29 Jan 2004 | Pete said...

We can and should.

29 Jan 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Why not? They get opinions from unidentified people on the street everyday on the news - why would getting if off a blog be any different?

29 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

*ahem* picked up some *really* good stogies last week ... really good! ;-)

The problem with blog comments is that a poseur could post a message. It's not like you're sitting and listening to a group.

I realize a shill could also infiltrate a MeetUp meeting -- a fifth column, if you will -- but it's less likely and more easily found out.

I'm calling Newsweek.

29 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Oh, and besides ... I'm supporting Kucinich.

Seriously.

29 Jan 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Is the possible poseur this issue in this case, or is the fact that the writer of the article (which I haven't read in full as I type this) chose to include that comment because it suited the spin he wanted for the story?

It makes for good drama "Even Dean's beloved blog supporters are questioning his decisions..."

29 Jan 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Sometimes english is a problem...

...poseur the issue...

29 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Hey, check out the preview of next week's cover of Newsweek.

29 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Most news stories these days revolve around meaningless polls. At least a blog comment is a COMMENT.

29 Jan 2004 | ek said...

The N.Y. Times has been citing blog postings in their Democratic primary coverage as well.

I don't like it either because I think sourcing is a fundamental tenet of journalism.

You might say a poll is meaningless, but at least it comes with a source attached and if you, the reader, do a little legwork, you can find out if that source has a particular bias.

Even anonymous sources (the increasingly common use of which is troubling as well, as USA Today recently found) at least come with the implicit imprimatur of the journalist behind the story.

But blog posts have ZERO attributability. As Don pointed out, the quoted postee could very easily be a poseur or, perhaps, even an unscrupulous journalist willing to manufacture some meat to add to the bones of a story (in this post-Jason Blair era this scenario doesn't seem all that far fetched).

This is bad for journalism and bad for those of us who look to publications like the Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, et al, for credible news reporting and analysis.

At least that's my two cents.

29 Jan 2004 | ek said...

Oh hey, Don, I meant to say that I'm a fan of Kucinich as well, but my main guy is Edwards.

He has an air about him that is downright Kennedy-esque. That, and the fact that he's the only candidate who can be described as telegenic (yes, it matters).

Kerry looks like an Abe Lincoln redux on TV and Dean looks like a dead fish (I really don't get the whole Dean thing).

30 Jan 2004 | peck said...

HAHA Brad Hurley - too funny! Kerry looks like his face is slowly melting. And speaking of the Kennedy's, I had no idea Kerry was so in with them (1st set of photos) back in the day. After seeing these photos, it sort of lessoned my opinion of him - only because he tries to pass himself off as so blue collar.

30 Jan 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

I would agree that in general anonymous sources make for bad journalism. However, in this case everything about Dean's blog - the posts, comments, the Internet strategy, the strategist (Trippi), outsiders, grassroots, Washington insider...blah, blah, blah - is news worthy.

Quickly reading through the comments on that site, I see there are several responses which aren't the standard good will - "Good luck and thanks, Joe" kind of responses. Several which are much worse than the one you've cited.

Out of the large number of Dean supporters, there are going to be more than a few who have a problem with this move by the campaign, and they're going to post their views - poseur or not - on the blog.

...and that is news worthy.

30 Jan 2004 | Erin said...

"ek" couldn't have explained it better.

I recently graduated with a journalism degree and have had plenty of talks with former classmates and colleagues about the problems plaguing the field.

What it comes down to is old school journalists don't respect the Internet in terms of its capabilities and pitfalls. They don't think about the validity of a comment on the Internet or the person posting it.

In one of my courses, we discussed citing online sources and were basically told there are no guarantees. Even if you contact an online source via phone, there are no guarantees the person is who they say they are online. We were provided with actual examples of reporters being duped by people (and/or their online personalities) despite contact via phone or in person.

And the issue of ethics comes up as well -- is it really proper for a journalist to cite a comment from a weblog, message board or chat (especially without their knowledge)?

There is plenty of good journalism out there. More often than not, journalists do get it right (I'm speaking of all journalists, not just the big boys). At the same time, with all that has gone wrong, it makes me happy I'm not working directly in my field.

30 Jan 2004 | ~bc said...

Not the first hard news place I've seen quote the Dean Blog.

BTW, way to be Don, sticking with Kucinich. You have to vote for who you agree with, not who you're told will win. Because YOU decide who's going to win.

If you couldn't figure from the above that I'm a Dean supporter (and my main man is Dean) then that's what this graf is for.

I invite anyone who's all about ridiculing Howard to take a minute off from the press, and pull up some CSPAN archived video of the Governor, and actually listen to his speeches (preferably with the crowd noise in). The Republicans saying he was their preferred target was pure misinformation: Howard had 'em scared. He'd wipe the floor w/ Bush at a debate. So the Repubs, scared the Dems about him, the press got hold of a misguided meme, and now the NeoCons are psyched about Kerry. He's lunch....

(sorry to go off there. All I want to say is decide for yourself, based on records and stances, don't listen to the Repubs, of the media. Turn them off and your brain on. Draw your own conclusions)

30 Jan 2004 | ~bc again said...

sorry: don't listen to the Repubs, OR the media...

30 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Brad, I haven't laughed so hard in a LONG time. You made my day.

Do you smoke cigars? ... because THAT, my friend, is worth a few premiums. Lemme know and I'll send them right away.

The only candidate who *couldn't* wipe the floor with Bush is Al Gore -- hence 2000. Kerry, Dean, Edwards, my man Kucinich ... any one of them will make Bush look bad.

I don't like Bush. He sold out his constituency, and now he's going to pay for it with lost votes.

RE: Never a guarantee about a source
Never thought of that. When I worked as a newspaper reporter -- okay, a sportswriter, but I *did* do some investigative stuff -- we dealt with local people that we knew. Never thought about the national level.

Good point.

30 Jan 2004 | Benjy said...

I was contacted by a reporter from the Wall St. Journal a few months back regarding using a post I'd written for WatchBlog, a group blog I write for. He wanted to verify my identity, that I had written the post, age, occupation, etc. and quoted the comments as if they'd been made in an interview. So while the quoted material came from a blog, he did do the same background check to verify the info, at least in my case.

30 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

You might say a poll is meaningless

Many people say polls are meaningless, and I tend to agree with them. Basing the opinions of a nation on 1000 people willing to talk to a pollster is hardly an accurate depiction of the population. Furthermore, polls can be manipulated incredibly easily with very subtle changes in question language.

But blog posts have ZERO attributability

It's just an opinion, as is a poll. At least a blog has some language to back up the opinion. I agree that a blog comment is WAAAYYYY down there on the reputable source index, but, to be honest, so are most of the polls and pundits reporters are quoting these days.

30 Jan 2004 | ~bc said...

Don, I don't see how Dean's debating skills have anything to do with Al Gore's? He brought in Al's money manager... not a strategist, or policy maker, or coach. Dean has had the skills for a while. Go to CSPAN and watch a speech. This man can speak.

Now, one more thing. How's a Libertarian like your self behind the most progressive guy out there? Mean, this guy is almost Nader. Is it the Nafta/WTO stance? Because, I would think you'd be against Single Payer. I'm personally for it, he's right, certain things shouldn't be for profit (personally, I think that health, banking and insurance all should not be for profit, but one thing at a time).

I'm for Dean because he best matches my Independent/Progressive views: balanced budgets and social progressivism. And he's got the results to prove it. And he's not sell out, he sticks to his guns.

Simulated Lieberman/Bush debate...

Bush: I'm for X.

Lieberman: I too am for X. But it's time to let me do it, instead of you.

30 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I'm for Dean because he best matches my Independent/Progressive views

But Dean actually ran against progressives in the last few gubernatorial elections in Vermont. As governor he was very much a centrist; I don't think anyone saw him as progressive, and his sudden shift to the left since he started campaigning for president seems a bit opportunistic to me...I don't trust it.

I think Dean's out of this race, for a variety of reasons. Quite a few of my friends have shifted their allegiance toward Clark, but he seems to have been merely an afterthought in the two primaries to date. My gut still tells me that Clark would stand the best chance of beating Bush -- he has the charisma, the military leadership experience, the international experience. Kerry just doesn't have the aura, at least not from what I've seen so far.

30 Jan 2004 | Josie said...

i'm for Dean too.

30 Jan 2004 | JF said...

My gut still tells me that Clark would stand the best chance of beating Bush -- he has the charisma.

I don't see any charisma in Clark. He's boring, monotone, and rare smiles when he makes a point. He looks and feels like a hardened military man which may be good in some ways, but I'm not sure it helps his likeability factor.

Now, Kerry isn't much better. He's cold, monotone, and eerily calculated. Shrewed and sharp, no doubt, but I can't bring myself to like him.

30 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

~bc you missed my point: I was saying that the only Democrat that's worse in public speaking than Bush was ... Gore. In other words, the Dems could NOT have done worse in 2000.

This time, they can't lose -- speaking-wise. Unless Lieberman get's in. Nice guy, but boring.

I hate to sound like a political hack, but seriously gang ... visit Kucinich's site and check out his stance on the issues.

Heck ... visit EVERY site and do that! Just be involved (unless you're pro-Bush, that is ... in that case, just stay home *grin*)

30 Jan 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

He looks and feels like a hardened military man which may be good in some ways, but I'm not sure it helps his likeability factor.

I agree, but I'm thinking that this time around the likeability factor might be trumped by the comfort factor. I think most Americans will want someone in the White House who's going to protect them, albeit not at the expense of our alliances with other countries. That "hard military man" persona that Clark projects could be just the ticket. Americans seem to want their president to be a father-king, and I suspect that in a time of war and danger they're more likely to go for the strict dad type than the warm, likeable papa.

30 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Comments on several fronts:

Blog comments are newsworthy. As others pointed out, they're the equivalent of man-on-the-street comments, and I know from experience in my newspaper days it's not like I was verifying ID when I asked for people's names. Now, I wouldn't use blog comments as anything authoritative, but to capture a general sense and direction on a topic, that's fair game. As long as the reporter is responsible enough to choose a representative example and not just find the one that fits how he/she thinks the story should be, I think it's fine. As long as it's used more for tone and color in the story, and not for the meat of it.

Darrell: Many people say polls are meaningless, and I tend to agree with them. Basing the opinions of a nation on 1000 people willing to talk to a pollster is hardly an accurate depiction of the population. Furthermore, polls can be manipulated incredibly easily with very subtle changes in question language.

Here's the thing: 1000 people can be and is a sufficient sample - if the methodology is correct. As you noted, question composition can play a huge role. I've noticed newspapers have been getting better about printing the questions they asked (not the case for TV polls typically, and not for tracking polls that get used so much lately). The bigger problem is that we don't get to see the sampling methodology used for the polls, and even if we did, so few of us are qualified to judge whether the methodology is valid. And honest pollsters will acknowledge that it's getting tougher and tougher to get good, accurate, properly sourced sample sets.

What polls are useful for is showing trends and shifts. What wasn't important leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire was how many poitns Dean led or trailed; it was that there was a clear trend he was slipping and Kerry was gaining. And the polls were correct on that front. Trying to use polls as predictive beyond that is a fool's game.

Re: Dean. No, he was never going to be a McGovern, like some were painting him. But I don't think he could win. For one fundamental reason: he can't make up his mind who he is. As governor, he was very centrist and moderate. The "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" is a pure bullshit line, in that he's trying to wrap himself in progressive clothes he's never worn before. While many of his supporters can't or aren't willing to see that - I think many of them want so badly to be true believers that inconvenient little things like facts and actual records get ignored - the general electorate eventually would when they started paying attention. Between that and personality - people in general don't vote for those who are angry, they vote for those who make them feel good about themselves and the future, and they definitely don't respond well to arrogance, which Dean throws off strongly - Dean would be doomed.

Personally, I'm for whoever can beat Bush. Who gets in is less important than who's kicked out. If I was voting strictly on who captures my attention best, it would probably be Edwards.

30 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

What wasn't important leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire was how many poitns Dean led or trailed; it was that there was a clear trend he was slipping and Kerry was gaining. And the polls were correct on that front.

Well, here's the big question: were the polls correct in predicting the outcome, or did the polls affect the outcome?

30 Jan 2004 | Erin said...

But I don't think [Dean] could win. For one fundamental reason: he can't make up his mind who he is.

Thank you, one of many Steves, for pointing this out. I don't dislike Dean, but I had a hard time jumping on to the Dean bandwagon. I couldn't pinpoint it. But I think what you mentioned above is exactly why -- and I am willing to guess the Dems in Iowa and New Hampshire started noticing this too.

Personally, I'm for whoever can beat Bush.

Here, here. If Kerry can do it, fine by me. I have read a lot that if he does in fact get the nomination, he is expected to have a strong showing in debates. Apparently, debating is one of Kerry's strongest abilities. (Heh, heh... let's see what kind of 'fuzzy math' W pulls on us this time.)

I don't think Edwards would be a poor choice, either -- he comes off as Clinton-esque in personality and position. It will be interesting to see how well he does in the South.

Heck, why not have a Kerry-Edwards ticket?

Oh, and this may be old news, but Time and AOL set up an interesting election web site. It allows you to enter your opinions on various campaign issues and matches you with the candidate that best fits. If anything, it's fun.

http://www.presidentmatch.com/

30 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Well, here's the big question: were the polls correct in predicting the outcome, or did the polls affect the outcome?

Darrell, I'll answer that when you can tell me if the chicken or the egg came first.

Polls reflect what's already happening in the electorate. But, yes, they can also influence what happens in the electorate. Particuarly right now, when a key criterion many Democrats seem to have is not ideology, but electability. If someone appears electable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.

But determining where the polls stop reflecting what's going on and where they start influencing what's going on is an exercise in futility. Human behavior is far more complex than that.

30 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

But determining where the polls stop reflecting what's going on and where they start influencing what's going on is an exercise in futility. Human behavior is far more complex than that.

Agreed. So, with that said, what value to polls bring to the public in the context of news? Do they bring more value than detriments? Are they merely entertainment...something for pundits to grab at and wax poetic?

30 Jan 2004 | Darrel said...

Of course, a lot of these issues would be moot if we would just get around to fixing our damn election process.

30 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel -- I'm not sure there *is* a fix. No matter what one chooses, there are problems.

Fixing the minds of the voters ... now THAT would be a move in the right direction.

*sigh*

30 Jan 2004 | ek said...

To me, this "electibility" factor is really depressing. It's what leads to completely vanilla, entirely uncharismatic candidates like Gore and Kerry.

Here's my not so bold prediction: if Kerry is nominated the Democratic candidate, Bush will win re-election.

Why? Because, contrary to Kerry's opinion (how lame was it for him to try to go back on what he clearly said in the debate last night), the Dems do need to win at least one state in the south to win the election.

Here's Kerry's quote on this topic:

"Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

Adding on a VP from the south isn't going to be enough to overcome Bush/Cheney's strength in the region.

If it were at all possible, I'd nominate John McCain as the Democratic candidate — he's someone who I believe could not only beat Bush in a general election, but is also someone I would be proud to cast my vote for.

30 Jan 2004 | ek said...

Oops, sorry about the screw up above.

30 Jan 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I'm all about Kucinich. Read his positions.

Kerry will win the nod. I've known that for the past year. Ask me more about that AFTER the Convention, I *wish* I could tell you what I know. :(

30 Jan 2004 | ek said...

Yes, sadly, I too forsee a Kerry candidacy with, in all likelihood, Edwards as the VP (if he's willing to take that).

Wouldn't it be a trip, though, if Edwards managed to win the candidacy and then — borrowing a page from Bush's tactic of covering his "experience" flank with an old hand — added on McCain as his VP?

That would mesh so well with his whole "bridging the divide between the two Americas" message. He could say "I'm not just going to talk about this, I'm going to do it, and I'm going to start by bridging the divide between our two parties so that, together, we can work to do the people's business...to realize the greatness that is America when we embrace our differences. We have too much at stake today to allow petty partisanship to continue to divide us...we must no longer see ourselves first as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans."

*sniff* I think I'm going to cry.

Okay, so it'll never happen (at least not in this dimension ;-), but man, would it kick ass!

30 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

EK, Gore wouldn't have needed the south to win. He wins New Hampshire, Ohio or West Virginia, and he's president. He wins Florida (which may be geographically south, but there are so many northern transplants that it's not really culturally a southern state), he's president. He did show that it's possible to win the presidency without taking a single southern state.

Personally, I like Kerry for coming out and admitting it. Because to win in the south, you have to run way right. Which risks alienating your core base in the states you can win. For better or for worse, we're living in two different countries within the same borders right now, and you have to run well in the country you can win. No one's criticizing the Republicans for not trying to win New England or California.

Don, as someone who drives a Toyota, I'm surprised that you're for Kucinich. Way too protectionist. And he doesn't let any of his staffers who drive foreign cars park in congressioanl parking lots.

30 Jan 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I love the idea, ek. While I disagree with a lot of McCain's views, I at least respect the man.

Maybe making him VP would be a little too difficult to pull off. But maybe Edwards could immediately line him up for Defense secretary and run with the promise that if he wins, McCain will have that job.

31 Jan 2004 | ek said...

He did show that it's possible to win the presidency without taking a single southern state.

I guess it doesn't strike me as a very good example considering that Gore lost. And while some of the more densely populated parts of the state may not seem like it, Florida is indeed a southern state. Go outside the city centers and you'll see plenty-o-gun racks on the backs of pick-ups.

No one's criticizing the Republicans for not trying to win New England or California.

That's because they are trying to win New England and California. Bush was in New Hampshire this week to make what was clearly a campaign speech (though, of course, administration staffers denied that it was anything of the sort) and the party is mounting a serious effort in California, buoyed by the ouster of Gray Davis by a Republican (albeit a non-traditional Republican).

For the Dems to think that they can win in 2004 without expanding beyond their traditional voting centers is a bad, bad strategy. Kind of like the guys on The Apprentice last night focusing on bringing people in to the restaurant using coupons instead focusing on bar sales, as the ladies did (couldn't resist bringing in an "Apprentice" reference — talk about a guilty pleasure, I hate myself for liking that show ;-).

31 Jan 2004 | JF said...

EK is watching reality shows! OMG! Oregon must change a man.

31 Jan 2004 | ek said...

I know, I know, but when you only get broadcast television you don't have many options. Plus, I did do my civic duty and listen to the debate last night on NPR (I think it was only broadcast on television on MSNBC). ;-)

31 Jan 2004 | Erin said...

And while some of the more densely populated parts of the state may not seem like it, Florida is indeed a southern state.

A thumbs up for ek from a native Floridian. :)

There are plenty of Floridians who, when told they are not a "southern" state, would insist they sent a fair share of men to fight against the Union.

Yes, South Florida is generally liberal. Fort Lauderdale (Broward County) has the largest Democratic presence in the state. Gore won out 2-to-1 here in 2000. Miami-Dade was about 1 1/2-to-1 in favor of Gore. (I'm neglecting Palm Beach for good reason). Those areas are key for Democratic candidates, but they don't win the state all by themselves.

In cities such as Tampa and Jacksonville, residents tend to lean Republican partly because of the military presence (MacDill AFB, Jax Naval Air Station).

02 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I guess it doesn't strike me as a very good example considering that Gore lost.

So, am I counting wrong when I state that Gore would have won with W. Virginia, Ohio or NH, all states that are not southern? The point is that Gore showed it's possible to win without taking a single southern state. Now, there's a risk in that you pretty much have to win the entire Midwest, West Coast and New England, but it's definitely doable.

That's because they are trying to win New England and California.

Republicans haven't mounted a serious effort in either region for the last couple presidential elections. NH is the one state that's usually in play in NE. If Bush starts showing up often in Mass or NY, then it's a change of strategy.

As for California, I see no effort around here so far. Still early, yes, but not much. There's some hope on the part of the GOP that Schwarzenegger will provide a boost, but it's doubtful. The recall was a unique, once-in-a-lifetime sort of event that had far less to do with the appeal of the Republican party and more with the fact that even Democrats couldn't stand Gray Davis. When it comes down to it, I doubt that the Republicans will spend much money here. Especially when their strategy is less about attracting independent voters but bringing their base out in force. Their base just isn't big enough in California to make a difference.

For the Dems to think that they can win in 2004 without expanding beyond their traditional voting centers is a bad, bad strategy.

We'll see. Republicans in 2002 actually provided a case study that would indicate the exact opposite. They didn't campaign trying to catch the middle or get beyond their normal areas of strength. Their strategy was overwhelming force in the areas they had it. And it worked smashingly. There's a big change going on in campaign strategy and philosophy, and the early indications are that running to your strengths instead of trying to caputre areas where you're not strong is the way to go. (This used to be my job, and while I'm thankfully out, I keep track of this stuff still.)

As an aside, the unfortunate effect this shift in strategy is going to have, if it sticks, is that it will further alienate people in the middle and moderates of both parties. But consider that in our electoral system, getting someone from the opposite side not to vote is worth just as much as getting someone from your side to vote.

02 Feb 2004 | Noni said...

ist nice to be hire, verry informative

Heimarbeit

02 Feb 2004 | Noni said...

ist nice to be hire, verry informative

Heimarbeit

02 Feb 2004 | ek said...

So, am I counting wrong when I state that Gore would have won with W. Virginia, Ohio or NH, all states that are not southern?

No, but you seem to keep ignoring the fact that 1) he did not win any of those states and 2) he lost the election while 3) winning no states in the south. Of course, anything is possible, but why adhere to a strategy that relies on the improbable?

They didn't campaign trying to catch the middle or get beyond their normal areas of strength. Their strategy was overwhelming force in the areas they had it. And it worked smashingly.

So are you saying that the whole "compassionate conservative" thing was designed to appeal to hard core right wingers? And I guess I wouldn't call a strategy that won by the skin of Jeb Bush's teeth a "smashing" success — that is unless you're basing that judgement on the same logic that says Gore's strategy in 2000 was a success.

There's a big change going on in campaign strategy and philosophy, and the early indications are that running to your strengths instead of trying to caputre areas where you're not strong is the way to go.

If the dems adhere to this strategy they'll continue to lose elections because, nowadays, the Republicans have a geographic majority and, as the 2000 election showed, it's the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote.

And as for California, the Repubs are smart enough to know that they don't need to win California to win the election. But if they spend some time and money (which they have more than enough of) there, they can force the Democratic candidate to spend more time and money (which they won't have much of) there than they would like, taking Democratic time and money away from the battleground states.

And the increasingly rightward lean of the Latino population in California means there's just enough potential for the Repubs that the Dems will have to take any threat seriously (you think the timing of Bush's recent "guest-worker" proposal was a coincidence?).

02 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

"Darrel -- I'm not sure there *is* a fix. No matter what one chooses, there are problems."

The biggest problem with our current system is that it favors a two party system. That, in turn, encourages people to vote less with their concious and more with strategy.

Something like instant run-off, while still having problems, is a much better solution in terms of allowing people to vote for the best candidate without nearly the same amount of fear of 'throwing away' their vote. It gets rid of the 'electability' issue.

"Fixing the minds of the voters ... now THAT would be a move in the right direction."

That would certainly help too. As would getting more people to vote in the first place. ;o)

"If it were at all possible, I'd nominate John McCain as the Democratic candidate he's someone who I believe could not only beat Bush in a general election, but is also someone I would be proud to cast my vote for."

I absolutely agree. We need to pull McCain into an indpendant party and get him elected.

02 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

No, but you seem to keep ignoring the fact that 1) he did not win any of those states and 2) he lost the election while 3) winning no states in the south.

We're clearly talking past each other here, so I'm going to drop this part of the conversation.

Of course, anything is possible, but why adhere to a strategy that relies on the improbable?

One could use that same line of reasoning to argue against the Democrats' paying much attention and effort in the South. If Jesus ran as a Democart, he wouldn't win there. It's not going to happen, so why waste the money and effort?

So are you saying that the whole "compassionate conservative" thing was designed to appeal to hard core right wingers? And I guess I wouldn't call a strategy that won by the skin of Jeb Bush's teeth a "smashing" success that is unless you're basing that judgement on the same logic that says Gore's strategy in 2000 was a success.

Well, to be snide, I'm saying you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Because I was referring to the 2002 election when referring to this strategy. An election in which, as a matter of fact, "compassionate conservative" came up exactly zero times. And was a smashing success for the GOP. The president's party does not pick up seats in midterm elections. It's literally happened like three times in the last 100 years. If that's not a smashing success, I don't know what is.

If the dems adhere to this strategy they'll continue to lose elections because, nowadays, the Republicans have a geographic majority and, as the 2000 election showed, it's the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote.

First of all, this is a strategy pioneered by Republicans in 2002 (and one that there's still a lot of debate about, even within that party). Secondly, the fact that the electoral vote is what counts can *encourage* this sort of approach. Because instead of trying to grab a squishy middle, you overwhelm with the force of your own base, which in some states can help push you over the edge. That's the theory, that's how the GOP is running their campaign this year, and I think it's (sadly) the right strategy.

And as for California, the Repubs are smart enough to know that they don't need to win California to win the election.

I thought, according to your previous post, the Republicans are trying to win in California. Which is it?

Regarding mounting an effort there to divert Dem resources, there's definitely validity to that approach, but its effectiveness is limited, especially if you need that money to compete in your own battleground states.

And the increasingly rightward lean of the Latino population in California means there's just enough potential for the Repubs that the Dems will have to take any threat seriously (you think the timing of Bush's recent "guest-worker" proposal was a coincidence?).

Of course it wasn't a coincidence. But, so far, the perception out here is that it's a naked political ploy, and not an honest policy initiative. It's DOA in Congress anyway.

02 Feb 2004 | ek said...

We're clearly talking past each other here, so I'm going to drop this part of the conversation.

I guess I'm just not seeing the value of making a silly point. Hey, how about the Republicans go with the following strategy: we can win the election without winning the south if we win California, New York, and Illinois!

The numbers add up, don't they?

One could use that same line of reasoning to argue against the Democrats' paying much attention and effort in the South. If Jesus ran as a Democart, he wouldn't win there. It's not going to happen, so why waste the money and effort?

Then I guess Bill Clinton is the second coming (

Well, to be snide, I'm saying you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Because I was referring to the 2002 election when referring to this strategy. An election in which, as a matter of fact, "compassionate conservative" came up exactly zero times.

Ah, sorry for not being able to read your mind, I was stuck on presidential elections since that's what the rest of this thread has been focused on. As for those 2002 elections, there is zero chance that they would have turned out that way were it not for 9/11. Bush, smartly, leveraged his popularity after the tragedy to lift his entire party. It had little to do with alienating the middle or getting people on the other side not to vote. Voter turnout was actually higher (40% of voting age citizens) than it was in the last mid-term election (less than 38%).

I thought, according to your previous post, the Republicans are trying to win in California. Which is it?

Both. They're going to mount an effort to win, but they also know that mounting a serious effort is as good as a win because it will divert Democratic resources from critical states.

Bush already has something on the order of $130 million stored up in his campaign coffers. Whoever the Democratic candidate is is going to start out with perhaps a tenth of that. I wouldn't worry about the Repubs having enough money to compete in California and the battleground states.

That's the whole point of this strategy, they know they have a huge monetary advantage and they're going to use it to the fullest.

02 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I guess I'm just not seeing the value of making a silly point. Hey, how about the Republicans go with the following strategy: we can win the election without winning the south if we win California, New York, and Illinois!

The numbers add up, don't they?

Sure, they do. But you're not talking about scenarios that actually played out. But, as I said, we're talking past each other on this point, and I'm not going to beat a dead horse. At least not this particular dead horse.

Then I guess Bill Clinton is the second coming (

Yes, hyperbole on my part. For a generation or two now, the Dems have not been able to compete in the south, since Nixon's southern strategy. Nixon didn't grab all the south then, but the Dems have been losing ground since and arent' getting any better. The only thing LBJ got wrong when he said "there goes the South for a generation" when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965 was that he was off at least a generation.

Democrats can compete in Louisiana, Florida, and maaaybe Arkansas and Tennessee, and that's about it. Their performance in other southern states (and western states not on the coast, for that matter) is horrendous, and has been for years.

Ah, sorry for not being able to read your mind,

Sorry, I guess I'll try to make statements like "Republicans in 2002 actually provided a case study that would indicate the exact opposite" more clear for you next time.

02 Feb 2004 | ek said...

But you're not talking about scenarios that actually played out.

Argh, this is what's so frustrating about people who tow this line...the "win no southern states, but still win the election" scenario did not play out either!

You're making a woulda, coulda, shoulda argument sound as though it's based on events that did, in fact, occur as opposed to events that could have occured (i.e. Gore winning W. Virginia, Ohio or NH, which he did not do).

It's like saying the 2003 Cubs proved it's possible for the north siders to win a World Series. Uh, no! Same goes for the Dems winning without a single southern state. It's mathematically possible, but it ain't gonna happen.

Unless the Dems figure out a way to allow the citizens of Vancouver to vote in U.S. elections, ceding the South to the Republicans is a losing strategy for both the short and long term prospects of the Democratic party.

Sorry, I guess I'll try to make statements like "Republicans in 2002 actually provided a case study that would indicate the exact opposite" more clear for you next time.

Ah, my bad, must read more carefully next time. But I think the higher voter turnout is an indication that the Repubs win was not a result of an alienated electorate.

02 Feb 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Ah, my bad

Can someone tell me where this expression "my bad" comes from? I never heard it used until the last year or two; I assume it must come from some TV show or something? I'm clueless as usual.

02 Feb 2004 | JF said...

Can someone tell me where this expression "my bad" comes from

The NBA?

02 Feb 2004 | ek said...

Like most vernacular, it most probably originated in the 'hood, and was then picked up by white people trying to be "down" with their homies, and then picked up by television writers wanting to inject some coolness into their shows (and really, what are TV writers, but white people trying to be "down"), and then finally picked up and used by geeks like me on weblogs the world over.

03 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

EK, yes I am doing a bit of woulda/coulda/shoulda. That's the nature of trying to extrapolate past events into guidelines of how to perform in the future. I don't know how to get around that. Yes, techically speaking, Gore showed nothing in 2000 other than how to lose an election he should have won.

But he did show a way to get it done without the South. The difference between the woulda of his example v. the hypothetical woulda of how the GOP could win without the South is that it's not at all outlandish to think of the Democratic candidate winning one of Ohio, W. Va. or NH.

You're right that trying to win without the South is going to make it very difficult for Democrats. You know what? The demographics of the country are such right now that the Electoral College favors the GOP. The Democrats are going to have a tough time winning the presidency with or without the South. I personally think the gamble of largely bypassing the South has enough promise to make it worth a shot. You do not. And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I agree that the 2002 results were not the result of an alienated electorate. I chalk it up to a superior organizing effort and vote mobilization by the GOP. The alienation part is what I see as a risk going forward if this proves to be the prevailing campaign strategy - mobilize your base while paying less attention to trying to attract independents and swing voters.

For the phrase "my bad," I have no idea where it came from. All I know is I began saying it 10 years ago in semi-rural Indiana, so if it does have 'hood origins, it's a long way removed from that.

03 Feb 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Interesting that "my bad" has been around that long, I had no idea!

Now, how long before "wardrobe malfunction" finds its way into the vernacular?