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.
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.
posted by Anonymous at 10:24:00 PM
<< Home