New excitement surrounding Democratic ticket

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is actually excited by John Kerry or his campaign. Until Edwards joined the ticket, the Democrats were fueled solely by massive Bush-hatred. Now people have something to be excited about.
update:
Here's a political cartoon that jives with what I'm saying:

Edwards beats Cheney!

I guess all of Cheney's "experience" and "gravitas" doesn't help him a bit.

Electoral college roundup

Right now my projections have Kerry ahead 243-211 in the electoral college. My calculations are based on Rasmussen polls, 2000 results, trends between 2000 and 2004, and my own intuition. Right now these are the toss up states:

1. Florida: Rasmussen actually lists this one as "leans Democrat". Right now polls have Kerry up by between 1 and 5 points. I still think the presence of Jeb and the floundering Florida Democratic Party gives Bush the edge here. But it's a toss up for now.
2. Pennsylvania: I STRONGLY believe this state will end up a 5-6 point Kerry win, but right now the polls are just too close to call.
3. Missouri: This one is a bit surprising. Most polls have Bush up by between 1 and 4 points here. My gut tells me this will be an easy Bush win, but right now the polls just don't back me up.
4. Nevada: Polls here are mixed. Some have Kerry up by a few points and others are closer. Nevada is difficult to predict. The demographics change every 4 years.
5. Ohio: Bush consistently has a 1-3 point lead in this state, and it's already been saturated with political ads for a couple of months now. Edwards should move the numbers towards Kerry a bit.

Those are the 5 battleground states as of now. Of course, other states are polling close (West Virginia, Iowa, Oregon, Maine, Virginia), but I just don't think they'll remain close.

Lazy media alert!

What in the world is THIS AP story talking about???

The headline: "Kerry Gains support in the South".

The story content:

1. Bush gains 5 points among likely voters nationwide.
2. Kerry gains a 6 points amongst southern voters (keep in mind, this poll has a sample size of 800. Let's assume that about 200 of those voters are southerners. With such a small sample size, any numbers should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The standard of deviation is probably +/-10).
3. The poll took place between Monday and Wednesday of this week. The Kerry campaign chose Edwards Tuesday morning. This fact would seemingly invalidate the poll.
4. A random quote from a Republican:

"I'm more impressed with Kerry now that he chose Edwards," said Republican voter Robin Smith, 45, a teacher from Summerville, S.C. "I look at Kerry and I don't trust him, but he's got Edwards, who's more middle-of-the-road, a strong speaker, more able to reach the common man."

Great.

So is Kerry gaining in the South? A statistically insignificant sample size say yes! Is this insignificant rise in the polls due to Edwards? Since only 2 of the 3 days of polling were conducted with Edwards on the ticket, who knows? And if Edwards affect the race and this ridiculous poll is interpreted literally, one might read that he helped Kerry in the South but hurt him severely EVERYWHERE ELSE (Kerry dropped 5 points nationally but rose 6 points in the South).

The LA times - Not a real paper!

Check out today's Kausfiles for the reason why.

Call me a skeptic...

But doesn't this story/video seem like a propaganda job by the US military? If so, it's a brilliant one...but let's call a spade a spade.

Spinning McCain

Here's John McCain on the Today Show in March:

I'm not running for vice president. President Bush in 2000 asked me if I was interested in being vice president. I said no then. I'm not interested in being vice president now.

Now here's John McCain's blurb on the back cover of John Edwards' book, Four Trials:

"In Four Trials, John Edwards has written movingly of people who were terribly wronged, and whom he helped seek some measure of justice with great skill, determination, and genuine compassion. He shows a perceptive appreciation in these accounts for the strength of his clients' character. And, in the loving portrait of his son, Wade, and the deeply touching account of his loss, John reveals the strength of his own character and gives the reader a look beyond a political biography into the heart of a good man."

If only the lazy media bothered to do research instead of having their stories handed to them by political hacks within the two campaigns!

Thank God for blogs!!!

Kerry's new strategy!

From Jonathan Chait (formerly of Diary of the Deanophobe and my favorite columnist EVER):

This suggests a logical, if somewhat new, division of labor: Edwards could be the one who pulls the party message into a coherent theme, thickens it out with policy proposals (along with his staff), articulates it before the public, and lacerates the opponent. Kerry would continue to star in the television commercials as the Vietnam veteran/prosecutor/gun nut/fiscal hawk. Between his schedule of filming such commercials, he'd raise money and rest up for the debates. Too much campaigning would only alienate the public and make him even more gaunt.

In fact, here's my ideal plan for the Kerry campaign. At an upcoming rally, an anti-Kerry protestor starts to burn an American flag. Kerry leaps down from the podium and starts strangling the protestor with his bare hands, then hurls him to the ground and rescues the flag. In the course of putting out the fire, he suffers minor burns that, the campaign announces, will force him to be hospitalized and inaccessible to the media and the public until mid-October. In the meantime, Edwards is dispatched to present the Democratic message for the next three and half months.

New Kerry bumper sticker

kerryEDWARDS

Silly Ad

So the Bushies are now running an ad that points out that
Edwards was Kerry's second choice, after his bipartisan
choice, John McCain. What exactly are they trying to
accomplish with this ad? It seems like all they're doing is
drawing even more attention to the fact that many sensible
Republicans have huge qualms with George W. Bush. Also, any
mention of McCain and Kerry in the same breath creates the
impression that Kerry is a bipartisan moderate. What are
these fools trying to do, shoot themselves in the foot?

This is of course advertising screwup #2 by the Bush
campaign. What were thinking when they created an ad where
Al Gore screamed, "How dare they drag our good name through
the mud... (etc.)"? Say what you will about the tone of
Gore's voice/the maniacal look on his face - the fact
remains that this ad calls attention to the Abu Ghraib
scandal - something that Bush would probably rather throw a
cloth over and attach an electric wire to...

It's Edwards

Final thoughts before Kerry chooses...

This might come back to bite me, but here it is:

Strategically, Gephardt brings NOTHING to the ticket.
Furthermore, I think that a Gephardt pick will sink
Kerry's candidacy. Here's why:

1. Lack of charisma. Right now, Kerry's
only real weakness is his unbearable personality. Gephardt
would further diminish the luster of this year's
Presidential ticket. What quality do we value in
politicians more than any other? I think we want them to
inspire us - no - we NEED them to inspire us, otherwise we
drift away from them and fall into the arms of a more
charismatic leader, regardless of our beliefs. Gephardt's
lackluster personality and toothless leadership in the
House hasn't inspired anyone. Even unions, whom he has
fought his whole life for, turned his back on him in the
primaries.

2. Don't forget Dean. Deaniacs certainly
haven't forgotten Gephardt's lashing of Dean in Iowa. And
they almost certainly remember his Rose Garden ceremony
with President Bush after the passage of the War
Resolution. Gephardt represents the very party
establishment that Deaniacs tried to overthrow. Putting
him on the ticket might just be too much for them. I know,
I know - the Democratic base is fired up and unrelentingly
anti-Bush. But let's have a reality check: Does anyone
like John Kerry? How long can Bush-hatred sustain and fuel
the Democratic base? The Deaniacs are the very essence of
the liberal wing of that base. Many of these people voted
for Nader in 2000 and many others didn't bother to show
up. The Democratic Party is an uneasy coalition right now
and Bush-hatred is the glue that holds the coalition
together. Hopefully this phenomenon will continue through
November, but we need to be mindful of the liberal base.
Nader, after all, will be on the ballot in many states.

3. Gephardt's economics. Gephardt
ridiculously proposed tax increases on the lower and
middle classes during the primary. Those increases would
pay for a hugely expensive and inefficient health care
plan. Furthermore, Gephardt opposes free trade. Kerry has
deftly moved to the center and largely dodged the
"Massachusetts liberal" bullet. Putting Gephardt on the
ticket would bring Kerry back to the far left.

Those three reasons make Gephardt a dangerous pick for
Kerry. Gephardt would exacerbate Kerry's three key
weaknesses:
1. His personality
2. The lack of love from the base
3. His liberal voting record

Edwards is both a safe pick and an exciting pick.
Hopefully Kerry comes to his senses and brings him onto
the ticket.

Edwards for VP

John Kerry's staff has created fake buzz over Gephardt in order make their eventual pick of Edwards is greeted with a bit more surprise by the Washington media elite (but certainly not by the country).

I like Edwards better than Gephardt. In fact, picking Gephardt would be like tying an old crusty bag of dirt to Kerry's leg and forcing him to drag it around. I'm honestly inclined to believe that the temporary "VP bounce" that candidates usually receive would be fairly limited with a Gephardt pick and fairly substantial with an Edwards pick.

Secondly, the less attention that John Kerry gets, the better for him. He needs to win this election BY DEFAULT. The best way to do that is to employ a charismatic spokesman to run the campaign for him. That spokesman is John Edwards, not Bob Graham and certainly not Dick Gephardt.