Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

For what it's worth, the nice people at

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

have the latest polls on the North Carolina presidential race. As of August 11, that was 48-45 for Bush according to a poll done by "Research 2000". Given that undecideds tend to break against the incumbent, you could see a George Bush nightmare scenario in that state, too.

I mean, I think it's fair to stipulate that if Bush loses North Carolina, he will have lost the election. And, hey, if the latest poll from Virginia is to be believed, Bush will have to to expend some real effort to nail down Virginia. This should NOT be happening to a Republican this late in the race. So much so that I feel I have to disbelieve that Virginia poll.

Jonathan King, I don't have any statistics, but I live in Virginia, and I can FEEL something happening here. I live in a traditionally very conservative Republican county and I see Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers all around. The Meetups I go to have 50-60 people at them, and people are coming up to us at political events and asking for Kerry bumper stickers and signing up to help with the campaign. The tide has been changing since late last summer.

(1) Mason-Dixon (the best multi-state poller I've ever found) also showed Bowles recently with a 10-point lead.

(2) I'm still trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the Southern border states. There's general agreement that Arkansas and North Carolina are close; but I'm also seeing polls lately showing Virginia and Tennessee astonishingly close (Rasmussen and Survey USA for Virginia; Zogby, Survey USA and Mason-Dixon for Tennessee).

Some commentators are explaining Virginia on the grounds that -- like Florida, but more slowly -- it's evolving into a "non-Southern" Southern state thanks to its mass influx of Northerners. But Tennessee, if true, is harder to explain. (It might have something to do with the fact that they now have a very popular Democratic governor -- just as Kerry is running weak in Missouri and Kentucky because the state Democrats are very unpopular there right now.)

Tennessee has never been a real hotbed of crazy right wingers. It is very conservative, true, and the democrats here are conservative too. But withing that concensus, there is room for values beyond God, gays and guns. Governor Bredesen is a successful businessman, whose issues have been the nuts and bolts of running the administration, and trying to contain costs in programs such as Tenn-Care (our medicare) and workers compensation.

There is a lot of unease about the Bush administration, with its enormous deficits, its failure on the jobs front, and the failure to catch Osama bin Laden. When I talk to my republican friends here, and I have many, they profess concern about the handling of these matters and others. I cannot see any effect of the sliming of Kerry. I have been feeling a bit better about the election.

Pol, I live in Texas and have been picking up the same vibes.

However, two things came together in my brainpan yesterday and made me wonder. One was the piece in the Sunday NYTimes magazine about Ray Fair, the econometrics guy at Yale who's "never been wrong" predicting the outcome of a presidential election, and who puts Bush's win at 57%. The other was a conglomeration of impressions which have accumulated over the past weeks. Something in the demeanors of Bush and Cheney,something in the campaign language they use, something in their behaviors gives me the same impression I got on Election Night, 2000: the fix is in.

So maybe we ought to consider something which would have seemed impossible until lately: a Dem victory in Congressional seats, loss of presidency. Think about it. There could be some delicious consequences.

Hi,

I am coordinating the Sierra Club's efforts to help Bowles' in NC. We just endorsed him about two weeks ago. FYI: Bowles lead is real and has been stable, but expect it to narrow. Burr is right-wing, but personable to all hell, and suffers from a lack of name recognition, which will not be a problem soon (he has mucho dinero). Bush will in all liklihood win NC; there are reasons to be suspicious of national Repub standings in these pols.

I am posting to solicit feedback--does anyone have interesting suggestions for me as to how I could mobilize state Sierra Club members to back Bowles? I'm trying to think both inside and outside the box. I am quite familiar with normal tactics, so anything more novel would be very cool. If Bowles wins, I think it potends a Dem takeover in the Senate based on a move towards Dems nationwide and in the South in particular. If you think that isn't important, take note that we have gone a very long time since replacing any of the Supremes.

Thanks,

MC

Bruce Moomaw writes:
>
> Some commentators are explaining Virginia on the grounds
> that -- like Florida, but more slowly -- it's evolving into a
> "non-Southern" Southern state thanks to its mass influx of
> Northerners.

I think Ruy Teixeira would make an argument more like: the urban/rural balance is changing, and voters in rapidly urbanizing areas are more completely aware of the role that government plays. So the party that says "We need smaller government!" will seem less credible. And, yeah, that's a caricature. I think the real test of this kind of thinking will come in places like Missouri, where essentially all the growth is in the (now very extended) suburbs of St. Louis and KC and in the metro areas of Springfield and Columbia. In Columbia, what I *think* we're beginning to see is immigration from the surrounding rural counties that have lost their (once pretty stable) employment base.

The demographics of all this would be more fascinating to me if it weren't for the fact that they are all fairly long term, while the future of a *lot* of stuff is coming down to right now.

Bean, if I recall correctly, Ray Fair has "never been wrong" because he adjusts his algorithm after each election. In other words, his algorithm *now* predicts each former election, but it does so only because he tweaked it with full hindsight after each election was over.

As for polls, there are three things working in Bush's favor between now and the election.

1. He's significantly outspending Kerry during the month of August, since Kerry now is limited to federal funds.

2. The Republican convention may generate a point or two for Bush or a point or two against Kerry, more likely the latter, given the stories that the Republicans are going to be spending much of their convention attacking and mocking Kerry.

3. The Department of Homeland Security has declared September to be National Preparedness Month (beginning September 9th, oddly enough) and will be heavily advertising during much of the month. This could go either way -- if it's seen as a cynical ploy, it could backfire, but if it's seen as emphasizing Bush's credentials, it could swing a few votes his way.

The bottom line is that it still looks like this one's going down to the wire.

OT, Brad - If you are coming to DC to take a position with Kerry admin, we the blogging people
from DC/VA/MD will throw you a big reception party.

Pol - I am in northern VA and definitely seeing the pro-Kerry trend. There will be enough Kerry margin here to offset Bush margin in downstate/rural VA.
Hampton/VB area is the key and the state will go whichever way that area goes. If Edwards campaigns there and if they can bring out Doug Wilder (maybe an ambassador post?) to campaign enthusiastically, we have a good chance at VA.

He's hardly 'never been wrong'; he predicted a landslide for Bush-the-elder in 1992. I certainly don't deny the chance of a Bush win, even a solid one, but short of another terrorist attack, there's no way this fairly limp economy is going to pull over a *fifth* of the Gore voters away.

Bean re: "the fix is in"

What do you see and hear specifically from the BC campaign and Bush and Cheney themselves? Do you have a theory as to what their "fix" can be? e.g., moles insighting violence at the convention? I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts/speculations/evidence. Thanks.

Did some internet research on the dude who predicted Bush's 2004 landslide victory in the NY Times:

"From 1916 to 1996, Mr. Fair's theory only calls two elections incorrectly.

In 1960 Nixon received 49.9% of the vote, but according to the theory he should have received a 51.1% -- a relatively small discrepancy. More embarrassing to the author's analysis is the 1992 election, in which President Bush's predicted share of the major-party vote was a winning 50.9%, whereas his actual share was 46.5% -- a whopping 4.4 percentage-point error.

Moving to the 2000 election, which lies outside the data set used to construct the theory and is therefore a good test of its validity, Al Gore should have received (a losing) 49% share of the vote that went to the two major parties, but he actually got (a losing) 50.3% share."

Wow, despite creating a formula to "predict" elections from the past, once he started applying it to future elections he only got 2 of the last 3 winners wrong! (And they both involved a candidate named George Bush).

Did some internet research on the dude who predicted Bush's 2004 landslide victory in the NY Times:

"From 1916 to 1996, Mr. Fair's theory only calls two elections incorrectly.

In 1960 Nixon received 49.9% of the vote, but according to the theory he should have received a 51.1% -- a relatively small discrepancy. More embarrassing to the author's analysis is the 1992 election, in which President Bush's predicted share of the major-party vote was a winning 50.9%, whereas his actual share was 46.5% -- a whopping 4.4 percentage-point error.

Moving to the 2000 election, which lies outside the data set used to construct the theory and is therefore a good test of its validity, Al Gore should have received (a losing) 49% share of the vote that went to the two major parties, but he actually got (a losing) 50.3% share."

Wow, despite creating a formula to "predict" elections from the past, once he started applying it to future elections he only got 2 of the last 3 winners wrong! (And they both involved a candidate named George Bush).

Did some internet research on the dude who predicted Bush's 2004 landslide victory in the NY Times:

"From 1916 to 1996, Mr. Fair's theory only calls two elections incorrectly.

In 1960 Nixon received 49.9% of the vote, but according to the theory he should have received a 51.1% -- a relatively small discrepancy. More embarrassing to the author's analysis is the 1992 election, in which President Bush's predicted share of the major-party vote was a winning 50.9%, whereas his actual share was 46.5% -- a whopping 4.4 percentage-point error.

Moving to the 2000 election, which lies outside the data set used to construct the theory and is therefore a good test of its validity, Al Gore should have received (a losing) 49% share of the vote that went to the two major parties, but he actually got (a losing) 50.3% share."

Wow, despite creating a formula to "predict" elections from the past, once he started applying it to future elections he only got 2 of the last 3 winners wrong! (And they both involved a candidate named George Bush).

I like his trade policy:

(http://www.bowles2004.com/jobsplan/)

1. Stop all new trade agreements until Washington cracks down on illegal imports and certifies that all existing trade agreements are being enforced correctly.

2. Create new jobs and keep existing jobs here in America by focusing investments on small businesses.

3. Repeal tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and instead provide tax incentives to keep and create jobs in America.

Glad to hear Mr. Fair isn't. To be fair to him, though, he did mention a 2.5% margin.

Hope he's wrong, though I'd kind of like to watch a real impeachment process for a change.

MC:

As a non-profit organization the Sierra Club cannot endorse a political candidate without risking its tax-exempt status. Perhaps the Sierra Club has done an end-run around the law like the NAACP and set up another non-tax-exempt organization to engage in politics. In any case you should be careful to tell your contributors where their money is going.

As I said on a different thread, Kerry's big rally in Portland isn't news, but he's been much more usccessful than expected in the Republican south of the state.

Mary: I do expect Republicans or paid provacateurs to instigate violence during the Republican convention.

As I said on a different thread, Kerry's big rally in Portland isn't news, but he's been much more usccessful than expected in the Republican south of the state.

Mary: I do expect Republicans or paid provacateurs to instigate violence during the Republican convention.

A Zarkov wrote:

:As a non-profit organization the Sierra Club cannot :endorse a political candidate without risking its tax-:exempt status. Perhaps the Sierra Club has done an :end-run around the law like the NAACP and set up :another non-tax-exempt organization to engage in :politics. In any case you should be careful to tell your :contributors where their money is going.

A. Zarkov on August 17, 2004 09:02 AM

If memory serves, the short version of the explanation is that the Sierra Club is not organized as a non-profit in the way many other environmental organizations are. That is, contributions to the Sierra Club are specifically not tax-deductible because the Club actively decided to want to be able to influence environment-related legistlation in California.

stlingquirer is generally correct: The Sierra Club lost it's tax exempt status years ago. (I'm a Sierra Clubber since 1988.)

International Aristocrats prefer Kerry over Bush

Isn't this interesting? The Democratic Capitalists of the USA, Britain and Japan prefer Bush while the AristoSocialists of "the continent" prefer Kerry.

Listen... whatever France, Germany and their ilk want for the USA is guaranteed to be bad.

You should vote for Kerry if you like Europe more than America.

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/international_a.html

SHEEEEZ

....and for our dumbshit talking point posting of the day...I give you... Adrian Spidle!

I hope that was shrill enough.

Because, as you know, things are MUCH worse for middle class folks in Europe than they are in America.

"If you are coming to DC to take a position with Kerry admin, we the blogging people from DC/VA/MD will throw you a big reception party."

Will this event be blogged?

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
-- President Abraham Lincoln

"Dumbfuck blogwhores should be put down like rabid dogs." -- George Washington

I think Virginia is definitely shifting. A former Republican state senator I know is publicly supporting Kerry. Some of it is the number of wingnuts in the state. As sane people get to know them, they are really turned off. Companies came to Northern Virginia because of the “business friendly” legislature, and then discovered, surprise, surprise, that this also meant there wasn’t enough money to build needed roads or infrastructure. Pragmatism is beginning to rule, with a bit of fear that it might be dangerous to have gotten the rubes so riled up.

Yes. I think one of the reasons for (NYTimes, yesterday) harassing antiwar activists is to set the stage for "violent protests" in New York. First you tell the public, "We're seriously worried about this," then you provoke trouble, then you say, "Look at The Opposition. Those People -- are dangerous. You don't want their party in power." It's been done before.

Another of the -- gee, I don't know whether to call it a "tactic" or an "illness"... Let's put it this way: one of the habits of the Right is to create hypothetical groups, give them a labels, call them The Others and set them up as enemies. See Spidle, above.

I recommend, over at the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman's latest column on Think Again: The Narrative vs. The Truth: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=139401

You know, you don't have to be either/or all your life. You can actually love Europe and love America. Lots of grownups do!

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
_________________

That's interesting, Adrian, since Lincoln, as a Whig Congressman, forcefully and repeatedly denounced the Mexican War as a trumped-up land grab while it was going on.

And if you are, with a straight face, implying that all criticism of a war by other politicians while it's going on is "sabotage", I can also throw at you Teddy Roosevelt's characteristically infuriated statement during World War I that doing so if you honestly think the war is wrong is not only permissible but a "patriotic duty" -- and that NOT doing it is, in fact, "treason". (I can also throw at you the infuriated remarks made by Tom Delay et al during the Kosovo War.)

I think that Brad has invented Adrian, to keep the blog balanced, without saying anything sensible.

Naughty boy, Brad. (And also unconvincing. No REAL person would possibly say things that stupid.)

If Mr. Spidle's blog is to be trusted, he is actually Prof. DeLong's brother-in-law.

and here all along i thought brother spidle was a masterful performance artist.

actually, his progression has been something: from largely inane but at least on-topic comments, to links to his blog (what a waste of time it was to follow those), to his current pattern of publishing lengthy extracts from his blog plus a link here and at matthew yglesias (and, who knows, maybe elsewhere, too?).

And no matter what, he still has nothing to say....

Two points-

1. All of the above criticism of Ray Fair is valid. I would add one other- the only way he gets his model to come even close to having predictive value is by giving Republicans a 'natural' floating advantage before he runs the rest of his numbers. That part of the model is so blatantly disingenuous that it almost in itself excludes the model from consideration.

2. As I have said in past posts, anyone who even considers the thought of merely wishing to have given Adrian Spidle the smallest fraction of a second of rational consideration is advised to actually consult his blog. Particularly the part where he espouses his own twisted philosophy of life. If Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard had procreated in some demented alternate universe, their love spawn might have a philosophy only slightly less bizarre than that proselytized by Mr. Spidle.

"giving Republicans a 'natural' floating advantage"

Why is this so disingenious? Seems to me that, with everything else being exactly the same, the voters would give a bonus to the party that waves more flags.

Calling Bowles a class act in the Clinton Administration is damning him with the faintest possible praise.

The Sierra Club could make an invaluable contribution to not only the Bowles campaign, but progressive politics in North Carolina more generally, by using these August and early September weeks to perform door-to-door voter registration drives in precincts where the Democratic percentage margin is great, but the number of votes produced is relatively low because of low turn-out. You can also build your email /US mail/volunteer lists at the same time.

Wrt ecoast saying:
************************
Hampton/VB area is the key and the state will go whichever way that area goes. If Edwards campaigns there and if they can bring out Doug Wilder (maybe an ambassador post?) to campaign enthusiastically, we have a good chance at VA.
************************

Doug Wilder is rapidly turning into Zell Miller II. I think Kerry doesn't want to go there, but Bush might.