sorry it took so long...

...but it took me this long after reading Marc's last postings to pick my jaw off the floor in disbelief.

I'm going to counter your blog ironically entitled "what it all means" paragraph-by-paragraph, just for simplicity's sake.

1st graf -- no issues, except to say I'll believe your empty promise of consistent blogging when I see it. Truth be told, I'm surprised at the pattern you've created, because it's so atypical from the way you usually communicate. You'd think we'd be reading tiny, superficial hit-and-run blogs once a week that didn't say much.

2nd graf -- Whereas there is a "long, long way to go" I think the primary season has unofficially ended and the general election has unofficially began. Bush is attacking Kerry up, down and sideways in speeches, and if you still believe that, "Well, X% of delegates have been chosen, so we've hardly begun this primary season," you're as crazy as you're blond. Also, so much for factoring in my "criticisms," chief! You wrote: "I'm going to remember back to one month ago, when Howard Dean was the inevitable nominee..." in comparison to what you think will happen with Dean. Again, read my post to learn about the difference between "hypothetical front-runner" or "vote-based front-runner."

3rd graf -- "John Edwards will be the Democratic nominee." So much for that "tradition" of correct analysis, eh? You're making this too easy, Marc.

4th graf -- You're the only person I know who can plagarize himself. This has already been writen on this weblog...by you. So, we're just going to move on.

5th graf -- You are a lunatic if you think the reason Kerry won Iowa is because of the media. If anything, he won Iowa in *spite* of the media. Don't you remember everyone wanting to anoint Dean as the Once and Future King? As you said, newspapers and "TV journalism" were writing his political obituary. You can't have it both ways. Your so-called analysis: "This was mostly because Gephardt and Dean beat each other to death, which gave Kerry (and Edwards) the chance to lurch forward" is so cursory and nuance-deprived, I don't even know where to start. I don't know if you or I can fully explain the Kerry surprise in Iowa, but I know for a fact that that sentence does not quite tell the story. And yes, after winning Iowa, he was on the cover of every newspaper. My question to you would be, "what do you expect?" If nothing else, the one buzzword this year is "electibility." Democrats don't like George W. Bush. They want him out. So when New Hampshirians (New Hampshirites?) see Kerry as the front-runner -- regardless of how long-standing -- they'll back the horse in the lead. And every state (aside from a few) has followed suit.

6th graf -- "Essentially what I’m saying is that Kerry is a lucky duck." Reading this "analysis" literally made me laugh out loud. Is this the sort of political examination Princeton teaches? Kerry won Iowa because of "luck"? The mutually held desire to boot Bush out caused his momentum to snowball faster than anyone could have expected, so if you want to chalk that up to fortunate chances, maybe I'd buy that.

7th graf -- You may have a point about the media losing interest in the primaries when President Bush starts to open his mouth. To this, I can only defend my journalistic comrades by saying that the "Kerry wins again!" stories were getting old, there was no new news to report (devestating to superficial TV producers) and when Bush does anything -- *especially* to attack a Democrat -- that's news. So yeah, they moved on, but can ya blame them? No one wants to be left behind, and Bush was starting his campaign. (As a side note, yes your esteemed colleague posted asking if we should rally behind Kerry. I object to the phrase "give up fighting for what we believe." A vote for John Kerry would not be a dissolution of everything I believe in. I believe in putting a Democrat in the Oval Office come November. Callous? Maybe. Apathetic? Maybe. Pragmatic? Definitely.)

8th graf -- Your claims are as follows. The media made Dean: yes. The media broke Dean: no. (Iowan voters didn't like him! Stop taking their voices away!) The media made Kerry: no. The media will break Kerry (again): no and no. The media didn't break him last time -- he ran a shitty campaign and dumped his campaign manager accordingly. And the media will not dump the prohibitive favorite to take the Democratic nomination. Call me crazy, but I do not see this as happening. They will focus their attention on him, as a person, yes. And they will ask questions, just as they do for every candidate in every presidential election since the penny press. Not sure if you notice, but the press is also (to some extent) scrutinizing Bush's record. What make you of this? Hey, the media asks questions. Otherwise it'd just be a huge PR firm.

9th graf -- Well, yeah Dean is done. But he aint out of the picture. Think he'll endorse someone? Where do his legions of fans end up, if not? (The Onion had a funny headline up, something along the lines of: "Dean mentions he'd make a great Secretary of Health and Human Services."

10th graf -- Well, here we separate again on beliefs. John Edwards will not win the nomination. His message is powerful (I suppose), he is very charismatic, he looks good and he's from the South. Unfortunately for Edwards, Kerry's momentum trumps all four of those traits. (Also, do you really, authentically think that a Democrat is going to beat George Bush in the South? Please. Not gonna happen.) You list his one (one!) victory and his second places: South Carolina and Missouri, Virgina and Tennessee. Now what do those states all have in common? See if we had regional leaders, he would win. But he can't pick and choose his states. Being the most popular Democrat in the South is like being the best home-run hitter on a football team. It's nice, but you can't win with that.

11th graf -- The polling blew Wisconsin. His strong second in Wisconsin was totally overblown, because the polling screwed up and set up wrong expectations. There's a good article about this... a while ago. Oh well, so much for that idea. I do like how you say "take out momentum" and let voters decide and Edwards beats Kerry. Too bad momentum and money are the important parts of a campaign. As wonderful as Edwards is, Kerry has him beat in both, and bearing a cataclysmic accident with Kerry, it aint gonna change.

12th graf -- See grafs above. (I gotta go.)

To summarize: Dean’s done collecting delegates but can still make a difference, Kerry has begun leveling off because the President of the United States is taking potshots at him from the White House which only confirms his candidacy and Edwards has made a major leap in his rise to the nomination but will ultimately fail because -- simply put -- it aint happening.

and the winner is...

Soon I will announce who has won my vote for the Democratic nominee...stay tuned.

And a note to all those still deciding: Those quizzes I posted earlier are not an official science. On one I matched Al Sharpton 100% of the time and another my highest match was Kucinich with 85%. And to ruin some of the surprise, I would vote for Bush long before I'd vote for Kucinich or Sharpton.

back flip

Seth accuses me of saying John Kerry panders, flip-flops on every issue and got botox injections. There is no doubt I said this. I will admit that to some degree I was exaggerating: Kerry hasn’t flip-flopped on every issue and I will leave the analysis of his rendezvous with botox to the pages of Elle and people. But let me justify my indictments of his pandering and flip-flopping.

Seth’s justification of flip-flopping is that the nation has changed since 1970 and that politicians should change with the nation. If you read my Idealistic Nation article you would know that I, of all people, have been arguing that from the start. My biggest criticism of Congressional Democrats is that they haven’t changed since the 1970s – that they are still pushing the same policies, which have become outdate and ineffective. I do not accuse John Kerry of doing this. He is a New Democrat (though not a hardcore Third Way-er, as I like ‘em). He has, certainly, updated his positions since he first came to Congress.

My problem with Kerry is that he flip-flops, not over ten years, but over ten days. His pandering and flip-flopping go hand in hand. He’ll tell an audience exactly what they want to hear no matter what he believes or how he voted. Note that I don’t accuse him of pandering to interest groups or the liberal base. I accuse him of pandering to his audience. Let me make another thing clear. I am an advocate of not speaking often or loudly about politically detrimental issues. I don’t think Democrats should try to make gay marriage and issue. As much as I support it, I think it is political suicide. So, if Kerry decided not to highlight his vote for gun control at an NRA convention, I would have no problem with that. I would have a problem if, hypothetically, Kerry touted his vote for an assault weapons ban at a Yuppies Against Guns convention and then the next day told an NRA conference that he believes kids should be able to carry assault rifles to elementary school.

Think this hypothetical situation is extreme? Check out this published in The New Republic a few weeks ago: (Although posting it in full is a copyright violation, I’m going to do it anyways. The day someone over at TNR sees the blog will be the day I can check “write for a blog that someone actually reads” of my list of things to do before I die.):

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ...
to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq.
I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a
resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions
be given more time to work and against a resolution giving
the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of
Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your
support for the actions of President Bush in response to
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion,
I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's
response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established
with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991] "

What does this show us about Kerry? When Wallace Carter wrote thanking Kerry for his opposition to the Gulf War, Kerry was a hard-core opponent of the war. When he wrote criticizing Kerry, Kerry became a life-long supporter of dealing with Sadaam. This was the most basic and disgusting level of pandering. Kerry needed to be on the right side of every issue with every person. Kerry’s pandering was institutionalized in the form letters he sent out to constituents.

Was Clinton a “pander bear”? Yes. It is often said that Clinton made policy decisions based on Mark Penn’s polling data. This was an aspect of Clinton’s presidency that I didn’t admire. In fact, it corresponds with the periods of Clinton’s presidency in which you could not call him a new democrat. So I would argue that Clinton’s pandering to poll numbers was among his greatest faults. Just because I like a lot of what Clinton did doesn’t mean that I respect everything about him. I’m not looking for a candidate who is screwing an intern just because Clinton did.

In spite of my ragging on Kerry. I don't hate the guy. I'm not sure he can beat Bush but a lot of his policy proposals are good stuff.

choose your own adventure

If you're having a hard time deciding on your candidate or, like me, deciding on a second (or third) best option, check out these sites. They have quizzes and breakdowns and comparisons of the candidates on each issue.

http://selectsmart.com/president/
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
http://news.mpr.org/features/2004/01/01_newsroom_selectapres/

what it all means

So I started this post about two weeks ago but the stresses of school prevented me from posting for a while. The gist of the post remains the same and of course I will update it to take into account today’s Wisconsin results and Seth’s criticisms. I apologize to all our loyal readers (read: Seth and my mom) and promise to increase the regularity of posting. Now on to the analysis:

We are now a month into primary/caucus season. 23% of the delegates chosen by the voters (as opposed to superdelegates) have been selected. That leaves a long long way to go. If we learned anything from the Dean climb and belly flop its that the laws of the primary season don't apply this year. So while Seth and all the "veteran" political analysts out there are talking about the inevitable nomination of the John Kerry, I'm going to remember back to one month ago, when Howard Dean was the "inevitable nominee", and continue the tradition of independent (and very often correct) analysis and prediction that you have grown to expect from ideoblogist.

So to get everyone’s blood rushing, let’s start with this: John Edwards will be the Democratic nominee. To explain why I know this, I will begin with why Kerry is currently the front-runner, why he will collapse and why Edwards will replace him.

Kerry: So he's the front-runner again. "Again" is the important part. If you think back to a year ago, you'll remember that Kerry spent almost a year as the establishment candidate/front-runner. It was only when the media started really tracking the primaries that Kerry lost that title. In a matter of a few months, journalists went from writing about Kerry's leading status to writing his political obituary. So what happened? Basically, someone (namely Dean) started asking Kerry tough questions. With the media focused on Kerry's pandering, flip-flopping on, well, every issue, unattractive personality and botox injections, his campaign collapsed. As soon as the heat was on, Kerry melted away. When he was the front-runner and there was nothing to report on (i.e. no primary wins) except him, he collapsed. Chances are, now that he's the front-runner again, once the media starts talking about Kerry himself and not his impressive streak of wins, he will collapse again. Lets just hope that happens before he's the nominee, not after.

So if Kerry's not going to win, how did he rise? The simple answer is the media, which I’ve come to realize has more power than G-D. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a little, but let me explain. Somehow Kerry won Iowa. This was mostly because Gephardt and Dean beat each other to death, which gave Kerry (and Edwards) the chance to lurch forward. So all of the sudden, Kerry was the story. In a week, the media went from pronouncing his candidacy all but dead to predicting his nomination. Kerry was on the cover of every paper and the lead story on every news program for the next week straight. And the polls in New Hampshire showed what a little media attention could do. On the day before the Iowa Caucuses, a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV tracking poll showed the NH race as: Dean 30%, Clark 23%, Kerry 14%. A day after the Iowa Caucuses, the same poll showed: Kerry: 31%, Dean 21%, Clark 16%. So in one day, Kerry more than doubled his support jumping 17% and by Election Day, Kerry won 38% and Dean won 26% of the vote. So what explains Kerry’s rise by 24% over one week? About 4% was the popping of the Dean bubble. The other 20% was momentum from his win in Iowa and the mass of media cover that he received as a result. His win in New Hampshire solidified his position as the front-runner and he rode this victory wave through February 3rd.

Essentially what I’m saying is that Kerry is a lucky duck. He rose to the front at the last possible second, thus avoiding the media scrutiny that comes with the invisible primary season. Once the media had actual primaries to report on, Kerry got nonstop positive coverage, which only resulted in more wins, and thus more positive press coverage. In the week from the NH primary to the February 3rd primaries, Kerry almost doubled his support in Delaware (27% to 50%), Arizona (23% to 43%), Missouri (25% to 51%) and South Carolina (17% to 30%) and made significant gains in New Mexico (31% to 42%), North Dakota (31% to 51%) and Oklahoma (17% to 27%). These weren’t voters that were in love with Kerry and his message. They were bandwagoning voters who jumped onto the winning campaign that they heard about nonstop in the media.

To add to this cycle, the media, which had apparently lost interest in the primaries started to write as if we were already in the general election season. And the Kerry campaign, smartly, played along. Article after article spoke of the Kerry-Bush battle to come, polls (at least the ones publicized in the news) gauged Kerry’s general election chances and my esteemed colleague posted on this very blog asking if we should all give up fighting for what we believe in and rally behind Kerry.

The answer, of course, is NO! The media made Dean and the media broke Dean. The media (and some luck in Iowa) made Kerry and the media will break Kerry (again) – and it will happen in the next two weeks. Between now and March 2nd, there is one primary day, February 24, and it gives out only 1.4% of the total delegates. So in the next two weeks of relative calm before Super Tuesday, when 26.7% of the delegates are selected, the media will have nothing to report on except Kerry the man (especially after his disappointing slim win in Wisconsin). And as Amy Sullivan, author of Political Aims, noted to me, the media has no love for Kerry. So, finally, look for some media scrutiny of Kerry. This is the first chance the media has had to breathe since Iowa and look for things to get brutal for Kerry. I’ll bet we will see some near repeats of articles written last spring that led to Kerry’s first fall. Super Tuesday will prove a huge obstacle for Kerry. I’m not predicting a complete blowout by Edwards, but Kerry will lose his momentum and begin his fall from the top.

Dean: I’m not going to waste my time on Dean. He’s been done since Iowa. He’s been even more done since NH. 'Nuff Said.

Edwards: As I said above: Edwards is going to win the nomination. His message is powerful, he’s charismatic, he’s good looking, he’s southern and his daughter goes to Princeton (ok, maybe that’s not what’s going to get him the nod, but the other stuff will). Most importantly, he’s finally catching on. He caught on in Iowa where he surprised everyone with a strong second finish. He carried this momentum into February with a win in South Carolina and a near tied with Clark in Oklahoma and strong second place finishes in Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee. All this has kept him alive as he is running second in voted delegates.

His surprising, strong second place finish in Wisconsin, however, will give him the boost and the media attention he needs to win big on Super Tuesday. How surprising was his finish? The latest Zogby poll had Kerry with 47%, Dean with 24% and Edwards with 20%. The final results had Kerry with 40%, Edwards with 34% and Dean with 18%. In the last days Edwards surged 14%. In the last two weeks, Edwards jumped 25%. What explains his surge? Simply put, John Edwards explains John Edwards strong finish. I’ve heard him speak and let me tell you, he’s amazing. His message is incredibly appealing and his style is comparable to Clinton’s. Take out momentum and let the people vote solely on their impressions of the candidates and I am certain that Edwards would be kicking Kerry’s ass.

Hmmm…it just so happens that the next two weeks will lend Edwards that opportunity. His above expectations finish in Wisconsin will slow Kerry’s momentum, give Edwards some media attention and a boost in fundraising money. At the same time, the two-week break will give the media a chance to criticize Kerry and change the story from Bush vs. Kerry to Edwards vs. Kerry. This will give Edwards a chance to spread his message and charm around the Super Tuesday states. As happened in Wisconsin, I predict it will catch on and Edwards will make some major gains as Kerry gets killed by the media.


To summarize: Dean’s done, Kerry has begun his fall and Edwards has made a major leap in his rise to the nomination. So Josh, how bout an Edwards-Kerry ticket? Or not.

john edwards must read this blog

It looks like John Edwards has been snooping around ideoblogist. Back on February 3, after Seth asked if we should "rally around the front-runner" (i.e. Kerry) I responded with a post titled "not so fast." Well I knew it was a great line, but apparently John Edwards agreed. During the Wisconsin debate yesterday, in response to John Kerry's presumptuousness (but, nonetheless, smartness) in talking about his coming general election battle with Bush, John Edwards shot back, "Not so fast, John Kerry!"

Keep reading John. We'll keep the clever lines coming.

hey, coldplay likes kerry! finally, they weigh in

First of all, let me say that it feels great to be considered a "veteran" political analyst. All my year of studying primaries has finally paid off.

Ok, but seriously. In my post where I just copy-pasted the USA Today article, about the Gallup poll saying Kerry would beat Bush in a race held at that date, all I wondered was if it was solely due to the fact that the news cycle had been running anti-Bush stories for weeks, as they run clips of Democratic primary speeches. I think that might be the case. But I also wondered if this was time to rally around what certainly seems like the front-runner now, despite any opinions of the man himself. Note that I don't have any strong feelings about the person, but I'm just realizing that he's winning primaries the way the Atlanta Braves win NL East titles. I don't think his nomination is "inevitable." Of course things can go down to screw up a nomination. I'm just suggesting that if Democrats unify around him now, he can go in stronger to the convention and NOT screw it up. I would say this if Edwards or Dean or Lieberman had won all but two contests.

I also want to counter something marc said. He, like many of my friends here, point to the near-pathetic decline of Dr. Dean as to why Kerry may soon do the same. Here's the difference, chief: Dean was the front-runner on hype and hype alone. Yeah, he had a ton of money and support with techie nerds and college dreamers, but he was the front-runner purely based on media begetting more media. He was, in reality, a hypothetical front-runner.

On the other hand, Kerry is the front-runner, not hypothetically, or theoretically or monetarily. He is the front-runner because more people have checked the box next to his name than any other candidate. Kerry is the front-runner, almost in spite of the media. Yes, kerry was the front-runner before this whole thing started and lost it, and in response, he threw out his campaign manager a few months before iowa and changed strategies. Marc's semi-humorous rhetoric aside ("as soon as the heat was on, kerry melted away"), let's look at the fact that Kerry has won nearly every single primary and caucus. I'm told this is fairly unique. Dean was the front-runner because he got hyped and struck a chord with a small percentage of the voting population. Kerry is the front-runner because many, many people are voting for him. I see a clear difference here.

Just wanted to correct marc on that point, and add one more thing that really irks me. Bear with me through this: let's say you vote in a man decades ago to Congress and he votes exactly how you would want your guy to be voting in the 1970s. But over the years, the nation changes, but the guy doesn't bend. He stays with an out-dated mentality and is clearly behind the times. This continues until today, or until his voters throw him out for not adapting to modernity. I don't think anybody believes that's a way to govern. No, like women's fashion and automobile designs, a life-long politician has to realize his nation changes and, odds are, so would he. So, what's the deal with everybody ripping kerry a new asshole for voting on issues on a yearly basis? So what if he votes differently than he did when he was a young man? Anybody that thinks America circa-1970 is the same country as America circa-2004 please raise your hand. Thank you. Marc, you accuse him on flip-flopping on "every issue." I mean, you can't be serious. I'm willing to allow for a bit of, for lack of a more accurate term, "flip-flopping," because that's how a guy stays elected and popular for a billion terms. But since when is flexibility and adapting with the times such a unholy sin? I want to state again that i'm not a huge kerry supporter. But I'm reading columns and articles condemning him for voting *this* way with the military just after Vietnam, then a *different* way at the end of the Cold War, then differently after 9/11. I can see how this can be spun to make it look like John Kerry has no steady opinions on anything, but I can't see how a political mind like yours, Marc, can fall for this spin.

As far as your other two indictments on the candidate are concerned, pandering and botox: well, Clinton was called the "Pander Bear" his entire term, and you seem to like him fine. And I don't know if Kerry used botox, but since when do you only like good-looking candidates, Marc? Plus, I've seen pictures of abraham lincoln during the civil war. The guy was no miss america finalist, but he did okay.

my newspaper debut

You're probably dying to know what the hell Seth is talking about...or maybe not, but I like the article so here it is...

Article in the Daily Princetonian about me and Joe...
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/02/04/news/9483.shtml

Front Page:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/photoExpansion.jsp?id=4106

might be of interest

Is our "moment" for Joe's loss done yet? Incidentally, that was a *very* cool article by the princeton paper there, Marc. (the "Prince" -- i love it!) I mean, in our 1/8 of a conversation that night, you didn't mention that he dropped your name at a stump speech! If that doesn't get you an internship anywhere this summer, I don't know what would.

Anyhoo, here's something posted on romenesko -- a journalism institute's daily email of articles about journalism, Marc -- in which I thought you two would be interested. The heading on romenesko is "Claim: Jewish press tougher on Lieberman than other media." the article is not particularly phenomenal, but its A) Politics B) Journalism and C) Judaism, so I figure it would have to include wiffle ball to spark more interest. Here's the link: http://www.ctnow.com/features/lifestyle/hc-jewishpress.artfeb05,0,3485342.story

I assume you're both doing well. Cuz if you were dead, someone probably would have told me by now.
- seth

a moment of silence

This blog will take a night off to commemorate Joe Lieberman and his run for the Presidency. I will always maintain that he was the best man for the job. Though I've accepted his defeat for at least the past week, his official departure is still sad for me.

For now, enjoy refreshing CNN.com every 2 min for updated election returns.

not so fast

I've been calling a Kerry-Edwards showdown since NH. Obviously there will be more to come on this after tonight...but I wouldn't conclude that Kerry is the inevitable front-runner/nominee just yet.

i *guess* it's good news

USA TODAY Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004

Washington -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry would defeat President Bush if the election were held today, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll that shows serious vulnerabilities for the president.
...
Kerry defeated Bush 53% to 46%...
Bush's job-approval rating dipped below 50% for the first time in his presidency, to 49%, and his disapproval ratings rose to a record 48%...
...
Bush, whose job approval was a robust 60% just three weeks ago, faces ... some sobering history. Since World War II, only two presidents have trailed challengers early in the election year. In 1948, Harry Truman was behind Thomas Dewey but won in November. In 1976, Gerald Ford was behind Jimmy Carter and lost.
...
Among the Democratic candidates, Kerry was supported by a commanding 49% of Democrats nationally who are registered to vote. Former front-runner Dean was second at 14%, followed by Edwards at 13%.

So, boys, is this just due to a media cycle in the middle of the heart of primary season or is it finally time for everybody, regardless of personal conviction in regards to the candidate, to rally around the front-runner?