Idiots...

This is the kind of stuff that infuriates me. Newsweek conducted a poll. Respondents were interviewed between Thursday and Friday. That means that half of them had seen Kerry's speech, and half had not. Kerry leads 49-42 in the poll.

Why was this poll conducted on those days?

Why do they claim that Kerry's bounce is the "smallest in the history of the Newsweek poll"?

Could it be that many who were polled hadn't even seen the speech yet?

Why, yes.

A closer look shows that Kerry's bounce was quite substantial (from Dailykos):

THURSDAY SAMPLE
BUSH/CHENEY 47%
KERRY/EDWARDS 49%

FRIDAY SAMPLE
BUSH/CHENEY 41%
KERRY/EDWARDS 54%

So why wasn't that the lead?

I hate the print media...

Last night's speech, more reflection

It seems universal that Dems liked it and Republicans respected it. So that's good.

And, as my mother reminded me, it was probably the best speech John Kerry's ever given.

I wonder though - did this speech/the night increase people's personal connection with this man? Al Gore was widely panned after his convention speech in 2000. Truthfully, the text of the speech was poor, but the delivery was great. When Al Gore "apologized" to the audience for his stiff nature, he scored many empathy points. His intensity and passion certainly helped him as well.

Kerry didn't apologize for his Chuck Robb personality last night. He didn't show himself to be a human being. The intro video and the portraits provided by his family helped, but his speech did not. I'm not sure how much this will matter. It shouldn't matter, but many voters vote based on personality. If they don't like the guy, they don't vote for him. And I'm not sure Kerry advanced his cause last night in this respect.

Of course, I think the personality issue is a zero sum game for Kerry. He scores points for "seriousness" and "gravity" but loses them on "charisma" and "charm". In the event of another terrorist attack or escalating violence in Iraq, Kerry's stern manner might actually outweigh his negative qualities.

Honestly, I feel like a Middle School girl analyzing people's personalities. As Michael Jackson said, shouldn't I look at the man in the mirror and ask him to change his ways? Sure. But as a political scientist, I know this is are important. Personality voting HAPPENS.

Blogger getting screwy

I don't know why my blog's so messed up. I'll try to fix it. In the meantime: enjoy.

Good analysis on the speech

I've compiled some anaylsis on last night's speech:

Noam Schreiber:

My second thought is that, for all the criticism of his lack of big-think, Kerry laid out a pretty coherent ideology last night--a little worldview that goes by the name of cold war liberalism. Kerry's speech was highly nationalistic: It bashed the Saudi royal family and the foreign workers taking American jobs, just as the cold warriors once bashed the Soviets. It was hawkish, calling for the addition of 40,000 additional U.S. troops and a twofold increase in the number of special forces, just as the cold warriors demanded we close our "missile gap." The speech was laced with calls for activist government at home--on healthcare in particular--just as the cold warriors demanded progress on civil rights and poverty alleviation. And Kerry's speech was highly optimistic, professing faith in American ingenuity and proposing that the country find a cure for aids and Parkinson's, just as the cold warriors once called for a manned mission to the moon.

Since Al Gore lost the election in 2000, the debate among Democrats has been whether the party should head in the direction of Clinton-era neoliberalism, or McGovern-era new left-ism. Last night Kerry's answer was c.) none of the above. And that just may turn out to be the right one.

Mickey Kaus:

1) Good enough! No JFK2! (Kennedy's name wasn't even mentioned, I think. Update: Mentioned only once.) Substantive, non-cheap Bush-bashing! Populism muted-to-nonexistent! Above all, Kerry seemed less pompous, like a guy you could conceivably live with for four years; 2) Also fits with Eddie Yost strategy--didn't say much, presented a small target. At least three of four Pillars of Victory are intact; 3) Smart move to have a passage spotlighting his possible cabinet--took the focus off his own hard-to-like persona, made him potential benignly dull father figure presiding over an interesting administration; 4) Line most likely to come back and haunt: "I will not cut benefits." 5) Man, stem cell research must test well. .... I predict a measurable bounce, if anybody was watching. ... The most encouraging implications of the speech may be that a) Kerry's aides know their candidate's inherent limitations and are willing to correct for them rather than correct them--by not having him try to actually excite the crowd, for example; and b) Kerry's either aware of his limitations himself--or else he's willing to check his ego and listen to his staff's recommendations. Either way, it's encouraging. Kerry didn't try to make us love him or be inspired by him. He was just "reporting for duty." He unexpectedly jettisoned a lifelong JFK obsession. And he didn't (with a few exceptions*) treat his audience as dumb enough to be satisfied with meaningless bromides. ... This can't last. Time for Faster Elections! Can we hold this one next week? ...

Andrew Sullivan

WHAT I LIKED: But it was an optimistic speech, even though it kept telling us that again and again. And it was not too divisive, although it had barbs directed at Enron and asserted that those who disagreed with him somehow didn't have a conscience. It was halfway between Al Gore's leftist address in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996. He was strongest in his invocation of patriotism and unity:
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
I'm glad that Kerry has decided to use the FMA against Bush, as he should. I also liked his view of religion:
I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.
Beautiful. And important. The damage that president Bush has done to the delicate but vital boundary between religion and politics is one reason I cannot support him for another term. He is simply playing with a terrible fire with good intentions but fateful consequences.

Boring, but effective

Kerry's speech (as far as speeches go) was Ok (but a bit boring at the beginning). But politically it was a great. All Kerry really needed to accomplish tonight was to convince Middle America that he wouldn't be the stereotypical Democrat - afraid to use military power and weak on national defense - and I think he accomplished that, through (1.) use of the Vietnam imagery and (2) a bunch of hawkish rhetoric.

I liked that he mentioned his prosecutorial experience as well. After tonight, there can be no doubt that John Kerry is tough.

The Hunting of a President

I haven't seen the documentary yet (based on the Joe Conason book), but I can strongly recommend the trailer, viewable here.

Teresa's speech last night

Ok. I've been holding this back all day.

I watched her speech last night.

My main reaction?

Yikes. What a train wreck. What a confusing rant.

Saletan on first ladies:

Teresa Heinz Kerry is the concluding speaker Tuesday night. That's the most important slot. I have to say first that this is absurd. The whole obsession with first ladies is absurd. George W. Bush went around in 2000 talking about what a "fabulous" first lady Laura would be. It was the first thing he said at virtually every campaign stop. No issue or potential member of his administration got that treatment. You were supposed to vote for him not because of his agenda or his team, but because of his wife, a woman who would have no official power and whose views on issues, notably abortion, he thoroughly ignored. Bush still talks this way: Vote for me because Laura is fabulous.

Is there any stupider reason to vote for a presidential candidate? And judging from the emphasis each campaign puts on the spouse, is there any surer way to attract voters?

More praise for the Democratic convention

Earlier I laid out two ways of conducting a convention. The Democrats are putting a liberal face forward, while Republicans are trying to put a moderate face forward, I argued. It's actually a bit more complex than that, and it works in the Democrats favor:

While many of the Democrats' speakers are indeed very liberal, their speeches have SOUNDED moderate. In other words, liberals pretend to be moderate.Take Barack Obama, for example.

The Republicans are putting forth moderate speakers who will be forced to pretend to be conservative (or else draw the ire of their party).

Think of it: a full week of liberals acting temperate, being positive, and not spewing fire and brimstone liberalism. In other words, we're using this week to redefine liberalism as a non-scary thing.

Meanwhile, the GOP will use their week to make Republican moderates look like right-wingers. Sure, some of these moderates might put forth Bush's "compassionate" agenda, but most will try to please the base.

It's both brilliant and devious at the same time!

Funniest moment yesterday

Teresa Heinz Kerry claims to be an African American...

Ok, so she actually said, "Continental African".

Positive convention vs negative convention

Maybe the positive convention isn't such a good idea. Afterall, this might be the only chance Democrats get to air their grevances about the Bush Administration with millions of viewers watching.

Jonathan Chait of TNR:

First, the notion of Bush-bashing as the sole province of lefty radicals reflects a deep misunderstanding. Opposition to Bush may have a radicalizing effect, but it's not a radical phenomenon. One of the peculiarities of Bush's presidency is that many of his most outspoken critics--Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, Al Gore--had well-established moderate credentials before he took office. Even the Democratic Leadership Council has taken a stance of searing opposition to Bush. Sure, radicals like Michael Moore have glommed onto the Bush-bashing movement, but fundamentally the intense opposition to Bush is a product of the president's radicalism and partisanship, not that of his critics.
The corollary is that opposition to Bush, far from being a minority notion confined to blue state salons, is actually quite widespread. Bush's job approval rating has consistently remained below 50 percent. In fact, the proportion of Americans who want Bush out of office is substantially larger than the proportion who want Kerry to replace him. So the idea that boosting Kerry is a mainstream sentiment, and bashing Bush a minority sentiment, has it backwards.

While I agree with him to some extent, I still think that there's already enough anti-Bush stuff out that for Americans to digest. What they haven't heard yet is Kerry's positive plan to rebuild America. And as corny as that sounds, that's what this week is all about.

Then again...
My personal pet issue, Abu Ghraib, is strangely absent from this convention. Where's the outrage over the government sponsorted torture? I wouldn't have minded hearing, "How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison?" from Al Gore again.

Because seriously - how dare they?

And politically, I still smell blood on this issue. Although I've been wrong before.

Democratic Convention: Kudos so far

Disregard this earlier post. I think the Democrats are right on the mark so far. They're hiding the hate and presenting a positive message that's aimed almost totally at swing voters. They don't need to coddle the base. The base is frothing at the mouth.

And the beautiful thing about the "positive" speeches last night is that they contained all sorts of innuendo aimed at Bush - innuendo that only liberal Democrats like myself could pick up through the smokescreen of positivity and hawkishness. From Josh Marshall:

Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. The headline of Susan Page's piece in USA Today reads: "Speakers offer few barbs, try to stay warm and fuzzy." But the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.
Perhaps it's a touchy analogy, but like voters who understood the code-words Republicans once (and often still do) used to flag hot-button racial issues they dared not voice openly, these Democrats could hear the most scathing attacks on President Bush rattling through the speeches they heard tonight.

Howard Dean's role

Howard Dean has done a masterful job during this convention and over the last few months. It had to be heartbreaking when he collapsed and lost the nomination, but he's still pitching in for the party by bashing Ralph Nader every chance he gets.

In December and January I often worried that if Dean lost the nomination, his supporters would flock to Nader. I was wrong on two counts:

1. First of all, I didn't realize how committed people were to beating Bush this year. I misinterpreted their support for Dean as their willingness to jump off a cliff.

2. I didn't anticipate John Kerry as Dean's replacement. Kerry's liberal, so the Dean folks can easily support him.

Who knows, maybe there's a political life ahead for Dean.

Does Joe Shmoe hate people from the Middle East?

Many of my recent posts have hinted at an American racism towards people from the Middle East.

Hate is the wrong word. It's a bit more complicated.

Many Americans can't differentiate between moderate Muslims in the Middle East* (the ones who treat women like children) and extremist Muslims in the Middle East (the ones who treat women like dogs).

Furthermore, these same Americans certainly can't differentiate between extremist Muslims in the Middle East (the ones who hate America but won't blow themselves up on account of it, for example: Baathists) and fanatical extremist Muslims in the Middle East (the ones who hate America AND are willing to blow themselves up to prove it, for example: Al Qaida).

These things are complicated, and who could expect Americans to really understand it all, what with that important Laci Peterson trial on TV every day.

*With the exception of Turkey and parts of Jordan and Iran...(hey - don't give me that look. It's true. They don't treat women very well over there. Please spare me the "cultural relativism" lecture).

Kerry's Vietnam service

Does everyone in America know about Kerry's heroic Vietnam service? Yes.

So should the Democrats keep pounding the issue? Yes.

I totally disagree with this TNR post on the matter:

There's something both tiresome and contrived about the Kerry campaign's constant reminders that its candidate served in Vietnam. Is it really necessary that virtually every time Kerry gets off his campaign plane, he's greeted on the tarmac, in clear view of local TV news cameras, by a group of saluting veterans? And did Kerry really need to have an Afghan and Iraq war veteran--decked out in fatigues, no less--serve as his catcher last night when he threw out the first pitch at the Yankees-Red Sox game? It's possible that "John Kerry is just a better man than George Bush," as Carville told the Veterans Caucus, but not because, as Carville implied, Kerry served in the military and Bush didn't. And while it was quite a tribute to the leadership Kerry displayed in Vietnam when one of his former crewmates declared at the caucus, "If John Kerry came up to us today and said that he had one more swift boat mission and we were going to hell, he would have a whole crew," that sentiment didn't really speak to whether Kerry would be a good president.

Kerry's constant use of his Vietnam service isn't really meant to attract veterans to his campaign (although it helps). It's meant to build up his "strong leader" numbers. The Kerry campaign wants the name John Kerry conjure up strength and courage.

The American people will only elect John Kerry if they can trust him with their lives. Say what you will about Bush's stupidity, but no one questions his willingness to blow Arabs to smithereens (and this comforts your average American). John Kerry wants swing voters to realize that he too would be willing to blow terrorists into tiny bits if need be.

update: Fellow blogger Jordan sent me this tidbit:
"in oklahoma one of the field organizers started saying the campaign slogan should be 'john kerry: commie killer'"

Bill Clinton = God

I didn't believe in God before, but now I'm pretty sure I do.

If, for some reason, you missed Clinton's speech: make sure you watch it. Best speech he's ever made.

TNR blog

Check out the free TNR convention blog. It features most of their political reporters and some insightful comments.