Do people really care about this? Besides Sullivan and Kaus I mean.

You think there is anyone out there who would have voted for Kerry but won't because of some fundraiser?

Did we forget Katrina Leung already?

In the real world there are now three different polls out in the last 3 days that have Kerry beating Bush, one by 9 points!

The hypocrisy is rather stunning. I'm surprised he's doing as well as he is in fundraising. He's got some important committee assignments, but nothing THAT spectacular. Maybe this is a function of longevity--not that many Senators have been raking it in fifteen years?

Ya, ya, and Bush was going to be a "uniter, not a divider", Clinton "felt our pain", and so on. Taking on the special interests is just campaign puffery. What matters is the overall approach to policy, and I think Kerry's is the most grown-up and responsible of the field, including Bush.

- Dave

If hypocrisy were a disqualifier we would have no politicians.

Bush is going to attack Kerry for fundraising?

You think there is anyone out there who would have voted for Kerry but won't because of some fundraiser?

Well, it might discourage some wavering Deanites from jumping ship to the Kerry camp in the primaries. And it might discourage some Nader-inspired Greens from supporting Kerry in the general election.

On the Kerry-Bush polls, call me back after (a) Edwards, Clark and Dean unload all their opposition research against Kerry in their desperate bids to get back in the race, (b) Kerry has won a nomination, and (c) Karl Rove has hung the festering corpses of Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and Howard Dean around Kerry's neck. To most of the country, John Kerry's still a blank slate--and blank slates are often very appealing relative to real people whose faults are well-known.

(That isn't to say that Kerry can't beat Bush. Just that February's awfully early to start paying much attention to the general election polls.)

Chris,

I agree it's way too early.

My point is that this silly 'gotcha' is irrelevant. Kaus and Sullivan love this snarky stuff but voters simply yawn.

Gee, a politician that is not 100% pure. The horror!

It all matters how the issues are framed. Kerry is just as free as the next guy to run on a platform that frames Democratic principles as being about social justice and paying our way -- in other words, a platform that combines support for a progressive tax system and the principle of a social safety net with recognition of the fiscal emergency we're in and a plan for doing something about it.

Kerry's record of campaign donations a) does not necessarily restrict him in this regard b) cannot possibly end up looking worse than Bush's and c) can easily be forgotten about IF he's smart about a message for his campaign.

Ultimately, it is Kerry's message, not the campaign donations, that causes most of the trouble. Howard Dean is more focused on the message than Kerry and more lively in presenting it, and would still be in front were it not for his poor campaign management in Iowa. Sullivan's remark about Kerry reading off of Bob Shrum's Blackberry is priceless and unfortunately could easily be true. It will be interesting to see how Kerry handles himself once the nomination is wrapped up, but if he continues with this boilerplate he will be depending much more than he should on Bush losing the election for him.

This revelation is neither surprising nor damaging. And what damage results is not enough to stop the Kerry nomination-train. Opposition research has been done on this guy over his 30 years in office, so it is unlikely that there is a heretofore unknown revelation that is shocking enough to derail "Nominee Kerry". Further, Kerry is a solid campaigner and thus unlikely to unravel as novice Dean did, and he is proven to be at his best when getting attacked (see campaign against Bill Weld). As for the general election campaign, Rove will not want to highlight campaign financing as an issue because the president is even more open to attack: allegations abound that many of Bush's biggest policy initiatives were drafted by major contributors and let's not forget how much Bush fought against campaign finance reform.

In any case, the populist "two-Americas" message has a soon-to-expire shelf life. Populism is a sure route to the Democratic nomination, but not the presidency. Centrist democrats, independents and republicans don't like this divisive message. Kerry is not dumb. He will pivot his campaign towards a message of strong national security and economic disipline which permits us to fund vital domestic initiatives. The first will counteract Bush's attack that only he can keep us safe and the later will hit Bush where he is vulnerable.

What kills me is how Mr. Drezner plays along. All the things people say about him being smart and fair tend to be true, and then he'll drop something like this.

Dan: Given how against his "populist" rhetoric you are, shouldn't you be welcoming evidence that he's a realist who is in touch with the business community? Surely you don't think that every politician supports 100% the agenda of every group they take money from. But if that's the standard, I'm sure the Log Cabin Republicans will be asking for their money back any day now. . .

Seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're too smart to play this kind of asinine game. Do yourself a favor and try to not slide down to the lowest common denominator.

At the risk of sounding like 'me too!', I'll say I've been going after Kerry as well.

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/bits/012504183137.htm

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_bitheads_archive.html#107529829703585432

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_bitheads_archive.html#107539656556395729

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_bitheads_archive.html#107547444184840898

Granted.. MORE than granted, that going after Kerry is hardly a big deal;he's too easy to target and hit. However, that it is so easy is exactly the point.

If he manages to get the nomination, (and there seems nothing to stop him doing so at this point, save Hillary stepping in, as seems to me likely,) the Democrats will be embarrassed yet again, this time by Kerry- spanking becoming something of a national sport.

I doubt Kerry will present Bush much of a hurdle, given that Kerry presents what is most kindly desribed as a 'target rich' environment.

Jonah Goldberg points up that few people actually LIKE Kerry, even the Democrats. Sullivan makes a similar point over the weekend.

However, that matters little. As I've been told in this very discussion area on this very blog, and pointed out since, the reaction of the hard line Democrats is driven not by the person with the best policy, or even someone they personally like... but rather, it's driven purely on who *they think* stands the best chance of putting them back in the White House.

(Since Dan's system seems to have purged the thread, here's my earlier write-up of that discussion that took place originally, here.)

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_bitheads_archive.html#107529829703585432

Bottom line:
The main factor in Kerry being in the lead right now was that Dean came up short on selling outside the party.

Dean's right when he claims to be the one who best represents the party's views, (A frightening thought of itself) but Dean started falling down in terms of support when the party hardliners undestood that Dean wasn't selling outside the wacko wing of the party.

(Amazing; they missed that Lieberman was that best chance to regain the WH, but I disgress)

Anyway, on the basis of what's been mentioned here, I doubt many of the party faithful on either side will be much moved... certainly not enough to change their votes... But the swing voter, I think, is what this election will come down to. And that, I think will be the biggest effect of all of this.

As to the question someone brought up in this thread about Kerry being able to beat Bush, it's possible, but not likely. Consider the factors, here. What fall-off in the Bush aproval ratings that has been created comes after 6 months and near on what, 60 million dollars spent by all the Bush-bashers, plus what soros has poured in, and lots more in the way of news coverage... none of which Mr. Bush's people have responded to, directly.... particularly in terms of campaign money and ads... and certainly not in terms of tit-for-tat on the news channels.

Once Bush gets into campaign mode, and starts in on the massive campaign chest he's built up, does anyone really think those numbers won't be turning around?

Now, add the afore-mentioned Kerry problem list to that mix.... The combo will be devistating to the Democrat's election chances this cycle, I think.. enough of a shift that it'll have coat-tails, I think, in both houses of Congress.

Sure Bithead, that's why Kerry is beating Bush in all the polls right now.

All the polls?

I'm aware of two.
One run by the Boston paper
And the other by a school in Mass.

Newsweek, ARG, and Quinnipiac. All came out in the last 2 days.

Even Fox News, whose poll is a week older and who is consistently 5 points higher than anyone else--remember the 2000 election--has Bush up by 7 against Kerry.

And would you really expect NewsWeak (No mis-spelling) to come up with numbers that didn't tilt? Sorry, I find their credibility wanting, particularly after the 2000 cycle.

IN any event, your point disregards the idea thta all they've gained for their 60 million dollars is something short of a 50/50 chance against Bush.

Bush hasn't spent dollar one.... yet; The Democats, meanwhile have about run out of $$,a nd in Kerry are giving the Republicans a large target to shoot at.

Oh, the old "I only believe the polls I like" routine?

And the Dems run out of $$? Sure, sure.

bithead: bush has already spent more than any of the democrats. and he's still losing.

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/000867.html

never forget these immortal words: fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

And if money were key Dean would be the nominee and Perot president.

Perhaps you'd best look again at that report you cite, paying particular attention to what Bush spent his money ON. All of it, thusfar has been spent on prepitory work,(Such as securiing vans and such to get out the vote) and none on ads and so on... certainly none that's been aired yet, particularly in comparison tow hat the Democrats as a whole have been spending on airtime.

As the report you cite points out:

"Bush headed into the primary season with $99 million left to spend. He has no Republican challenger, leaving him free to focus his spending on preparing for the general election season and the emergence of a Democratic nominee-to-be."

Which, seemingly, is exactly what he's doing.

At this level money is almost irrelevant. The dems won't lack money.

Hold on, now,...

Oldman's boy absolutely hit a homerun on MTP last Sunday. If he stay's on this tack, he should be able to make mince-meat of John 'F' Kerry

Oh, I missed one. Rasmussen also has Kerry beating Bush.

That's 4 polls.

What's with the attack on Drezner? For what? For giving freeloaders like us a chance to vent our spleen? Cheers to you, Dan!

Now, to the matter at hand. Anecdotally (nothing scientific) I've polled a bunch of family and friends: some liked Dean, some hated him, some hadn't really "tuned in" yet (Gephardt dropped out? who knew?). No one said Kerry was THE guy, but everyone said they'd vote for him over Bush. More than one vowed a few coppers for the plate.

The marriage metaphor is apt: this is no love match, rather an arranged marriage, sans passion.

That said, however, did anyone WATCH (via cspan-2 I believe--gotta get a life) Kerry this weekend on the stump? The guy is coming to life! Really, he was firing on all cylinders in front of some Oklahoma union crowd (one wouldn't think his most natural constituency, but they seemed positively impressed). All that mo' going to his head.

By contrast, I saw a bried clip of a sullen (alone) HoDean sitting behind the pulpit of a black church in So. Carolina. His animatronic head-bobbing was the only proof he was alive; my husband and I both found it painful to look it. He can't even run a campaign with fiscal restraint, who's gonna trust him with the Fed?

More important than spending on ads, Bithead, has been that the Dems have received a ton of free media over the past month. I mean, they're on all the news programs, on the Sunday show, and on primetime news specials during the nights on IA and NH. So it's only natural that a bit of their message is getting through. When the primary season is over, the free media will have to split its time between Bush and Kerry, rather than being 90% on the Dems, as it is now.

On the Kerry topic - I'm not surprised he's getting an easy ride. The other candidates saw that Dean and Gephart engaged in a murder/suicide pact in IA -- so nobody wants to get involved in the same thing with Kerry now. What I'm REALLY surprised at is that none of the contenders to Kerry's frontrunner status have been going at it with each other. I mean - I would really have expected that Clark and Edwards would have the gloves off by now. They both play to the same constituency, and they both clearly hope to be the anti-Kerry. So why aren't they swinging at each other?

(BTW - hey, "A", are you my stalker from CalPundit? I noticed you used my "none@none.com" addy...)

Klein has a point. Howard Dean may have done the democrats an invaluable service. He gave the angry left a chance to vent and essentially sucked all of the air out of the pacifist platform before anyone cast a vote. Now the dems have settled down and are cold angry instead of hot angry, always more dangerous. I think Bush has handed them a number of victories lately, mainly by spending like a drunken president. I'm predicting that the high water mark is about to be reached though. Bush, as it were, has not yet begun to fight, and he's still neck and neck at worst, more likely he still has a decent lead. Once the Republican spin machine starts rollin, the love affair with Kerry will be in for a test. It will no longer be enough to critisize the president on his deficits, Kerry will be challenged on how he specifically would do differently. What spending cuts? The truth is whoever the candidate is isnt going to cut spending, in fact it will be more than Bush intends to spend. So raising taxes will be the platform. We saw how well that platform worked in 02. Its all well and good to criticize Bush's 'unilateralism' (I dont think that word means what they think it means..), but Kerry will eventually have to lay out what his plans are. Kowtowing to the French isnt a popular platform. So unless Bush stumbles badly, or Kerry undergoes some sort of 3rd way political reformation, it looks to me like Walter Mondale land. Higher taxes, more spending, and Jaques Chirac on the other end of the big red phone? It may be all downhill from here.

You are seeing a (mostly) free pass for Kerry because the Dems don't want to self-destruct before the real fight in the fall. I know it is out of character, but it appear that the the Dems are actually exhibiting some smart, collective behavior (BTW: Is it ironic that the Dems, the "socialists" are the last to try actual cooperation to get someone elected?)

As for the media coverage, I don't see it as that one-sided right now. Bush got all the coverage he needed on the State of the Union, and is now getting plenty of coverage on the WMD issue. The problem for him isn't lack of press, it is that he is stumbing and bumbling through the winter. While I hope it will last, I seriously doubt that the Bush team will have 10 months of this behavior ahead of them.

And before I start hearing the screams that Bush is getting abused while Kerry is getting a free ride, lets keep in mind that Bush is the President. He can't run on personality and charm alone this time. He has a record to defend. And I am sure that Kerry will have to defend his record eventually as well, it is just that right now the story is his current race, his wins, and not his past. But don't worry, come July-November I am sure Kerry will have to run on his own record.

I'm tickled at the number of comments regarding Kerry being ahead of Bush in the Polls. Is my memory shorted out? It seems to me that by this time in '96 or late '95 the issue was which Republican "couldn't beat" Clinton, the "Irrelevant" Kid. In fact, as I recall, there was at least one poll in each election going back as far as '72 (No one picked Goldwater in '64 and there was no incumbent in '68) that hasn't shown the WH occupant in "dire straits." Nah, the only polls that count are the ones that tabulate actual votes.

Or so it appears to me.

“The leading Democrats are now making strong, sharp arguments against the President's most fateful decisions: the blind rush into an elective war, the economic and legislative tilt toward the wealthy. If recent performances are any guide, the President hasn't developed an adequate response yet. He will have to break free from his cocoon and reacquaint himself with the public, if he hopes to find one.”

Most Americans do not pay particular attention to politics. Everyone of us posting opinions on this blog is a statistical weirdo! The rest of the citizenry will not focus upon the candidates and the issues until after Labor Day. How will they decide on election day? It’s very simple. It all depends on how the war on terror is going and the perceived state of the overall economy. End of story. Presently, a number of voters feel uncomfortable with the almost daily slaughter of our troops. On top of that, the Democrats tell them what they wish to hear regarding job protectionism. President Bush merely needs to have the economy keep improving and show continuing successes on the war of terror. If this happens, he should easily win by at least six points over the Democrat nominee.

Senator John Kerry will probably be the Democrat standard bearer. He will run a dishonest campaign where one is usually guessing on where he stands. Kerry will try to be everything to everybody. Instapundit, for instance, just posted the following:

“February 02, 2004

A JOHN KERRY SECOND AMENDMENT LITMUS TEST? I certainly agree with Kerry that ‘The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation.’

And I'd be happy if he took that into consideration in appointing judges.
Pardon me, however, if I doubt this will come to pass.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at February 02, 2004 04:28 PM”

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013861.php

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that Senator Kerry is lying through his teeth. The odds are against him if he honestly tells the American people where he truly stands. Thus, his campaign will be a total exercise in mealy mouthing, if not outright deceit.

“That said, however, did anyone WATCH (via cspan-2 I believe--gotta get a life) Kerry this weekend on the stump?”

Most Americans do indeed believe that you “gotta get a life.” Those of us who watch CSPAN probably represent less than half a percent of the total American adult population. We are statistically very strange creatures. Even our cats and dogs are bewildered by our strange behavior.

Very misleading article. $640,000 over four Senatorial elections is not that much money.

The article says that Kerry leads all other senators in individual contributions from lobbyists. That's probably because Kerry had voluntarily refused to accept money from PACs.

I agree that he might it have done just for appearance and took money from lobbyists as INDIVIDUALS, instead. Even so, we should compare between politicans on the basis of individual AND PAC contribution together. Just looking only at individual contributions is extremely misleading in Kerry's case because of his refusal to take PAC money. It also cannot be totally discounted that some lobbyists did in fact contribute for themselves because they liked Kerry.

As a comparison, Joe Lieberman took in $755,297 from business PACs in the 2000 senate campaign alone (remember he refused to drop out of the Senate race after becoming Gore's running mate): http://www.opensecrets.org/races/blio.asp?ID=CTS1&cycle=2000&special=N

David Thomson,

That's not really true. Most Americans may not be paying attention but, at the same time, most have already made up their minds.

“That's not really true. Most Americans may not be paying attention but, at the same time, most have already made up their minds.”

There are absolutely no reputable political scientists, liberal nor conservative, who would agree with you. Your statement is only true regarding the hardcore Republicans and Democrats. However, there are minimally 20%, and probably as much as 33%, of the electorate who could go either way by election day. Nobody has a lock on these voters! And they may remain undecided until the last minute. We also know from past election results that the incumbent president has the odds in his favor if the economy is perceived as solidly good and the country seems safe. This is why Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had no problem being reelected. The same will almost certainly hold true for President Bush if he can also do likewise.

At the risk of overkill, I feel strongly compelled to reiterate that most Americans don’t constantly worry about politics. This aspect of their lives may receive a total of an half hour of their time in any typical week. The problem with any political blog is that it usually attracts only the exceptional well educated. Such folks invariably associate only with those of a similar background. Mickey Kaus once candidly admitted that the vast majority of his personal friends passed the SAT with a 1200 score! Hello, this is statistically weird. Someone like the editor of www.kausfiles.com runs a high risk of being easily seduced into believing that their social group represents a much wider segment of the general population than is actually the case.

How do you know if you are a statistical weirdo? Would you recognize William F. Buckley or Paul Krugman if you saw them on the street? If you answer in the affirmative---then you are one very strange person. Most Americans have never heard of either gentleman. The back up point guard of the New Knicks, Moochie Norris, is probably far more famous.

"Just that February's awfully early to start paying much attention to the general election polls."

Hell, you could say the same thing about October. In Kerry's case, the media's already setting up the narrative for when he doesn't sweep the primaries today; watch for comments about 'faltering' and 'Edwards/Dean rallying' (if Dean picks up those delegates in AZ) and whatnot.

Moe

More important than spending on ads, Bithead, has been that the Dems have received a ton of free media over the past month. I mean, they're on all the news programs, on the Sunday show, and on primetime news specials during the nights on IA and NH. So it's only natural that a bit of their message is getting through. When the primary season is over, the free media will have to split its time between Bush and Kerry, rather than being 90% on the Dems, as it is now.

Well, that's so, and I'd not forgotten it.
P4erhaps more importantly:

Both our comments speak of a factor that is hardly new. Consider Bush Sr, for example, against Dukakas. Someone in my reading today, I forget who, pointed out that at this point in the timeline, Dukakas was in the lead over Bush Sr.

David Thomson,

I wrote that most Americans have made up their mind.

You sya No, maybe up to 33% is still up for grabs. That means 67% has made up thier mind.

I'd say 67% qualifies as most.

Ask yourself this simple question. How many people do you know that are truly ambivalent, that are really considering Bush and the Dem nominee as options?

Compare that to the number of people you know that have already made up their mind or that you know will only vote for one side or the other.

"Electability" is what is driving the Democratic primary. If they found "666" tatooed on Kerry's head the Democrats will still nominate him if he's the one who matches up best with President Bush. They're that desperate. Everything else is fodder for the general election.

“Ask yourself this simple question. How many people do you know that are truly ambivalent, that are really considering Bush and the Dem nominee as options?”

OK, you’re at least half right. I concede your point that most people, around 66%, are pretty well committed. They will abandon their candidate only if the individual is arrested for child molestation or mass murder. How many are ambivalent? I suspect that a 1/3 of the people I know will make up their mind in the last month. 10% of these folks might switch in the last few days. However, your question is somewhat peculiar. Most of us earn a living in occupations where the tacit agreement reigns demanding that one keeps their political and religious views to themselves. There are people I interact with on almost a daily basis that I don’t have a clue concerning their political inclinations. If you have a different experience, then you are a statistically weird human being. Perhaps you even teach at a liberal university where the vast majority vote Democrat? If so, that would explain everything.

Why are you only “half right?” I voted in the 1990 Texas governor’s race. Initially, I supported the Republican candidate Clayton Williams. Early in the campaign, he had a solid lock on the Republican vote. Alas, he turned out to be a total idiot and a very large number of us switched to Democrat Anne Richards. It is the only time in my life where I literally switched bumber stickers on my car. I even think I sent a small donation to Ms. Richards.

If they found "666" tatooed on Kerry's head the Democrats will still nominate him if he's the one who matches up best with President Bush. They're that desperate.

Yeah, Kerry is currently winning in the polls only because the Democrats are desperate.

Face it, Bush has ticked off half the country, and this makes the minor differences between the major Dem contenders worth possibly losing the election over.

As far as historical comparisons go, I think we can drop them. Bush's record speaks for itself -- he started out with a 50% popularity baseline. Dramatic international events generally raise this mark (9/11, march to war, mission accomplished, Saddam's capture), everything else brings it back down. There's a very clear pattern to his approval ratings.

This year Bush will be running on 9/11. That's it. He will come to his favorite city in the whole wide world, New York, in September and talk about how we should never forget 9/11 and how that means we should vote for him. Can he pull it off? Back in 2002, the anti-terror rhetoric made him look invincible. Not so much now.

Babs, why are the Democrats embracing Kerry now? A week before the Iowa caucus they hated the guy. Politically he was in the ground and they were starting to shovel the dirt on him but now ... IT'S ALIVE! How did they hide the bolts in his neck?

After Dean imploded and Clark showed himself to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist you're only left with two choices ... Kerry or Edwards. Polls show Democrats think Kerry is more electable, therefore Kerry is winning the delegates. The fact that Democrats are now hitching their wagon to an anti-war, issue-waffling, intelligence gutting, defense cutting, partial birth abortion supporting Massachusetts liberal shows how desperate they are to defeat President Bush.

But, who else are they going to choose? A first term Senator with no foreign policy experience who probably couldn't get reelected in his own state? For better or worse Kerry's their guy.

Yeah, Kerry is currently winning in the polls only because the Democrats are desperate.

Dean is winning in the polls because the republicans are not in campaign mode yet. As has already been pointed out, there are several examples of the opposition leading at this point in the election cycle timeline. The reasons are simple enough; who is Mr Bush going to run against? Foolish to spend one's money this early simply to alter the polls.

Face it, Bush has ticked off half the country

Actually, somewhat less than half. The ones whose boy lost the last cycle. I suggest that the specifics of your comment demonstrate that what realy teed them off was losing the last election.

At this stage of the game, they're not about policy, or what's best for the country or the world, they're about vengence, and power.

Do you realy think it wise to put someone into office that has such an agenda?

" At this stage of the game, they're not about policy, or what's best for the country or the world, they're about vengence,and power."

Exactly!