I have one up at PP arguing that the best strategy for those who want to fight gun violence is to ignore the NRA.
At Greg's place today, my post says that it's probably a reasonable risk for Barack Obama to open up John Kerry's Senate seat. It's not clear yet whether that seat has a chance of taking a large bite out of the old, old, Senate, however.
Last night after the demise of Plan B I talked about where that leaves John Boehner -- and the fiscal cliff. Seriously: one thing that about half the commenters are missing is that it's always been the case that a final deal will get the votes of about half of House Republicans, not almost all of them. And it was always going to need, and get, half or more of the Democrats. It's always been the case, and it is now the case, that both John Boehner and Barack Obama have to support the final deal (and almost certainly the case that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell would support it). It's sort of irrelevant whether there are also plans that can get through the House only to die.
And, fine, it's a fairly boring issue, but yesterday I noted the success of a new program to get presidential candidates to plan early for the transition.
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Swift Boating? Probably a Dud in 2004
"Swift Boating" seems to be in the news this week, so here's my quick contribution:
Swift Boating -- and the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 in general -- was probably a dud. The most important thing to know about the 2004 election, when it comes to electioneering effects, is that Bush underperformed the "fundamentals" models.
Nate Silver has conveniently gathered some of the numbers on this. Of the 15 prediction models he collected, 14 picked Bush as the winner, and of those 13 predicted a larger margin of victory than the 2.4% that Bush won by. The three predictor systems (Hibbs, Abramowitz, Wlekien and Erikson) that have performed best over the years all picked Bush, and by anywhere from 3.4% to 7.5%. I don't really put a whole lot of weight on the other systems, but for whatever it's worth they generally erred even more on the side of a big Bush win.
It's far short of proof, and of course it's certainly possible that one part of the campaign was a success but that another part was an even larger failure. But overall it suggests to me that anyone who believes that the Bush campaign did a better job than the Kerry campaign in general, or that the Swift Boat smear in particular helped Bush in any significant way, must meet an even higher burden of proof than if we didn't have this additional evidence. In particular, it just won't it to say "Bush won" as if it's an argument clincher. What really appears to need explanation is why Bush did worse than he should have, not why he won.
I'm going to get into this in more detail later, but that's the bottom line: there's no good reason to believe that the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 was responsible for his victory.
Swift Boating -- and the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 in general -- was probably a dud. The most important thing to know about the 2004 election, when it comes to electioneering effects, is that Bush underperformed the "fundamentals" models.
Nate Silver has conveniently gathered some of the numbers on this. Of the 15 prediction models he collected, 14 picked Bush as the winner, and of those 13 predicted a larger margin of victory than the 2.4% that Bush won by. The three predictor systems (Hibbs, Abramowitz, Wlekien and Erikson) that have performed best over the years all picked Bush, and by anywhere from 3.4% to 7.5%. I don't really put a whole lot of weight on the other systems, but for whatever it's worth they generally erred even more on the side of a big Bush win.
It's far short of proof, and of course it's certainly possible that one part of the campaign was a success but that another part was an even larger failure. But overall it suggests to me that anyone who believes that the Bush campaign did a better job than the Kerry campaign in general, or that the Swift Boat smear in particular helped Bush in any significant way, must meet an even higher burden of proof than if we didn't have this additional evidence. In particular, it just won't it to say "Bush won" as if it's an argument clincher. What really appears to need explanation is why Bush did worse than he should have, not why he won.
I'm going to get into this in more detail later, but that's the bottom line: there's no good reason to believe that the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 was responsible for his victory.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Worst Field Ever?
I don't really share Neil Sinhababu's utter contempt for Dick Gephardt. But still, the last reporting on the former House Dem leader's lobbying career (here's Frank Rich and, via Neil, a Nation piece) is hard to square with the idea of Gephardt as a great liberal leader. Which leads me to:
Was the field of candidates for the 2004 Democratic nomination for president the worst ever? Do they all look worse than they did then?
John Kerry, I think, is the exception. Whatever his merits as the nominee, he took his loss well and has returned to business in the Senate. He isn't an all-star Senator, but he's done nothing I can think of to disgrace himself since 2004.
The rest of the field? Well, there's Gephardt, who has hired himself out to any interest group who will pay his tab. There's John Edwards...yeah. There's Joe Lieberman, already moving to the right by then, but still more or less a mainstream Democrat. I can't imagine that there are very many Democratic primary voters who, seeing what these three have done over the last five years, think that they should have been anywhere near the leadership of the party.
I think the same goes for Gen. Wesley Clark. I don't think his reputation has been exactly harmed in the intervening years, but it certainly hasn't been enhanced, either. The idea of General Clark was always more appealing to some Democrats than the actual person, and I don't know of anything Clark did in 2004 or since to build on that. The next candidate, Dennis Kucinich, retains the same reputation now that he had then, and while I think Democrats would disagree about whether Kucinich's style of liberalism is a good thing or a bad thing, it's pretty clear that almost no one thinks that the guy should be president.
That leaves Howard Dean. Like Clark, I think the idea of Dean wore better on Democrats than the actual person; unlike Clark, and unlike the rest of the pack other than Kerry, Dean has actually done things that might enhance his reputation over the last five years. I don't think that those who supported Dean in 2004 are embarrassed about it at all, and I suspect that some Edwards and even some Kerry supporters from then might have foggy memories that allow them to recall support for the Vermont doctor. Do they think he'd make a good president? I don't know, but other than Kerry I would say he's the only one of the bunch where most Democrats would consider it a close call.
Of course, this is exactly what one would expect when the incumbent president is very popular just at the time when candidates are starting to gear up for the next election. But, to me at least, it's interesting to see the reputations of the group deteriorate over time -- it looked like a weak field then, but it looks much worse now.
Was the field of candidates for the 2004 Democratic nomination for president the worst ever? Do they all look worse than they did then?
John Kerry, I think, is the exception. Whatever his merits as the nominee, he took his loss well and has returned to business in the Senate. He isn't an all-star Senator, but he's done nothing I can think of to disgrace himself since 2004.
The rest of the field? Well, there's Gephardt, who has hired himself out to any interest group who will pay his tab. There's John Edwards...yeah. There's Joe Lieberman, already moving to the right by then, but still more or less a mainstream Democrat. I can't imagine that there are very many Democratic primary voters who, seeing what these three have done over the last five years, think that they should have been anywhere near the leadership of the party.
I think the same goes for Gen. Wesley Clark. I don't think his reputation has been exactly harmed in the intervening years, but it certainly hasn't been enhanced, either. The idea of General Clark was always more appealing to some Democrats than the actual person, and I don't know of anything Clark did in 2004 or since to build on that. The next candidate, Dennis Kucinich, retains the same reputation now that he had then, and while I think Democrats would disagree about whether Kucinich's style of liberalism is a good thing or a bad thing, it's pretty clear that almost no one thinks that the guy should be president.
That leaves Howard Dean. Like Clark, I think the idea of Dean wore better on Democrats than the actual person; unlike Clark, and unlike the rest of the pack other than Kerry, Dean has actually done things that might enhance his reputation over the last five years. I don't think that those who supported Dean in 2004 are embarrassed about it at all, and I suspect that some Edwards and even some Kerry supporters from then might have foggy memories that allow them to recall support for the Vermont doctor. Do they think he'd make a good president? I don't know, but other than Kerry I would say he's the only one of the bunch where most Democrats would consider it a close call.
Of course, this is exactly what one would expect when the incumbent president is very popular just at the time when candidates are starting to gear up for the next election. But, to me at least, it's interesting to see the reputations of the group deteriorate over time -- it looked like a weak field then, but it looks much worse now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
