The Sunday Before

On the Sunday before the election, nobody really knows who will win. One thing seems likely, though. If the outcome is very close, people on the losing side will blame the winning side’s malevolent machine.

In Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Robert Jervis writes: “Domestic groups in conflict see the other side as more unified than it is. In local labor-management disputes each side is apt to believe incorrectly that the other is controlled from above. Both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives see the other party as the one that is more organized and disciplined.” Jervis’s insight applies to the 2004 campaign. From their partisan trenches, activists peer across no-man’s land and see vast conspiracies behind enemy lines. Red-hot Republicans think Dan Rather and George Soros are plotting to rig the election with vote fraud and media disinformation. Blue-hot Democrats think Karl Rove can conjure up terror threats and make millions of Democratic votes disappear.

Yes, each side has some reason to worry. Close elections bring out the id in every political organization. But images of evil centralized schemes are more the product of partisan fever than dispassionate analysis. To know a political party from the inside is to know a story of feuds and screwups. Since political scientists are heavily Democratic, they understand their own side’s weaknesses yet sometimes see the GOP through the Rove-as-Satan theory. They should consider studies showing that Republicans are a good deal more complex than their cartoon image. A good place to start is Phil Klinkner’s The Losing Parties.

Similarly, Republicans should entertain the possibility that the votes for Kerry come from living human beings, not the ghosts that Mayor Daley summoned in 1960.

The result may not be clear on election night. But sooner or later, a lot of partisans will have to deal with disappointment. They should ponder two literary passages. Though they have religious origins, these lines can offer comfort to people of all persuasions.

From Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ: "A prophet is the one who, when everyone else despairs hopes. And when everyone else hopes, he despairs. You'll ask me why. It's because he has mastered the Great Secret: that the Wheel turns.”

From Ecclesiastes 9:11: “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

Oh, Well

Just when I was ready to call the election for Kerry (high turnout, low Nader vote, Bush's inability to crack 50%), along comes Osama. I think no matter what Kerry says, this has to help Bush, if only by placing terrorism first in voters' minds.

Unsubstantiated Gossip

Now that we are in the endgame of the campaign, it's important that we political scientists focus on serious analysis, rooted in rigorous social science methodology. . . . . . . . [Crickets chirping]

Anyway, I heard a rumor that the Bush people were pulling workers out of Ohio and sending them to Iowa and Wisconsin. Does anyone have anything more solid on this? If so, I can't imagine it's because they think they have Ohio locked up. My guess is that they have shifted to a non-Ohio strategy. If so, that means, here we go again, Florida is the must win for them.

"Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown."

Ignorance Knows No Region

From a poster:

Sorry to have to say it, but the retro Nebraska and Kansas are, their university towns excepted, deeply insular places where the people have low levels of information and high levels of suspicion about the outside world. If approved sources--Bush, Fox news, evangelical ministers--say something is untrue, then those folks KNOW it is untrue. Their blinkered view of the outside world is a recipe for disaster. Sadly, It is their kids--from Fargo, Topeka--who are getting killed in Bush's grand folly. I am sorry for them but, in a serious way, it is their fault. They have gotten exactly what an insular and ignorant vote is likely to get. By the way, I was born in the Middle West.

Well, I'm from the Midwest (Iowa) and I find this kind of pseudo-intellectual, elitist BS deeply offensive. I'm voting for Kerry, but if Democrats see the majority of Americans as idiots, then they deserve to lose elections. Just on general principles, I woudn't support someone who looks down their nose at me. I can't comment at length, but I didn't want to let this pass unremarked. More later.

The Onion Scores Again

MIAMI, FL—With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3.

Above: Monreal urges black community members to hit the polls next Wednesday.

"Minority voters should make their unique voices heard, especially the African-American voting bloc, which is always a major factor in every election," said Florida Republican Party voter-drive organizer Mark Monreal, as he handed out flyers at a community center in the mostly black Miami neighborhood of South Farms. "That's why we put up hundreds of brightly colored banners featuring Martin Luther King Jr. and the 'Vote November 3' reminder. We needed to make sure they know when we want them at polling places."

"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."

GOP committees in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Florida have spent more than $3 million on pamphlets, posters, stickers, and T-shirts bearing such slogans as "Put America First—Vote On The Third!" and "November 3rd Is Your Time To Be Heard."

Monreal's group is joined by hundreds of local organizations, such as the Black Republicans For Maryland. While the Black Republicans do not actually include any black members, the group describes itself as "dedicated to communicating a strong message to members of the African-American community."

"We're aiming not just to get black people to vote, but to mobilize them to come together for one specific day of minority empowerment," Baltimore County Black Republicans For Maryland president Mitchell Williams said. "As Republicans, we truly believe that, by coordinating the minority vote across the nation, we can put minorities in their proper place. We believe we know what's best for the whole country."

Republicans are eager to point out the differences between their drive and those of other get-out-the-vote organizations.

Above: A billboard erected by the Baltimore County Black Republicans for Maryland.

"Strange as it is to say it, we're non-partisan," Monreal said. "We don't care if the minority voter is part of the vast majority of non-whites that traditionally votes Democrat. What's important to us is that we get them to the polls bright and early on the third day of November, so that they feel like they've participated in this year's election."

Monreal said Republican volunteers will be available to drive minorities to polling places on Nov. 3.

"We'll even stay at home with them the day before, to help them prepare for the act of voting," Monreal said. "We'll engage in concentrated one-on-one tutoring the entire day, to make sure these voters focus on the important act of voting, rather than going outside, reading newspapers, or watching television."

Republican Party leaders expressed pride in what they characterized as a true alternative to other programs that encourage voting, such as Rock The Vote.

"Let's be honest," Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said. "The Bush camp has been criticized for ignoring the minority vote for some time, especially during the last election. This project is our way of correcting that misperception. The Bush camp is extremely concerned about the black vote, especially in places like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This year, on Nov. 3, we'll make a concerted effort to welcome minority voters into our own special camps with open arms."

Metropolitan Areas

I find this discussion of metropolitan areas vs. the rest of the country somewhat unsettling. The 9/11 attacks were an attack on the United States and in that sense and attack on all U.S. citizens. We as a nation will decide how to respond to that attack and to the threat of future attacks. We don't parcel out responsibility for national defense to the people who live in the most threatened locations. I don't think much of federalism on any issues, especially this one.

Race and American Politics

PolySigh's very own Phil Klinkner was quoted in yesterday's Chicago Tribune Magazine devoted to analyzing the role of race in American politics. Several articles in the magazine explore the significance of Barack Obama's senate race for African-American politicians to be elected to statewide office. Most of the assessments conclude that he's an exception; for the most part, Blacks still have a difficult time winning statewide political races because white voters simply will not vote for them, regardless of what they say on a survey. Says Klinkner, "Having a black candidate loses you about five points, assuming all other things are equal. That doesn't mean you automatically lose. But if you spot the other team five points, it's much more difficult." I suspect Obama is an exception and that many factors explain what will be a sure victory next Tuesday. I'd be curious to hear what others think: is Obama's entrance into the U.S. Senate an indication of a significant change in American politics? Should we expect to see several more Black candidates winning statewide (or, dare I say it, national) office in the near future? Or will he be yet another exception to the rule?

Widow of Former GOP Congressman Endorses Bush!

OK, it's Cher. Much more interesting than that was this line at the end of the Drudge story:

[Rosie] O'Donnell will speak on Bush and his policies in Iraq at hotspot CLUB OVATION.

Rosie O'Donnell is going doing a nightclub appearance in Iraq! Wow, things must be going much better there than I was led to believe. I say send Gallagher on a tour of the Sunni Triangle.

Bunning Clears Things Up

From USA Today:

Bunning's Rotary Club speech here was aimed at driving any doubts from voters' minds. Although he referred to notes often during the speech, he appeared lucid during a question-and-answer period.

But speaking to reporters later, Bunning reinforced an image among some that he is out of touch when he didn't seem to know about the Army reservists in Iraq who recently refused to go on a convoy mission. "Uh, what are you talking about? I don't know what you are talking about," Bunning replied to a question. When told the story had been in the news for more than a week, he said, "I don't watch the news. And I have not read a newspaper in over six weeks. When I do watch some TV news, I watch Fox."

Bunning called it "as dirty a campaign as I've seen" and said it's "unbelievable to challenge somebody's health and competency, when anyone who is here can see that I'm sharp, healthy and mentally awake."

KY Senate Race

The latest Garin-Hart-Yang poll shows Mongiardo in a 43-43 tie with Bunning, gaining 8 points in just the past week alone.  Mongiardo has picked up endorsements from both the Lexington Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier-Journal -- the state's two largest newspapers.

I think Bunning is going down.

Less Favorable Than Nixon or Carter!

The latest CBS-New York Times poll shows a tight race, Bush 47% - Kerry 45% among likely voters. No shocker there. But the really interesting numbers are the candidates' favorability ratings. Both candidates have net negative personal ratings -- Bush 43 fav / 45 unfav, Kerry 39 fav / 44 unfav. But what's really stunning is the comparison to 1960 and 1980 (according to CBS News, the only years when a candidate with the lower favorability rating won). In 1960, 74% of voters viewed Richard Nixon favorably (!!!); 68% felt that way about John F. Kennedy . In 1980, 62% of voters viewed Jimmy Carter favorably; 58% did so for Ronald Reagan.

Mary, Mary III

I think the angry reaction to Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney points out some gaps between People Like Us (youngish, educated, urbane, politically attentive) and the rest of the nation. (I consider myself one of People Like Us -- and I've worked hard to make that happen!)

1. People Like Us knew that Mary Cheney is 35 years old, partnered, utterly out as a lesbian, and active in the Bush campaign. Many of us were wondering how the GOP was going to handle her, particularly in a year when same-sex marriage is a prominent issue and many Republicans are conducting gay-baiting campaigns (e.g., Jim DeMint, Alan Keyes, Tom Coburn, the infamous "Ban the Bible" flyer in West Virginia). Probably most casual viewers didn't know about Mary. Probably many of them imagined her as an 18-year-old "experimenting" deep in the closet.

2. People Like Us see homosexuality as no big deal. Saying Mary Cheney is a lesbian is like saying Alexandra Kerry is a medical student or that Jenna Bush graduated from the University of Texas -- maybe irrelevant or uninteresting, but not slander. Many older, more socially conservative people see it as equivalent to asking Kerry about his divorce or Bush about his alcoholism -- something far too personal to be talked about on national TV. Others see it more like discussing a family member's abortion or drug use -- something they may be ashamed of and wish to keep secret. Andrew Sullivan talks about this here.

That said, Kerry's statement was still weird and inappropriate, although I am less convinced that it was part of a deliberate political strategy. ( I also think the interchange between Lynne Cheney and Elizabeth Edwards came much too close to an argument over sound parenting techniques). I wonder whether the Cheney family's reaction -- so different from their response to Edwards's discussion of Mary -- had been planned in advance -- Lynne will scream her head off, Dick will react in a more restrained manner, Liz will demand an apology.

Jon Stewart v. Tucker Carlson

Check out the transcript of Jon Stewart battling with Tucker Carlson on CNN's Crossfire.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.
(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.

A thirty-five year-old man with a bow tie pretty much defines dick, doesn't it.

Mary, Mary II

It looks like Bush may actually be picking up a point or two after the debate. Some of this may be due to Republicans just being relieved by Bush finally putting in a competent performance. But it may be also due to Republicans hyping Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney.

A few thoughts on this:

1. Unlike journalists and political junkies, many voters may have been unaware that Mary is gay until Kerry mentioned it. They may have thought that Kerry was "outing" her when he was doing nothing of the kind.

2. Homosexuality is still an uncomfortable issue for many voters, particularly older people. Especially when it involves someone's children. (How many voters know that Mary is in her thirties, and hardly a "child" in any but the biological sense?) They may be annoyed by Kerry's bringing it up and forcing them to think about it. (But even unbigoted voters may have found Kerry's statement just kinda weird and out of place. I know I did).

3. Republicans are successfully spinning this not as a gay issue, but as a "Kerry will say anything" issue and as a violation of family privacy. (Although, once again, Mary's hardly private about her sexuality).

Ignatieff in NYRB

Michael Ignatieff has a great piece in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books. In it he assesses the challenges in Iraq that John Kerry would face if he wins in November:

As the news from Iraq worsens, Kerry may be tempted to promise an exit from the quagmire and quietly jettison his commitments to a democratically elected government in Iraq. Yet holding firm on his intention to sustain an electoral process is vital. Those who opposed the war have good reasons to feel vindicated by the horrible turn of events in Iraq. Their problem is that if America abandons its commitment to helping Iraqis fight for a democratic outcome, through the end of 2005 and into 2006, this betrayal will transform the occupation's many failures into an unforgivable crime.

That seems exactly right. The question is whether Kerry is willing to run the political risk of a long occupation in order to do what's right in Iraq. The debates gave me more confidence that he is, but I'm still not 100% sold.

Mary Cheney and Captain Renault

Andrew Sullivan argues that Kerry mentioning Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is not some underhanded smear.

You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry.

Not necessarily. What you do have to recognize is that we don't live in a perfect world and that, unfortunately, some voters will make a negative association with Cheney as a result of Kerry's remark. Here's an example. If in the debate Bush had referenced Kerry's Catholicism, big deal. Anti-Catholic prejudice is pretty much dead. On the other hand, if Richard Nixon had referenced Kennedy's Catholicism (something that, much to his credit, he never did) in the 1960 debates, it would have been a big deal since a significant number of voters in that election did have anti-Catholic prejudices and such a reference would have triggered or reinforced their bias against Kennedy. It didn't matter what Nixon thought about Kennedy's Catholicism. What mattered is whether he perceived an anti-Catholic bias in the public and whether he played to that bias.

The same goes for race issues. If I wanted to do in Clarence Thomas among racist whites, I could run around talking about how much I respected his interracial marriage. Hell, I could even run puffy TV ads showing Thomas and his wife, calling them "my esteemed opponent and his lovely and charming wife." Even if I thought interracial marriage was fine, I'm still playing the race card. And in some ways, that's far more reprehensible and cynical than if I were honestly racist.

That said, Sullivan is absolutely right when calls out conservatives for being "shocked, shocked" at the idea of using gays as a wedge issue.

Watch Kentucky

It seems that Republican Senator Jim Bunning used a teleprompter during his debate against challenger Daniel Mongiard. I'll be interested to see if this tightens the race--Bunning had been leading by a large margin.

Correction:

A poll from ealier this much showed Bunning with a 43-37 lead. Needless to say, an incumbent Senator with only a 6 point lead and at 43 percent in the polls is in serious trouble, and this flap can't help things for him. I say move Kentucky into the toss-up column.

Turnout and Turn On!

A new voter registration group promises to leave young voters satisfied on election night - regardless of the outcome of the presidential race.

Votergasm.org, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, is taking a "different kind of get-out-the-vote approach," said Michelle Collins, co-founder of Votergasm.com. Her organization encourages voters to sign a pledge to have sex on election night with another voter. "When we look at the statistics there is a distinct trend that fewer young people voted in the last election, and even fewer people had sex that night," she said.

Operating out of Brooklyn, N.Y., since Sept. 4, the Web campaign is an attempt to send 100,000 first-time youth voters to the polls for the November election and "catalyze" 250,000 orgasms.

Sounds like a pretty optimistic goal, the latter, that is. Perhaps the NES should include a question to see how they did.

Mary, Mary...

Both Dick and Lynne Cheney are criticizing Kerry for mentioning their daughter. This could become a serious flap, and is a great story for the media, but is also an uncomfortable issue for both campaigns. Given the GOP base's feelings about homosexuality (very, very negative), the Bush campaign probably doesn't want to push this too hard. And Kerry surely doesn't want to be seen as either gay-baiting or invading a family's privacy (although Mary is hardly private about her sexuality).

This comes only a day after John Edwards derided Bush as a pom-pom waving cheerleader, so maybe this is some strange new strategy.

Hydration Issues

Ok, here's the big question, what was up with the spit gob on the corner of Bush's mouth? Also, can someone go back and compare the water consumption of Bush to Kerry? It seemed like Bush was tossing back quarts of the stuff. Was the desert air getting to him or something?

Base Politics

I think both candidates did well with their bases tonight. Bush mentioned his faith early and often and in terms that surely lifted evangelical hearts. Kerry undoubtedly pleased labor with his responses on the minimum wage and the "middle-class squeeze" and satisfied African-Americans with his support for affirmative action. And, despite his gratititous mention of Mary Cheney, Kerry's comments on gay rights were probably the most supportive ever uttered by a presidential candidate.

The difference was that, once again, Kerry also successfully appealed to swing voters.

CBS Poll

A CBS News poll of uncommitted voters who watched the debate named Kerry the winner by 39-25 percent over Mr. Bush, with 36 percent calling it a tie. Sixty percent said Kerry has clear positions on the issues. Before the third debate, only 29 percent of the same voters said Kerry had clear positions.

I'm surprised since I thought Bush did better. On the other hand, he seemed to be playing to his base, especially on guns, gays, and God.

Insta-Polls

The insta-polls are favoring Kerry tonight: Gallup has him beating Bush 52%-39%, CBS has him up 39%-25%, ABC has it essentially tied (Kerry 42, Bush 41) with a GOP-leaning sample.

Three points:

1. The insta-polls are notoriously weak methodologically.

2. Voters still know a lot more about Bush than Kerry, so Kerry had much more room to grow. Even an essentially even debate would probably sway more voters toward Kerry.

3. Despite the obvious flaws, these polls will shape how the media covers the debate. That will be especially important for a debate that probably drew a relatively small audience.

Focus Groups

I just saw the CNN Ohio focus group and as in the other debates, there seems to be a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans in the group. At various times they've made up 25 to 40 percent of group members. Are we really to believe that 25 to 40 percent of undecideds are African American? And this is when most polls show the black vote for Bush is statistically indisguishable from zero?

Prayer *and* Schools

Kerry's advisors apparently told him that he needs to talk more about God. Bush's clearly urged him to talk about education -- something he actually likes to do.

Debate Winner

Bush's best performance so far, though SNL will skewer him for the frothing mouth. He also did the best job so far of explaining why Iraq is so important. Finally, as Richard has pointed out, he nailed Kerry on his Gulf War vote. On the other hand, he still looks and sounds goofy at times.

Kerry is clearly much less comfortable and confident when it comes to talking about social issues. You could seem him stumbling around on the abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action questions. Also, he never put Bush on the defensive as he did in the first two debates. Still, the focus on jobs and economy doesn't help Bush.

I call it a tie, maybe a slight edge to Bush.

You Forgot the Zoroastrians

How many different religions can Kerry pander to?

Fact Check

Kerry was wrong, Bush met in February with the Congressional Black Caucus at the White House.

Gulf War I

Bush finally knocks Kerry for voting against the first war against Iraq -- at last!

Gut Wrenching

Why does Kerry mention the word "gut" so much?

He Can't Help Himself

The minimum wage is a slam dunk for Democrats, but Kerry is punting on it by getting back in touch with his inner wonk.

Wonkfest

So far this has been a serious, substantive debate. No outrageous gaffes and only a handful of goofy jokes. Bush has acquitted himself reasonably well. I wonder how well most viewers are following these discussions.

Putting the Buggy Before the Horse

Buggy and horse days? I prefer the days of roses and wine.

Gratuitous Gay Daughter Reference Alert!

Can people just leave Mary Cheney alone? Edwards and now Kerry have worked her into the debates. I strongly suspect that this is a way of signalling to conservatives that somehow Cheney is suspect on this issue.

HE'S SHOUTING AGAIN!

Kerry should respond to this by lowering his volume and talking more slowly. It makes Bush seem unhinged.

Off the Wagon?

I hear that Bush is now drinking non-alcoholic beer (which actually does have alcohol in it) and he looks like he's off the wagon. He looks cross-eyed and he's got a gob of spittle on the right corner of his mouth.

Put Granny to Work!

Palooka writes:

People supporting themselves, demonstrating self-reliance, and developing self-respect that terrible of a thing? I know when people break free from the teat of the Nanny State it gives great distress, because you're that much further from the realization of your socialist utopia.

Ok, then let's get rid of Social Security and force people either to save more or keep working longer. Seniors will gain that self-reliance and self-respect that they are lacking. That's a much, much bigger teat than welfare.

Those Breaking Undecideds

Political junkies have been going on at some length about how undecideds always break toward the challenger. The specific point is that if Bush and Kerry are tied going into the election, or even if Bush is in front by a bit, Kerry will win since the undecideds are certain to go overwhelmingly for him. In general, I think that's true, but in 2000 the undecideds broke toward Gore, not toward Bush, the challenger. Why? They suddenly had big doubts about his capacity to be president. Part of this was because of the DUI, but also because Gore was hammering Bush on the issue.

I don't think such an outcome is likely (though I wouldn't discount some sort of Rovian late-October surprise against Kerry), but it could happen. In short, don't count your undecideds before they break.

Race and Welfare

In response to Steve's earlier post, why exactly was welfare seen as a moral hazard? The usual reason is that welfare recipients were less likely to work, more likely to have children, and more likely to engage in a range of pathological behaviors. All of those things trigger some pretty series racial and gender stereotypes. And to say that welfare reform helped alleviate some of those problems ignores how racism influenced the perception of the problem in the first place. To take an extreme example, white racists often justified slavery since they thought that blacks were lazy and wouldn't work. Well, slavery clearly "fixed" the problem of blacks not working, but that overlooks the fact that it was a problem only in the minds of white racists.

Also, I hardly think that welfare reform drained the poison of white racism. Many liberals argued in the early 1990s that average whites had such a bad impression of welfare that, at best, it prevented any further expansion of the welfare state or, at worst, risked undermining existing welfare state programs. Well, we've reformed welfare but I don't see much evidence of a reinvigorated New Deal coalition pushing for the advancement of broad social programs. Is there any evidence that white attitudes toward welfare have improved significantly since 1996?

Finally, let's say, for sake of argument, that welfare reform has has depoliticized the issue. Is that necessarily a good thing? To take another extreme example, Jim Crow laws ended the controversy over blacks voting and participating fully in the civic life of the post-bellum South. Indeed, one could argue that it made blacks better off by reducing extra-legal means (lynch mobs) of dealing with such controversies. Nonetheless, I don't believe I'm alone in thinking that the overall status of blacks was not improved. As I (with Smith) wrote in our book, any advancement in the status of blacks will generate controversy. There's no easy or painless way to do it.

So what's my solution? Treat welfare like social security. We decided back in the 1930s that society would be better off if seniors were guaranteed a decent level of income to support themselves when they left the labor force. No one wanted to hear about Grandma subsisting on cat food or Grandpa having to keep working at the mill until he keeled over. And we also said that this program would be universal, not means-tested, so that it would have broad political support. And it's worked. Seniors now have the lowest poverty rate of any group.

Why don't we do the same with families with children? Isn't it just as much in the interest of society that families with children also be assured of a decent income? If some parents use this to pay for childcare while they work, that's fine. It's also fine if they use it to supplement their income while one parent drops out of the labor force to care for the kid(s). I would also add that as the father of 3 and 8 year olds, staying home and taking care of kids can hardly be classified as "not working." You could also imagine a sliding scale so that you would get less money with each additional child (there are some economies of scale here) and that the subsidy would decrease as the children got older. Make the program universal, like Social Security, so everybody has a stake in it.

Why don't we have this type of program? Well, Rob Lieberman, Michael Brown, and others have shown that racism strongly influenced the development of the US welfare state, steering it away from the type of universal system I've outlined and toward the heavily segmented and racialized system we have. And having gone down this road in the 1930s, it's pretty hard to go back, not least because the racialized welfare system we did get helped to create and reinforce racial inequality and prejudices.

Welfare Reform

I want to take up a point that Steve raised about welfare reform. (You knew I couldn't be to the right of you forever.) In an earlier post, he wrote:

"What we don't really know how to do is to increase, in a durable way that isn't subject to lots of moral hazard problems, the incomes of non-working adults."

But why are we so concerned about the "moral hazards" of raising the incomes of non-working adults? We raise the incomes of seniors without worrying about such questions. Libertarian conservatives point to all sorts of "moral hazards" in raising incomes of working adults. I'd argue that "moral hazards" move front and center to the public debate when the recipient population is disproportionately black and female. In that respect, the push toward welfare reform was strongly influenced by racism and sexism. Numerous studies, (try Martin Gilens's work, for example) show that white Americans look at welfare through the lens of race. Therefore, to the extent that welfare reform "solved" a problem, it was a problem that only existed if you bought into a certain set of stereotypes and prejudices about race and sex.

Interestingly, even Alan Keyes sees this connection (it is my goal to include some mention of Alan Keyes is every post). As I wrote in an earlier post when he proposed eliminating the income tax for African Americans, he was quickly ridiculed by conservatives. But as Keyes pointed out, conservatives have no problem with tax breaks when they go to a "wealthy corporation."

Illinois Senate Debate

Since I'm in NY, I couldn't listen to the Keyes-Obama debate, but I did love this exchange:

"You have accused your opponent of supporting infanticide," said Dellimore to Keyes. Then he warned him, "You have to be brief on this."

Obama vs. Keyes

I'm listening on the radio to the first of three debates between Barack Obama and Alan Keyes, candidates for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat. It definitely doesn't measure up to the Lincoln/Douglass Debates, but one thing is for sure, Keyes is a more natural and talented orator than Obama. The only problem is that he's crazy and out of control when he speaks, so it sounds like he's constantly shouting. Why should Illinois voters choose them for the Senate? Here's how they responded:
Keyes: "Because I believe in getting to the root of all problems. And the root of all our problems is that we are destroying the moral culture of the family...We have to stop destroying traditional families."
Obama: "Government can't solve all problems, but it can help...I have a track record of accomplishment, I've not only talked the talk, I've walked the walk."

Kerry Mistake

Phil asked us to indicate three mistakes our candidate has made. Here is one of mine with regards to Kerry:
1) Abandoning John Edwards' "two Americas" stump speech which was popular in the Democratic primaries. Yet another report released today (link above) describes the plight of the "working poor" and working-class Americans. I think this is one of the strongest issues for Democrats, and could have resonance with at least two groups of voters Kerry needs to win: the base of the Dem. Party (blacks, women, unions) and with many independents who are experiencing any kind of economic hardship whether it's economic insecurity, lack of health care (or rising costs), etc. The "two Americas" theme nicely ties several issues together (they can even include the Iraq mess in this..."one America is forced to fight unnecessary wars through a backdoor draft, while the other America gets to opt out and send our kids into harms way"). This is where the Bush team has been much smarter than Kerry-Edwards: sounding the right themes and raising the issues which will mobilize their base. The Kerry campaign could learn a few lessons.

The Real Issue with Dred Scott

I want to bring up what I think is a misreading of the Dred Scott decision so far on PolySigh. In an Op-ed in this morning's Chicago Tribune, Steven Lubet, a Con Law professor at Northwestern, rightfully argues that George Bush made a huge gaffe in trying to argue that the Dred Scott decision was wrong because the judges claimed the Constitution allowed slavery. Hmmm...funny little thing is, the judges correctly interpreted the Constitution according to Bush's own judicial standards. After all, the Constitution DID allow slavery as a personal property right and did not guarantee citizenship rights to African Americans. Northern abolitionists (today's equivalents would be gay rights advocates) were infuriated and mobilized to elect Lincoln as President resulting in the secession of the South. It wasn't until a CIVIL WAR (remember THAT war?) and the 13th and 14th Amendments which occurred AFTER Scott reached the Supreme Court that slavery as a founding economic and political institution was rendered "unconstitutional". So it is not so clear that Justice Taney decided the case "wrongly" according to the Constitution at the time. Bush, Scalia, Thomas and other "strict constructionists" would have supported the decision then.

Gay Marriage and Afghanistan

Sounds like the Taliban's nightmare, doesn't it.

Paul, thanks for jumping in. Yes, ; )'s are ok in blogging and I love intemperate. I actually agree with you on gay marriage. I'm generally skeptical of the courts but I think gays face so much irrational discrimination that they can't get a fair shake in the normal democratic processes and need the courts to protect their rights. There's no way to make a legitimate distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages without relying on prejudice. Palooka (if you don't know who Palooka is, you'll soon find out) says that heterosexual marriage has shown its utility for 1000 years. Fine. Let's have homosexual marriage for 1000 years and if it doesn't work, I'll admit I was wrong.

As for Afghanistan, if you read the blog, I've been critical of the Bush administration on several points. Would Gore have done the same in Afghanistan? Probably. Could Bush have done a better job in Afghanistan? Certainly. Nonetheless, the Afghan election is a significant step forward by any measure and Bush deserves credit for that. Like the economy, presidents get credit for what happens on their watch whether or not they had 100% influence. For example, was Clinton totally responsible for the economy in the late 1990s? No. Could he have done a better job? Certainly. Do I give him credit for what successes there were? Sure.

Anyway, thanks for the post.

Yeah, Right.

From the Chronicle of Higher Ed's obit of Derrida:

Ms. Kamuf, a professor of French and comparative literature at the University of Southern California, recalled on Saturday what it was like to read Derrida's work as a graduate student at Cornell University in 1970.

"There was a sense of urgency when we encountered it," she said, "urgency in the context of the American political circumstances at the time. It was a few months after Kent State. But we were intellectuals who were not willing just to condemn the university, to renounce rigor of thought, in order to get out into the streets."

Derrida's theory, she said, offered a way to perform serious intellectual work in the humanities while maintaining "that urgency of response to the abuses of power" that fed political engagement.

Sure.

Gay Marriage, Part 2

Several people have posted comments about my version of a marriage amendment, pointing out that such an amendment would no longer make heterosexual marriages automatically respected when spouses travelled across state lines. That's my point exactly. Why should heterosexual marriage be given preference over homosexual marriage? If states want to have their own marriage laws, then they need to actually enforce them rather than just automatically privileging heterosexuals.

Gay Marriage Amendment

Steve argues that we need an amendment stating the following:

(1) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require the federal government, or any state or territory, to define marriage as anything except the union of one man and one woman.[7](2) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of another state or territory.

But why give the imprimatur of the Constitution to heterosexual marriage. Why not just say, "The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting marriage under the laws of another state or territory."

Marines in Iraq

Check out this WaPo story on the complaints of Marines stationed in Iraq. As the story points out, the grunts eye view isn't always the most accurate, but it's still pretty depressing. Key quote:

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Name 3 Mistakes

Here's a contest for PolySigh readers and contributors: name 3 mistakes your candidate has made. Bush was asked this question on Friday and refused to answer it, so Bush supporters can answer for him. And no weasely job interview responses, like, "My biggest problems are that I work to hard and care too much." And just to make things fair, let's have Kerry supporters do the same for him. Since I'm leaning to Kerry at this point, I'll start.

Mistake #1: Not voting to authorize use of force in the Gulf War.

I made the same mistake at the time, but in hindsight I'll admit that we were both wrong.

Mistake #2: Not voting for the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite his claims that he didn't want to give more money to Halliburton, Kerry's vote was, as Bush alleges, all about stopping Howard Dean.

Mistake #3: Pushing the idea of a summit on Iraq.

Kerry might make the summit happen, but it will little or no impact on the situation in Iraq. Help, at least from France, Germany, Canada, Russia, etc., is not on the way even if Kerry is elected, and Kerry knows this as much as anyone.

Afghan Elections

Speaking of the Afghan elections, the protests by the opposition candidates are not a good thing, but I generally agree with the assessemnt of the NYT:

The criticism cast a shadow on what was otherwise a historic success for Afghans who have endured more than two decades of war and turmoil.

In fact, I'll even go further. Liberating 25 million people from perhaps the darkest tyranny on earth and moving them to free elections in 3 years is no small feat. And the persons most responsible for achievement are George W. Bush and the men and women of the U.S. military.

Dredd Scott

Seeing as how Palooka and others think Bush's position on Dredd Scott is central to this election, let's talk about it. If the real issue is substantive due process, then why not say that? Just about as many voters know that concept as are familiar with the Dredd Scott case. But then why not talk about Griswald or Roe? Those are substantive due process cases and voters are more likely to be familiar with them. But then Bush would have to go on record as saying he thinks states can ban access to abortions and contraceptatives. I'm guessing that such a statement would not go over very well with swing voters.

That's the point of these debates--to move voters in your direction. If Bush's remarks were meant to gain some street cred among Federalist Society members, then he wasted time that could have been better spent talking about something else. The better answer would have been to say something like, "I will nominate judges who understand the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of local, state, and national majorities to determine the rules by which they live. When judges issue decisions that create new rights, especially rights that have no textual basis in the Constitution, this balance is disrupted. To quote Justice Black, "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." That's gets to the heart of the matter. In fact, if he had said something like this and I actually thought he meant it, I'd actually be more inclined to vote for him.

Also, was substantive due process really the worst part of the Dredd Scott case? There was, after all, that little matter about blacks being "an inferior class of beings, who have been subjugated by the dominant race" and thereby having "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Finally, if conservatives are so worried about substantive due process, then why do so many of them want to reinvigorate the takings clause in order to protect property rights?

Poll Results

According to CNN:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate Friday night found that respondents gave a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Sen. John Kerry over President Bush, 47 percent to 45 percent.

The respondents included 515 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 38 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent.

With this kind of oversample of Republicans, then Kerry must have thrashed Bush among the poll's independents.

Update:

I just checked the polls internals at the Gallup website:

Republicans:
Bush 83
Kerry 10

Democrats:
Kerry 87
Bush 8

Independents:
Kerry 53
Bush 37

Debate Impressions

I saw the debate, but just got home and missed all of the post-debate coverage and analysis. My impression is that Kerry cleaned Bush's clock. In some superficial ways, Bush was better than in the last debate, but overall he came across as nervous, hesitant, uncertain, testy, out of touch, and ill-formed. On the other hand, Kerry was stylistically as good or better than the last debate, appearing both confident and informed. Substantively, he was much better than the last debate, with no "global test" gaffes, and some great lines, especially about how if Missouri were a country, they'd be the 4th largest country in the Iraq coalition. Bush's response of mentioning Blair, Berlosconi, and Kwasniewski seemed feeble in comparison.

As a result, Bush was on the defensive through the whole debate and with the exception of the abortion question, never got the better of Kerry. To a great extent this was because the questions were stacked against him--for example, the last question asking him to name three mistakes wasn't all that fair since it didn't require Kerry to do the same. I'm sure conservatives are damning Charlie Gibson for his choice of questions. On the other hand, one of the big issues when an incumbent runs for reelection is their performance in office, and it should have been no surprise that voters would ask lots of questions of Bush's record. Furthermore, even if the questions were bad, good teams win despite bad ref calls, and Bush didn't cut it.

Plus, Bush made a number of stupid mistakes. "Internets" was one. And, given what happened in 2000, Bush should not be joking about Supreme Court justices voting for him. Then there was the weird response to Kerry's accusation that he owned a timber company. Rather than knocking it down (if it is, in fact, false), Bush came across sounding like he really didn't know if he owned a timber company. Finally, there was the facial expression of the man who asked Bush to explain his environmental record. As Bush floundered, the man's expression was saying, "What the Hell are you talking about?"

Again, I haven't seen the post-debate analysis by the media, but if they call this is anything less than a clear victory for Kerry, it will only be because they are bending over backwards to appear impartial since they called the first debate for Kerry.

One other point. Bush's discussion of the Dredd Scott case was truly bizarre. First, only about 0.1% of the population knows what this case was about, so it was lost on just about everyone. Bush might as have well made reference to some other obscure 19th Century Supreme Court decisions, perhaps telling us where he stands on Cooley v. Board of Wardens. Also, the Dredd Scott case is a mightly low standard for selecting Supreme Court justices. He's basically telling us that he won't appoint a pro-slavery justice to the Court. Well, that's a relief.

"The Missing Issue?"

Ramesh Ponnuru shares my previously stated surprise that Republicans haven't attacked Kerry for his opposition to the death penalty.

Minimal Effects?

I'm with Steve. I doubt that this debate changed many minds. Kerry marginally outpointed Bush, and the president was genuinely annoying during the first half. But he recovered well, and actually presented himself pretty well during the discussions of domestic policy. Kerry's favorable ratings will probably rise a tad (after all, many Americans still know little about him), and he might gain a point in the polls.

Viewership was probably low for this debate, given that it was a Friday night on a holiday weekend, and that it was up against the baseball playoffs, and since there was no obvious moment to be replayed on newscasts (and who watches the news on Saturday anyway?), the Showdown in St. Louis will probably fall into the weekend news hole, never to be seen again. By Monday, all eyes will be on the Dustup in the Desert. (All bets are off if SNL manages to show Bush physically assaulting Charlie Gibson or the man who asked him about importing drugs from Canada).

Xanax? Valium?

Why is Bush so angry? Maybe he should take a tranquilizer before the next debate.

Close Race?

Andrew Sullivan is pushing numbers arguing that, in the end, this won't be a close race because races with incumbents have historically been blowouts, one way or the other. That's true as far as it goes, but in most of those races, the incumbent was either well ahead (1936-1944, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1996) through most of the campaign, or well behind (1932, 1992). Cases like this one, a close race throughout the campaign, are much rarer and the evidence is more mixed. In 1948, Truman came from behind to win by 49.6-45.0, not a squeaker, but surely no landslide. In 1976, Carter defeated Ford but only by 50.1 to 48.0. And in 1980, Reagan opened up a close race in the final week and won it 50.8-41.1. So there you have it, in the three races were incumbents were in tight campaigns, the outcome was one near tie, one modest victory, and one blowout. From that evidence I wouldn't want to predict the final margin of victory in this election.

Dem Sweep?

I'm not predicting this, but there is a non-trivial possibility that the Dems might just get control of all three branches. Doing this would be on the order of pulling an inside straight, but it could happen. The presidential race has clearly tightened and at this point a Kerry victory is a 50-50 proposition.

Also, the Dems are looking decent in the Senate races. Currently, there are 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent (Jeffords) who votes with the Democrats. At this point, the Democrats are likely to pick up as seat in lllinois and lose one in Georgia. The Democrats are defending 5 close seats: Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and South Dakota. The Republicans are defending 3 seats in Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma. Of these 8 seats, the Democrats need to win 6 to take control since 50 seats, along with a Kerry victory would allow Edwards to cast the deciding vote. Right now they are leading (albeit narrowly) in 5: Alaska, Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. In the other 3, they are narrowly trailing. Again, it's not a given they will win enough seats to get back the Senate, but it could happen. Also, if Kerry wins the presidential race, it may help tip a few Senate races to the Democrats.

Finally, the House. Predicting House races is a mug's game given how few competitive races there are and the fact that they often turn on local and not national issues. Still, Rasmussen's tracking poll of the generic House vote currently has the Democrats opening up a respectable 6 point lead. To get a majority, they need to pick up 11 seats. That's tough but potentially doable if they catch some lucky breaks.

I should also add that these aren't independent probabilities. If Kerry wins the White House, it increases the chances that the Dems win the Senate. If Kerry wins the White House and the Dems get back the Senate, then that increases the odds that the Dems pick up the House.

Overall, I'd say that it's about a 10 or 20-1 shot that the Dems get control of all 3 branches, but I've won bets on longer odds.

If Bush wins however, it's pretty likely that the Republicans keep control of all three branches, though I could construct a plausible scenario where Bush wins and the Democrats still take back the Senate.

EV Prediction

My prediction is 322 in favor of Kerry (and generously assuming all of Colorado's votes go to Bush). What's the prize for this bet?

EV Prediction

I'll call it a tie, 269 to 269.

New Member

I'd like to welcome Paul Frymer as the latest PolySigh contributor. Paul is currently a visiting fellow at the Law and Public Affairs Institute at Princeton. Starting next year, he'll be director of legal studies and associate professor of Politics at UC Santa Cruz. Paul received his PhD at Yale and his JD at Berkeley. He writes about law, race, labor, parties, and American politics generally.

Polls and Debate

The latest WaPo/ABC tracking has Bush up by 2. That's for the average for the 3 days from Sunday to Tuesday. Given that the yesterday (Saturday-Monday), Bush was up by 6 and the day before that (Friday-Sunday), up by 5, Kerry clearly made a big gain on Tuesday. Whether this is a one day blip or the beginning of trend remains to be seen. Nonetheless, this now puts the WaPo/ABC poll in line with most others showing a very tight race and Kerry with momentum out of the first debate.

Overall, this has been a very bad week for Bush. First, the debate spin began to turn increasingly against Bush. Second there were the comments from Paul Bremer about the lack of troops in Iraq and now the inspectors' report that there were no WMD in Iraq. Cheney's debate performance was the one bright spot, but it was pushed out of the TV coverage by the WMD report and undermined by the photos showing Cheney with Edwards.

Friday will be interesting. First we get the September jobs data. The White House is circulating an internal memo predicting an upward revision of the March '03-March '04 jobs figure. If that's the case, it will be good news for Bush and give him something to hit back at Kerry's criticisms on domestic policy. If that's not the case, Bush will have some trouble. Not only because they jobs data will be bad, but the memo will also suggest that they are cut off from reality.

All of this makes Friday's debate very important for him. The good news is that his biggest problems last week are mostly technical and stylistic--body language, facial expressions, repeating certain phrases over and over again--and probably be remedied very easily with some good debate coaching.

Pat Leahy?

I don't think there are any clear winners here, and my guess would be that by the end of the third debate between Bush and Kerry, this one will matter less and less. They both got in good jabs, though clearly Cheney's were nastier. I'll be curious to see how voters interpret this...will they think DC was too nasty and didn't connect emotionally with viewers? Or will they think he was more in command of the issues than Edwards? I liked Gwen Ifill a lot, especially her question on the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is unacceptable that two candidates to be Vice President are so uninformed about this issue impacting Americans, and particularly African Americans. Okay, but my real question is this: did Dems really think seating Pat Leahy in the front row would somehow rattle DC?

Friday

I wonder what the audience will be for the debate in St. Louis, since it will be on a Friday night going into a holiday weekend. Smaller? Older? Poorer?

Both candidates have serious challenges for this debate. Bush needs to erase memories of his Crack-Up in Coral Gables. And while Kerry has gained significant ground over the past few days (and, just as important, has gotten much better media coverage), most polls still show him behind Bush by 2-3 points.

The town meeting won't play to either candidate's strength. Bush clearly hates unscripted questions from a skeptical audience. And Kerry certainly doesn't exude the personal warmth needed in such a setting. (His campaign should have him hang with Del Sandusky for the day. Something about his war buddies makes him act almost human). Most audience members will probably ask about kitchen-table domestic issues, which isn't Bush's strong suit, nor is it what Kerry most likes to discuss.

ABC just brought on Jack Kemp as a debate analyst! For those of us who remember his 1996 implosion against Al Gore ... well it's like bringing Bill Buckner on to do color commentary during the World Series.

That ABC Insta-Poll...

ABC just reported the party ID breakdown on their poll on debate reaction. Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the sample by about the same margin that Cheney beat Edwards. So it appears that partisans mostly backed their own.

ABC Poll

Cheney 43
Edwards 35

Debate Winner

I call it a tie. Both sides landed some heavy blows, but no knockouts. Cheney's probably hit a bit harder, but Edwards's closing statement was better. The impact will be minimal since by Thursay, the media will move on to pre-gaming the next presidential debate.

Debate Update

This is the nastiest, most mean-spirited debate I've ever seen. I love it.

Rodney Dangerfield, RIP

The world is a sadder place now. Here are some of his great one-liners:

During sex, my girlfriend always wants to talk to me. Just the other night she called me from a hotel.

I was such an ugly kid... When I played in the sandbox the cat kept covering me up.

I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.

I was such an ugly baby... My mother never breast fed me. She told me that she only liked me as a friend.

I'm so ugly... My father carries around the picture of the kid who came with his wallet.

Once when I was lost... I saw a policeman, and asked him to help me find my parents. I said to him.... "Do you think we'll ever find them? "He said. "I don't know kid... there are so many places they can hide."

My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday.

My uncle's dying wish was to have me sitting in his lap; he was in the electric chair.

I'm so ugly; when I was born the doctor slapped my mother!

New Issue of the The Forum

The latest issue of The Forum is now available. In case you don't know, The Forum is an electronic journal of political science "designed to fill this glaring gap that exists between Harpers and The Atlantic on the one hand and The American Political Science Review on the other." I'm sure the response to this from many political scientists is, "Amen!." For non-political scientists, you should find that the articles are relevant and accessible. Just to let you know, PolySigh contributor Ray La Raja is the managing editor and I am the review editor. If you are interested in contributing an article or a review, contact us.

Among other articles, the current issue has several timely analyses of the battleground states, and three reviews by political scientists of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. The full table of contents is below:

Susan MacManus, "Florida: Too Close to Call, Again?!"

David Brian Robertson, "Bellwether Politics in Missouri"

John C. Green, "Ohio: The Heart of it All"

Kevin J. McMahon, "Judicial Confessions: John F. Kerry, Catholics, and the Supreme Court"

Danny M. Adkison, "The Ninth Amendment and the Negative Pregnant"

Katherine Tate, "Will America Ever Pay? Racial Justice and Reparations"

Jeffrey Kraus, "Generational Conflict in Urban Politics: the 2002 Newark Mayoral Election"


Reviews

Hans Noel, "Fahrenheit Red, Fahrenheit Blue"

Michael A. Genovese, "Fahrenheit 9/11: A Review?"

Eric Langenbacher, "The Degeneration of American Political Culture and the Documentary Film in Fahrenheit 9/11"

Gives a Whole New Meaning to America Coming Together

I predict a rise in voter turnout.

Nonexistent Security Moms

In case anyone is interested, you can read my op-ed taking apart the security mom meme in today's Newsday.

Cheney v. Edwards, Part 2

Following up on Jack Pitney's comments about the upcoming veep debate, Dems need to be wary of this one. Edwards is very appealing and eloquent, but his command of the facts is often lacking. In one of the last Democratic primary debates, he completely whiffed a question on the Defense of Marriage Act. As I pointed out here back in January:

When asked about DOMA, Edwards said:

"what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues."

Later, Brit Hume pressed him on this response and Edwards said:

No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it.

That's completely wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act says that one state does not have to recognize the marriage between two homosexuals granted by another state.

Say what you will about him, but Cheney knows his stuff and a flub like that could elicit a devastating rejoinder from Cheney. Of course, knowing Cheney, he could go too far by ripping Edwards's still beating heart from his chest and eating it on national television.

WaPo Poll

The new Washington Post poll has Bush up by 5 among LVs and by 3 among RVs. Palooka can breathe normally again.

ARG Poll Results

American Research Group has just released the results of an innovative panel survey of the presidential debate. Panel 1 was surveyed just prior to the debate and just after the debate. Panel 2 was surveyed just after the debate and 24 hours later. Panel 3 was surveyed just prior to the debate and 24 hours later. Here are the results:

Panel 1:

Pre-debate
Bush 48
Kerry 45

Debate +24
Bush 47
Kerry 47

Panel 2:

Post-debate
Bush 48
Kerry 45

Debate +24
Bush 47
Kerry 47

Panel 3:

Pre-debate
Bush 49
Kerry 44

Debate +24
Bush 46
Kerry 49

I found it interesting that panel 1 and 2 were exactly the same numbers, suggesting that the impact of the debate takes some time measure. Those who were asked about their choice immediately after the debate weren't any different than those who were asked just before. On the other hand, after 24 hours, they had both moved in exactly the same direction by exactly the same amount. One or both of two things could be going on here. First, respondents need time to assess all of the information from the debate before they make alter their choices. Second, people may alter their choices quickly, but they might not want to tell pollsters that they have for fear of looking indecisive or inconsistent.

Cheney v. Edwards

Now that it is clear that Kerry gained from last week's debate, there will be pressure on Cheney to deliver in Tuesday's vice presidential debate. (Declaration of interest: I worked for Cheney as a Congressional Fellow.) Cheney has advantages. His appearance and manner convey authority, whereas Edwards "looks like a kid," to quote Whoopi Goldberg.

In other ways, though, Edwards may have an edge. He has a good deal of recent debate experience. Cheney has not debated since his 2000 faceoff with Lieberman. He can get testy when his integrity is under question, as Senator Leahy learned. Trial lawyer Edwards may needle him about Halliburton in hopes of provoking an untelegenic response.

GOP handlers tend to assume that ordinary voters share their aversion to trial lawyers. It's not quite so simple. In popular culture, trial lawyers are often the heroes: think of Erin Brockovich and A Civil Action. Suppose that Cheney criticizes frivolous lawsuits. Edwards could then strike back: "Frivolous? Ever heard of Valerie Lakey? She's a little girl who got trapped in a defective swimming pool drain. She lost half her intestines, and she'll need tube feeding for the rest of her life. I fought for her in court. Does the Vice President think she's frivolous? I don't think so. I think she's just as important as Dick Cheney or John Edwards -- or Halliburton."

SNL

Just watched the SNL spoof of the debate. I don't know who played Bush and Kerry, but they can't hold a candle to Darryl Hammond and Will Ferrell as Bush and Gore in 2000. Anyway, Bush clearly got the worst of it, mostly by having him endlessly repeat the words, "It's hard."

Kerry Pulls Ahead

The new Newsweek poll has Kerry pulling out into a statistically insignificant lead over Bush, 47-45. W/o Nader, it's 49-46. Take it away, Palooka.

Debate Ratings

The first Bush-Kerry debate had about 63 million viewers. That's a respectable increase over the numbers from 1996 and 2000, but probably a bit below that in 1992 when you control for the increase in population. That's not bad. I'll be interested to see if viewship goes up in the second debate like it did in 1992.

2000
Debate 1: 46.6
Debate 2: 37.6
Debate 3: 37.7

1996
Debate 1: 36.1
Debate 2: 36.3

1992
Debate 1: 62.4
Debate 2: 69.9
Debate 3: 66.9

1988
Debate 1: 65.1
Debate 2: 67.3

1984
Debate 1: 65.1
Debate 2: 67.3

1980
Debate 1: 80.6

1976
Debate 1: 69.7
Debate 2: 63.9
Debate 3: 62.7

The SNL Vote

Jack Pitney makes a good point below that we are know is the stage of making sense of what happened in the debate. So far, it seems to be very pro-Kerry. A quick scan of the network news tonight showed lots of references polls showing a Kerry victory, and probably even better for Kerry, lots of coverage of Bush's poor demeanor.

On the other hand, the biggest shoe has yet to drop--SNL. As Jack points out, SNL's skewering of Gore in 2000 ("laahk box") was devastating for him. Gore's handlers even made him watch the skit to show his poor performance. He then overcompensated by being totally passive in the second debate. He did better in the third debate, but by then it didn't help much.

PolySigh in the News

Check out Jack Pitney's analysis of the debate at National Review Online. In general, I think Jack's right. Kerry's substantive positions in the debate give the Bush people more material to paint him as a flip-flopper. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much good that does them. They already had more than enough to make the charge stick. On the other hand, Kerry's demeanor made him seem the more confident and resolute candidate.

If I were Kerry, I'd hammer Bush hard on the Iraqi troop numbers. Not only were they inflated, but they can be the wedge to show that Bush is out of touch on Iraq. This is his most effective defense against the flip-flop charge, showing the Bush is just too stubborn to face facts. Being consistently wrong doesn't minimize the fact that you are wrong.

I'd even twist the knife a bit by asking how many of the Iraqis we've trained are fighting with us and how many are fighting against us.

Party ID Shifts

One of the biggest debates among polling junkies in this election cyle is over the issue of party ID weighting. Recent polls show many more Republican identifiers than in the past. To some, this represents a real shift in partisanship, but to others, it's largely an artifact of sampling problems and, therefore, polls should be weighted to control for it. I don't know the answer to this question, but it seems that if this does represent a real shift in partisanship, we should be picking up hints of it in the party registration data. Of course, people can shift their party ID without changing their party registration, but if there is a real sea change going on, you would expect at least some evidence of a Republican tide among new registrants (to mix some watery metaphors). As this article shows, that clearly not the case in NH. And from what I've seen in other states, Democrats seem to be doing as well or better than Republicans when it comes to new registrants.

Role of Bloggers in Politics

Does anyone have a sense of how bloggers and blogging are changing the nature of American politics? In particular, how has blogging impacted the role of the media? I noticed several bloggers constantly "fact-checking" every sentence of both candidates in the debate, providing just as much, if not better scrutiny to the factual claims of Kerry and Bush. Is there a precedent for this?

Reserve Judgment

It is too early to call a winner. First-night voter reactions are a poor predictor of a debate's ultimate effect. In 1976, few voters caught the significance of Ford's of premature liberation of Eastern Europe. As Howard Kurtz reminds us, even the press corps was slow on the uptake: The Washington Post buried the gaffe deep inside its initial coverage. Then the story took on its own momentum, and the polls showed increasing trouble for Ford. Four years ago, the early verdict was that the first debate was a tie for Bush and Gore. But after the comedy routines about Gore's sighs, Bush came out ahead.

So what could shift perceptions of this debate? Democrats probably want television replays of Bush's long pauses, hoping that they will call to mind his initial reaction to 9/11. Republicans will mine Kerry's comments for more contradictions. The debate has ended. The battle to define the debate has begun.