Funny, I remember the “public speaker” criticism leveled against both Bush and Gore. Personally, I’ve never put “good public speaker” high on my priority list when I’m filling out a ballot. When I’m trying to pick a lecture class or go to a seminar or whatever, sure, but not for most politics.
Josh Marshall, in his Talking Points Memo (without which, as elucidator would point out, no citizen can reasonably claim to be informed) made the argument a while back that lagging numbers are not good for an incumbent; you’ve seen him in action for almost four years now, not to mention the previous campaign, so if he hasn’t convinced people to vote for him by now, he isn’t likely to.
Hit “reply” a little early on that one…
Bush’s biggest worry, IMO, resides in the “apathy vote”–the people who just haven’t been moved to vote, and who just didn’t care enough to have a preference between Bush and Gore last time. Every time bad news comes out of Iraq or other bad news seeps out of the White House, a few more of those people get off the couch and say, “That’s IT! I’m voting against that bastard!” Kerry, while equally unlikely to inspire those people into voting for him, has far less opportunity to piss them off enough to vote against him.
In short, I don’t think it looks good for Bush.
The problem Kerry has is this:
Whenever Bush makes public appearances or gives speeches, his poll numbers go up. This is because many people find Bush to be likable, even if they are unsure of his policies.
Whenever Kerry makes public appearances or gives speeches, his poll numbers go down. This is because he has a droning, dour countenance that puts people to sleep, and because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.
Notice that Kerry have been pretty much out of sight for the past few weeks. So much so that other Democrats are accusing him of running a bad campaign and being asleep at the switch during a time of great opportunity.
I don’t know who’s going to win in November, but Bush is still the favorite. Yes, his poll numbers are down, but he’s also been through the roughest weeks of his presidency in terms of hits on bis popularity. The uprisings in Iraq, the 9/11 commission, a flurry of books by people like Woodward and Joe Wilson, the prison scandal… And yet, he’s still running virtually neck-and-neck with Kerry. If the bad news subsides, look for Bush’s numbers to start creeping up again.
And without even knowing what he’s going to say, I predict that Bush’s poll numbers will climb next week after his Iraq speech to the nation on Monday night.
Ah, but you forget about the ace Karl Rove has stashed up his sleeve – Diebold electronic voting machines. Or do you really think Max Cleland went from a 49-44% lead before the 2002 elections to a 53-46% loss just because he had an unlucky Tuesday?
Interesting. Could you perhaps reconcile your statement here with this chart? If all it takes is a simple speech to make his poll numbers go up, why is the trend in that chart so overwhelmingly obvious, and so overwhelmingly downward?
Huh. Since you obviously have the information backing this statement, or else you surely wouldn’t have made it, could you give me the link you based this on? I’d especially love a chart similar to the one I linked to above. TIA!
And yet the President’s numbers continue to drop. Of their own volition. Without substantial Kerry involvement. Interesting…
Sez who? There are a billion polls out there, so I’m sure some of them say that Bush is the favorite. There are also some that say that Kerry will win. Google’s first hit for “Bush Kerry poll” gives this site, which shows them in a dead heat.
I think you’re being a little naive if you think the assualts on Bush are going to subside as the election nears…
Eh, maybe. But care to guess where they’ll be a week from next Monday?
To that last: Only in your dreams. There is unlikely to be anything in that speech but an exhortation to stay the course. All that will do is reinforce existing views of Bush, which are already increasingly against him.
To retrieve a lead in the polls, the general trend of both the war and the economy are going to have to reverse sharply. If they don’t, the consensus that Bush is incapable of dealing with either will continue to solidify. But one requires the fantasizing skills of the loyalist right to see that happening. You could argue that a total collapse by the Kerry campaign might drive him down further than Bush, but if there’s anything that has exemplified his Senate career, it’s caution.
There really is nothing in that chart that necessarily contradicts what Sam is saying. The short term post-speech polls can still take turns for the better/worse that oppose the longer term trend. I don’t know if his contention is true or not, but if it is, it’s more likely to affect the big picture as the frequency of speeches/debates picks up.
Polls, shmolls. Put your faith in those who have something to lose. Tradesports has Bush favored at 55%. If you think it’s wrong, bet against them!
C’mon, bookies set betting lines according to where they think equal money totals will be bet on either side, thereby guaranteeing them a profit. They’re not predicting the election; they’re predicting bettors’ judgment - which, if they had much of, would keep them from betting at all.
Yes, and one other thing. Kerry has repeatedly won elections by campaigning hard in the last month.
Now, a lot of people have been bitching that Kerry has been off the screen. I just heard him mocked for delaying his acceptance of the nomination by the same people who assured us that the Clintons did something horrible in Whitewater, that Al Gore said he invented the interenet and who still insist that going to war with Iraq was a really great idea. With a track record like that, I really don’t see how anyone can doubt their judgment. But I think what Kerry’s doing is a brilliant campaign strategy. The fact is, most undecided voters don’t really pay attention or make up their minds until the last weeks and the Republicans have a huge advantage in advertising cash which they have been heroically squandering attacking Kerry with the result that, like Iraq, they keep losing ground. So, Kerry allows Bush to continue twisting in the wind, waits until the last few weeks and then hits Bush with everything he’s got.
I’m telling you, Bush is toast.
And, Mr. Stone, I love reading your posts. I hope there are more people like you and that they’re so confident that they’re right, the odds stay right where they are. I want to look forward to a big paydday.
It’s not bookies setting that line. You trade with other people. Anyone can lay odds.
Aside from the fact that it’s simply a measure of who bettors think will win, I’m not sure your cite paints the rosy picture you seem to think it does.
Bush’s contract was trading above 70 as few as 5 months ago, and is down to 54.5 now. That is also an all time low during the life of the contract which is about a year and a half old.
If it keeps trendling like it has this year, his contract will be at 40 by election day. I wonder if I can “short” a betting contract. 
Hey, if it’s the free market setting the odds, they must reflect the distilled wisdom of thousands upon thousands of gamblers, each with a bit of special knowledge that when combined gives a true picture of the pulse of the nation.
Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of this bitching, too. And I have to say that Kerry’s relative absence doesn’t bother me at all. Someone (and I can’t remember who) said that you don’t want to commit homicide on your opponent if that opponent is in the process of committing suicide. That’s to say: Bush is doing enough damage to himself; there’s nothing Kerry could do to make Bush look worse than he currently does. In fact, if Kerry started tearing into Bush for the debacle in Iraq, for example, Republicans would accuse Kerry of partisanship and of undermining the mission there, blah blah blah. With Kerry keeping quiet, the onus is on Bush, and this whole mess is Bush’s and Bush’s alone.
I remember in college I had a crush on this girl. She was currently getting the moves put on her by this other guy, who didn’t quite appeal to her, either. But there were some things about me that she liked, and whenever I was in the company of the two of them, this other guy tried to take every joke I made and every interesting bit of conversation I offered up and make it his. He was successful at it, and naïve little boy that I was, I couldn’t figure out how to stop it, or to turn it to my benefit. Eventually I steered clear of the two of them when they were together. In the end, neither of us got the girl, but I learned a lesson: putting yourself in the proximity of a situation makes you part of that situation. In this case, my proximity was helping my opponent by making everything seem more positive. In Bush’s case, Kerry’s proximity would serve as a lightning rod, drawing all the bad stuff away from the president and onto his challenger. Kerry’s smart enough to know that. He’s also three times as old as I was in that anecdote I just relayed.
One big piece of trouble for Bush is the fact that around 85% of undecided voters break for the challenger, even if you’re talking about a hopeless candidate like Barry Goldwater or Walter Mondale. I guess it makes sense: voters who haven’t made up their minds by Election Day are probably dissatisfied with the current administration. While they’re probably not thrilled with their other options, they would most likely vote to change the administration, thus expressing their true dissatisfaction, despite their tepid feelings toward the other guy. (Here’s a good article on the subject, written by Dick Morris, a Republican.)
Bush’s numbers are going to have to go up if he’s to overcome that undecided voter break. Of course, working in Bush’s favor, there are far fewer undecided voters this time than there usually are. On the other hand, Kerry has been snapping at Bush’s heels pretty consistently this election season, and has been leading Bush at times. This is not a good sign for an incumbent. Consider that Bob Dole was never ahead of Bill Clinton in the polls, that Walter Mondale was never ahead of Ronald Reagan, that George McGovern was never ahead of Richard Nixon. Incumbents like George Bush Senior, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had neck-and-neck races than this, and we know what happened to them. In fact, Gerald Ford was never this low in the approval polls.
Another fact to note is that Bush’s election campaign has been working hard. The Bush campaign has spent around $100 million this year, and Bush’s numbers still aren’t doing so well. The Kerry campaign has spent less than $20 million, last I heard, but a new Kerry ad barrage is about to change that. The point is, Bush has already been working hard, pounding swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Iowa, and still isn’t gaining much traction, if any. Kerry, who really hasn’t poured on the gas yet, is doing rather well. Kerry ads have been running in the seventeen swing states that everyone made a fuss about early in the campaign, and the Kerry campaign has recently begun to make plays for Colorado, Louisiana and Kentucky—widely considered safe Bush territory earlier this year (though I always thought Colorado and Louisiana were up in the air. Kentucky surprises me, I have to say.)
I wouldn’t say that Kerry has it in the bag quite yet, but things are looking much better for him. The Iraq mess will continue to hurt Bush; a reversal of fortune there, though desirable for everyone, is unrealistic. Kerry also has stronger support in more of the “blue states” than Bush does in the “red states.” Factor that in with the fact that the undecideds tend to break toward the challenger on Election Day, and I think Kerry’s in an awfully good position. Granted, the election’s still five days away, so a lot can still happen, but the facts are pointing toward a good day for Kerry this November.
I never said it painted a rosy picture, just likely the most accurate one. If you want to short it, just sell it or offer odds. As far as it being “just bettors,” there is a reason why futures markets are the best indication of future prices. That Bush to Win contract has a decent enough liquidity that any believing pundit can make a decent amount of money outwitting “the masses.”
I love it when Bush supporters delude themselves into believing there is going to be a landslide. Bush only won 29 states in 2000; do you really think that he has done anything to gain any votes from people who voted for Gore in 2000? He only needs to lose a few votes in key states to end up unemployed in November. Gee, can you think of anything that might cause previous Bush voters to change their mind (3 million fewer jobs, and that Damn Fool War™ for starters).
Can Bush regain his lead?
He seems to have pulled even. And he is scheduled to give a speech detailing his plans for transition in Iraq, which may affect things further. And the economy and job market are likely to continue to improve, which won’t help Kerry any. You can scream “Net loss of jobs!” until you are blue in the face - a recovering economy is an advantage for Bush.
Doesn’t seem to have happened in Reagan-Carter. And remember who won the election in both your examples.
It’s early days, and a very close election.
Please provide a cite proving that Cleland lost his election because of election fraud committed by Karl Rove using Diebold machines in 2002. Election fraud of that nature is a felony - could you link to where Rove has been convicted? Or indicted? Or proof that vote tampering on the scale you suggest occurred?
Please note that I am asking for evidence, not accusations.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not so sure that Shodan’s cite is accurate, see Zogby’s numbers. I’m beginning to subscribe to the theory that this will not be a close election. Presidential elections involving incumbents have been blowouts in recent years:
1996 Clinton over Dole 379-159
1992 Bush lost to Clinton 370-168
1984 Reagan over Mondale 525-13
1980 Carter lost to Reagan 489-49
1972 Nixon over McGovern 520-17
all of these were electoral blowouts.
Most likely scenario: Kerry wins by blowout
Second most likely scenario: Bush wins by blowout
Least likely scenario: Close election
If I am not mistaken, no incumbent president has ever won re-election with approval ratings as low as Bush’s right now. No matter who Kerry’s VP is, no matter what Kerry does, this election is a referendum on Bush’s job performance. And that job performance is going to be judged largely on Iraq. I just don’t see the news from Iraq improving in the next several months, Bush would have to have fabulous luck in order for the new Iraqi government to be remotely credible and the violence in the streets to diminish to mere anarchy. Throw in the macabre spectacle of the torture scandal and you’ve got some unhappy voters out there ready to sweep out the old guard.
I avoided commenting on the days “Tin Hat Special”…the Diebold voting machine conspiracy theory. I think Shodan handled it well.
I would like to echo what Zadagka said earlier…that most people have made up their minds already. The closer you follow politics, the more likely that is to be the case. If you are a “casual voter”, you tend to be more influenced by events. So it all comes back to Iraq, the economy and unknowns.
I’ve been saying for months that I think GWB will be re-elected. As to the polls, there are so many variables about them as to make them almost worthless. Such as…
What is the margin of error? The fewer people you poll, the higher it becomes. As close as some of the numbers are, this equals dead heat.
How were the questions posed? It’s possible to shape the result by subtle phrasing of the question. “Who will you vote for?” might get a different answer than a question with a slight editorial slant either way.
Where was the poll taken? Kerry is going to win if it’s conducted in San Francisco, Bush if it’s taken in Dallas.
The bottom line is that people are going to latch onto polls that reflect the reality they want to create and will discount any poll that doesn’t match the world they want to live in.
Only if he has something new to say, and even then…37 days until handoff is a little late for announcing who’s getting the ball then. Barely time to put the training wheels on, before allegedly taking them off again.
“The economy” has been recovering for two and a half years. Improvement in the job market will register with most people by whether they and those they know can find work, with what degree of difficulty, and whether or not they’re ‘good’ jobs, or just something to hold things together with until the sorts of jobs they were used to come back. So if we continue to get oodles of new jobs every month (assuming the new jobs we’ve seen in the past two months aren’t largely an artifact of BLS’ methods for estimating jobs created by new employers not yet included in the Census Bureau’s sampling frame), then you may have a point.
OTOH, if the spike in energy prices causes the economy to go south again…
Doesn’t seem to have happened in Reagan-Carter. And remember who won the election in both your examples.
[/quote]
Reagan-Carter is the defining example, really. They were essentially tied with a week to go. But in the last few days, the undecideds swung sharply to Reagan, giving him a 9-point win in the popular vote.