed and static base support. Where is a ten or fifteen point bounce going to come from? Kerry would have to cut significantly into Bush’s base while consolidating virtually all of the Nader vote. With economic stats and an Iraq picture which was previously much worse than today’s, it seems like any dramatic movement would have happened by now. I don’t see Kerry going up more than six or seven tops.

Martin:

The “bounce” projection from Ed Gillespie is most certainly an attempt at positioning. And I wouldnt expect a 15% bounce either.

It is interesting to note that Terry McAuliffe is predicting a bounce also, but his bounce is an 8-12% increase. That’s probably more in the line of what it actually might be, though its a wide enough range as to cover lots of options.

Bottom line: Kerry should get a bounce—-if he doesnt, that is a huge problem. Republicans will portray it as a bounce, while Democrats will portray it more as a trend. No surprises there.

After finishing this comment post, I will make an appointment to get my head check, because it looks like I’m in agreement with both Martin and Joe!

The day after CNN/Gallup Poll, put the bounce at 8%, although I’d like to see if the Kerry campaign streching this announcement into a mini-series might change that number upwards.

CNN’s Carlos Watson predicted the November vote will be won by an 6%-8% margin. I cannot fathom that swing coming out of the Democratic base, but I can see it coming out of Bush’s base.

The reason? John Edwards.

Bert, I still think Kerry has a bigger base problem because his base is so anti-war. How is Edwards going to cut into Bush’s base? What part of Bush’s base is an untapped reservoir of protectionist, anti-Nafta, pro-trial lawyer sentiment? Agreed that Edwards will likely help Kerry make inroads among a very small number of white Southern rural voters in areas already safe for Bush—but that’s irrelevant to the election’s outcome. It’s highly unlikely that Edwards will even make things interesting in North Carolina.

But let’s look at a few hypotheticals surrounding this whole “bounce” thing. If there really is a large bounce—say, over ten points—and it doesn’t begin eroding significantly right after the Boston convention, then I really think we will see Bush play the Condi, McCain or Powell card and shake things up. After all,what would Bush (and Cheney for that matter) have to lose? It seems more important to keep ahold of the White House than keep a ticket together if polls begin a sustained trend in the wrong direction.

Despite the chatter to this effect, I haven’t until now taken seriously the possibility of Cheney leaving the ticket, but if Edwards really makes the difference some pundits believe, then maybe Edwards will have made TOO BIG of a difference and done his job too well too early.

If Bush really does depend on Cheney’s advice and influence—not a part of the VP’s official duties, but a personal relationship between Bush and Cheney—then there would be nothing to lose from not having Cheney literally on the ticket.

Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that McCain would put aside his differences with Bush, which are far more personal than political, and accept a VP offer. It would probably guarantee Bush’s reelection, and assure McCain what he wants most—to head the ticket in 08. The impact would be devestating for Kerry, now that everybody knows he wanted McCain for his VP.

Democrats seem to think they have Bush on the ropes (which may or may not be true), but Bush still has this potential Ace up his sleeve. McCain in particular looks like an A-bomb—an assured way to wipe out Kerry once and for all, should doing in order to hang on the White House appear necessary.

How is Edwards going to cut into Bush’s base? What part of Bush’s base is an untapped reservoir of protectionist, anti-Nafta, pro-trial lawyer sentiment?

I ask you Martin. Is it possible to have supported NAFTA, however you now demand help from the government to stem the tide of good paying, quality jobs that are being outsourced? Of the 215,000 Ohioans who lost jobs last year, I’d bet half voted for Bush in 2000. How many of those folks you think would answer yes to the question I posed?

A heads up, too. I’d lay off the ‘trial lawyer’ rant, because it backfired on Edward’s Republican Senate opponent, and a TV spot featuring an actual little girl that Edwards won a huge settlement for, would probably bring you to tears.

I’m not crying for any more of the poor little girls Edwards wants to trot out. Sounds to me like a cheap emotionalistic ploy.

Getting outsized wads of cash for little girls is hardly enough reason to support anybody (even in cases when some damages were in order) especially when you think of how many other little girls’ daddies have lost their jobs when trial lawyers like Edwards—who skim large percentages off any money for those little girls in question—have destroyed companies, sometimes unfairly, with all of their crocodile tears in front of juries.

Martin,

Now that we’ve heard from your inner-Don Imus, let’s see if you can channel this unfamiliar persona.

My TV spot (‘Littlest Victim’) is on the tube, and you’re a moderate Republican female housewife who is among that majority of Americans who now think the Iraq War was not worth it.

She will take away from the spot, the impression that Edwards is the kind of ‘trial lawyer’ those thousands of women involved in the Wal-Mart class action suit deserve to be represented by.

And, the text you just provided for the voiceover, will remind her of Bush and Enron, then Cheney and Halliburton.

Do you really want to go down that road?

I believe that Martin and Joe have this bounce thing pegged. As far as eating into GW’s base, it appears to me that the Democrats are not counting on that strategy anyway. They went with a very left ticket because they thought they could. They must feel that the 2000 red/blue map is going to hold true this year, and so they will concentrate on the three big swing States: Florida, Ohio, and Michigan. A Kerry spokesperson was on FOX this morning saying that she though it would come down to just Florida.

Edwards helps in the rust belt with his “Two Americas” and his protectionist trade policies even though the economy is turning around in those States. And his good looks and his “that’s they guy my daughter should have married” image will sell well with the seniors in Florida. He certainly adds personality to his running mate who has little if any of that. The ticket being overly liberal will not hurt in any of the swingers as the anti-Bush sentiment will support just about political ideology.

As I’ve said before, 2 out of 3 of the big electoral vote swingers will win it. Current events of the next few months will decide it, not campaign strategies, political ideologies, or VP choices. Edwards helps Kerry so he is a plus, but neither can overcome a surging economy and the capture of UBL, or the end to the daily violence in Iraq. At least GW might have some (but the ship is already coming to port) control over his own destiny.

Bert, this disgruntled “Republican housewife” you’re describing, who is against the war but emotionally all wrapped up in a class action lawsuit against Wal Mart, sounds like an urban legend. I’d be surprised if there were three such women in the entire country.

I wonder if anyone else finds what’s said regarding Edward’s gender appeal to be a gross insult to the intelligence of women? We’re in the middle of a hard-fought war which we are nonetheless winning, the economy is booming under Bush, but women are so bubble-headed that what they really want is an ambulance-chasing Justin Timberlake?

Martin,

I purposedly left what I thought would be her political motivation vague, to get a better sense as to how you Bush supporters are responding to the Edwards selection.

The crux of my cited ‘moderate Republican housewife’ scenario was not ‘gender appeal’ as you concluded, but rather ‘credibility’!

Our housewife truly does not want to believe this administration lied about Iraq, but she is damn sure about what damage corporations like Enron and Halliburton have done to this country.

And, by slaming Edwards constantly as a ‘trial lawyer’, my TV spot reminds them of the Bush/Cheney connection to very same corporations that he is representing this little girl against.

Bert, please. The pc term is not housewife but “homemaker.”