“Honest” Dan Rather threw down the gauntlet to bloggers last night.
DAN RATHER: One would expect that the blogging machine which the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign has used for any number of purposes over their four years will start now, if it hasn’t started already, to say, listen, Kerry-Edwards, for the good of the country, need to concede.
ED BRADLEY: I’m sure it’s started already. If we could tune into the Internet we’d see that people are already saying that now. That’s certainly the drum the White House is beating.
This pathetic exchange speaks for itself, but I have two questions:
1. Will Viacom stockholders stand for this nonsense from “Honest” Dan, et al as their numbers continue to tank?
2. Will The New York Times save what remains of their reputation by severing their relationship with CBS?
MEANWHILE: Dept. of Education Is Painful… The Los Angeles Times makes no mention of the popular vote in its dead tree edition, declaring Bush’s lead “slim” in its headline. (hat tip: Jim Hake)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
73 Comments
1. Morgan:“If we could tune into the Internet…”
“Dinosaur Dan” has a nice ring to it, no?
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:25 am 2. heather:The New York Times is run by one Pinch (?) Sulzberger. That is one of its problems. The other is that it hasn’t got out of New York City.
It really should dwindle away into a ‘city’ newspaper, and forget about its pretensions to be a ‘national’ voice.
Maybe the blogger phenomenon will ensure that outcome.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:26 am 3. ed:We promise to allow you to call the media out on their bull, just as long as you promise not to ignore these folks trying to promote their agenda: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200411031109.asp
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:28 am 4. ambisinistral:Blogging Machine? Tune into the Internet?
No wonder word processor documents baffled them.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:33 am 5. Terrye:ed:
For years I have been listening to Dan Rather pretend to be objective and honest. Now I know there are people on the internet with opinions, but they are not all hypocrites.
The truth is that little stunt on the part of Dan with the forgeries did more to discredit him and hurt Kerry than the internet could do.
Besides there are all kinds of people on the internet, just ask Howard Dean and his Deaniacs.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:41 am 6. Mike:I spent most of the night watching CNN’s coverage, and I needed a mouthguard just to tolerate it! Once it was obvious Ohio was in the bag, I switched to CBS, and the juxtaposition was jarring!! As slanted at times as CNN was, I couldn’t believe the angry, defiant partisanship emanating from Rather. It’s been a while since I’ve bothered to tune him in, even for a few token seconds. I only bothered last night for the sheer entertainment value of enjoying Rather’s pain. Now, I can understand why CBS News’ ratings are so abysmal.
One other observation. The CBS anchor desk atmosphere was utterly surreal. I felt like I was looking at a lounge area in a senior citizens home. Rather, Ed Bradley, Bob Schieffer, even Leslie Stahl, all looked like extras from the movie ” Cocoon.”
We’ll miss Rather once his imminent departure becomes reality. Like the rest of the MSM, he never failed to deny the steady accusations of bias involving the media. Rather’s utility for the bloggers rested in the fact that his denials were completely and utterly unconvincing, so egregious was his partisanship and distortion of the facts.
Rather was a poster boy of proof to the charges of media bias. It was the only public service he was capable of providing, but it should be acknowledged that he provided same, and did it well.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:54 am 7. Catherine:Cool.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:54 am 8. Knucklehead:I suppose this is OT or belongs in a different thread below, but I hope that Roger’s Place continues to thrive. I would very much like us (by that I mean you all) and the blogosphere in general to start demonstrating to the nation how to have civil discussions, go about the important matters of discovery that apply to difficult issues, and begin to at least put some of the important bits and pieces of the important arguments on the table for perusal.
Juan Williams is going on about how the Republican Party needs to figure out how to be more acceptable to the people who didn’t vote for Bush. Sigh… They really don’t get it. The Dems are losing elections as if winning them has gone out of fashion. Isn’t it the Dems who should be looking hardest at how to make their party more attractive to the people who don’t vote for their candidates? We can’t have “united” if their starting position is “you are a theocratic, racist, ignorant scumbag and you better figure out how to appease me or you’ll keep winning elections by nothing more than a stinking couple or three percent!”
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:55 am 9. WAmom:Grouchy old men. That was the CBS election coverage. Dan was so slow, blithering and almost incoherent. Fox did twice as well and also ran a good separate team on high def. As Roger promised, Michael Barone showed great intelligence and integrity.
Nov 3, 2004 - 11:59 am 10. sammy small:If its true that the CBS and their MSM brethren were worth 15% to Kerry, then GWB actually won with 66% of the popular vote, a crushing defeat for the Dems.
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:00 pm 11. ed:Terrye, I was being sincere. While your keeping an eye on the media, make sure you keep an eye on the social conservatives too. They have some plans for the next for years that really have nothing to do with the war on terror
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:24 pm 12. Jamie Irons:How does a feller tune into that Internet thing?
Seriously, though, I think I would have lost my mind this election cycle without Roger’s place here.
I want to thank several people in particular for their indulgence of my near-hysteria, and for the many ways in which they have broadened and deepened my education:
Catherine For her amazing ability to think deeply, as it were, out loud, and to bring her fresh perspective and restless intelligence and curiosity to every issue.
Rick Ballard, Ronald Reagan Professor of Therapeutic Psephology for, well, for just being Rick, and soothing my jangled nerves better than anything in my pharmacopoeia of “false drugs.”
Dennis the Peasant who ought to be called “The Troll Tosser” or “The Rock,” and whose insights into the election were surpassed only by his amazing sense of humor (we will let the little episode of the vat of lime jello and the cattle prod slip into obscurity without further comment).
Charlie (Colorado),who provided brilliant commentary on any number of things.
Katherine who gave me insight into what calling myself an American ought really to mean. (Warm up the crawl space, Darlin’.)
penwil, Syl, John Moore and many, many others — Thank you, thank you.
And of course, and above all, Roger, for probably ruining his life as a writer to educate us all and to give fools like me a place to blather without alarming the general public too much.
Jamie Irons
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:24 pm 13. Johan Amedeus Metesky:Anyone else having trouble getting into Instapundit, LGF and others?
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:31 pm 14. Connecticut Yankee:Jamie Irons
I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to thank you for your contributions to this site. You posted a number of wise observations that helped keep my central nervous system intant.
And I don’t think we need to worry about Roger’s writing career– the election campaign provided him with enough material for a dozen Moses Wine stories.
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:38 pm 15. Catherine:Jamie Irons
Oh my gosh!
You just made my day!
Thank you, and likewise!
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:41 pm 16. Lola:I learned a lot from you guys, and y’all gave a voice to what I’ve been feeling. I may not be quite so articulate, but I do my best to participate here.
Nov 3, 2004 - 12:51 pm 17. Catherine:Enough celebrating, time to Complain About the Media!
Here is Ron Brownstein, who people say is a terrific political writer, and who in fact seems to be a terrific political writer, going on what I’ve read of him in the past:
I don’t know how the MSM affects votes or perceptions or life as we know it.
I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet the MSM cannot deliver 15% of the popular vote to the candidate of its choice. (If it can, then Wow. John Kerry is just as bad a candidate as Mickey Kaus says he is.)
But assuming for the sake of argument that the MSM has at least some of the power we instinctively feel it does, I despair when I read a passage like this.
President Bush has just won the first majority of the popular vote since 1988, and the largest vote in raw numbers of any presidential candidate ever . . . and this demonstrates that he has “made only limited progress at expanding his reach among voters [beyond his conservative base]?”
Can a conservative base be 51% of the voting public?
(If you read THE RIGHT NATION, the answer is yes, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what Ron Brownstein is talking about.)
Can married families be a base?
I guess that’s open to argument, too.
But if married families are now the Republican Party’s base, I’d say that’s your storyline, not George Bush failed to reach voters outside his base.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:00 pm 18. Catherine:Lola—-you’re great!
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:01 pm 19. Knucklehead:Yo, Lola… if the folks here at Roger’s Place tolerate me (talk about gracious!) they’ll celebrate you like a beloved holiday. And whattaya mean you aren’t so articulate, you look fine (some might say hotter’ ‘an hell, but I’m not allowed to go there ’cause, well, ball and chain and all that).
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:14 pm 20. Charlie (Colorado):Jamie et al, thank you, it’s been great fun (I can say now that I’m not worrying).
Speaking of trashing the MSM, Mark Halperin has just called Bush a “lame duck”.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:24 pm 21. penwil:” . . . married families, rural voters, and people who own guns or attend church regularly”
I’m married but chose not to have children, I don’t own a gun,and I don’t attend church, either regularly or irregularly.
So I guess I didn’t get the memo that I’mnot a Bush voter.
____
Back at you, Jamie. This blog was my port of sanity in the insane months leading up to the election. I thought this country had it in us to make the right choice for our own self-preservation, but, Lord, was it scary there for awhile. Especially yesterday morning (out here) when those exit polls started filtering out.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:26 pm 22. bencalvin:Did anyone else notice how busy and weird the sets & graphics were on the big three networks?
It seemed like there was a direct relationship between the lameness of the production design and the cluelessness of the coverage.
Worst: CBS
In a class of it’s own. busy busy busy.
(NBC honorable mention, but I didn’t watch them as much.)
Next Worst: CNN
Headache inducing video wall instead of somthing more virtual.
Best: Fox
Nothing stunning or revolutionary but the production design and direction were more restrained than on the other outlets.
There’s a nice article on the map asthetics from Tim Goodman at SFGate : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/03/MNG5B9KHCE1.DTL
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:28 pm 23. WichitaBoy:Catherine,
Good points. Are married families to be added to the list of standard Democratic hate-groups?
It seems to me the essence of the problem is “reality bifurcation”, i.e., that what the Democrats and the MSM talking heads think is reality is sharply contrasted with what most of us here at Roger’s place view as reality. It’s the Pauline Kael phenomenon. Knucklehead has also addressed this in one of these threads. Did the Democrats lose the 2000 election or were they cheated? Are we in Iraq to fight terrorists and their supporters or to grab oil? Was Afghanistan about bringing Democracy and ending tyranny or was it about building an oil pipeline? We have to first agree on what the basic facts are or we can’t make any progress in our public debates.
The democratic form of government works because when one party loses they reassess their view of reality. If that fails to happen then the system deteriorates. People lose faith in the civil religion. What is critical at this juncture is that the Democrats reassess their view of reality. If they refuse then we will have more of the same divisiveness in the future. The quotation you cited does not hold out great hope in this regard. If they believe, once again, that they haven’t really lost, that they were simply outgunned by a vast collection of religious nutcases etc. etc., then nothing will change.
Personally, as knucklehead said, I am not a religious nutcase and don’t even really consider myself “conservative” (as I’m sure John Moore would agree!), yet I found many reasons not to vote for Kerry. Like you I was ABK. By continuing to rudely brush aside my real concerns while lumping me in with the standard Democratic hate-groups, the Democrats are merely continuing to assure that they will never get my vote, or the votes of the other millions just like me whom I believe to be out there. Nor by pursuing this path will they even manage to understand my concerns.
Sooner or later it’s necessary to come back to reality. Maybe they should spend some quality time reading this blog, instead of issuing kneejerk wholesale condemnations of “digital brownshirts”.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:29 pm 24. Matt Evans:Knuck- in response to this :
“Isn’t it the Dems who should be looking hardest at how to make their party more attractive to the people who don’t vote for their candidates?”
There was this brief moment when I woke up today, that I considered that maybe the democrats would be self aware enough to realize their party has gone too far left. And then one of the first things I read on another political board I frequent, is that they all think Howard Dean should take over the DNC.
Howard Dean.
The democractic party took stock of itself last night and somehow came to the conclusion that the republicans picked up in the House and Senate, will nominate at least 2 and as many as 4 Supreme Court justices and re-elected the president, with a mandate and democrats think this occured because they aren’t FAR ENOUGH LEFT…
It boggles the mind doesn’t it ?
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:30 pm 25. Kevin P:Roger;
The MSM is so out of touch that they will never get it. Before I went to sleep I saw Jennings with a top Bush official, can’t remember his name, and the arrogance and the depression over the results were just oozing out of this pretty boy hack. He tried to get the guy to admit that Ohio couldn’t be called and when he started to go over the numbers (which were correct) to show that there was no way Kerry could win Jennings cut him off and sneered something in the vein of “can’t you guys ever stop spinning”. This was not spin.He was going to explain to Jennings with the facts that it was over and Jennings just didn’t want to hear it. The Bush aid wasn’t spouting rhetoric, he just wanted to explain the raw data to Jennings but because this didn’t fit into the script for the night Jennings treated him like he was some rube who needed to be enlightened by his emminence. The top three networks used to command respect. They lost it not because of the evil internet bloggers or not because of evil genius Rove but because they got fat and lazy and they stopped practicing journalism and started practicing propaganda.They stay in their cocoon of Manhattan and the Potomac and they live in a incestous world where they are cut off from the country and just talk to each other to tell us what we are and what we want.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:32 pm 26. Kevin P:Roger;
The MSM is so out of touch that they will never get it. Before I went to sleep I saw Jennings with a top Bush official, can’t remember his name, and the arrogance and the depression over the results were just oozing out of this pretty boy hack. He tried to get the guy to admit that Ohio couldn’t be called and when he started to go over the numbers (which were correct) to show that there was no way Kerry could win Jennings cut him off and sneered something in the vein of “can’t you guys ever stop spinning”. This was not spin.He was going to explain to Jennings with the facts that it was over and Jennings just didn’t want to hear it. The Bush aid wasn’t spouting rhetoric, he just wanted to explain the raw data to Jennings but because this didn’t fit into the script for the night Jennings treated him like he was some rube who needed to be enlightened by his emminence. The top three networks used to command respect. They lost it not because of the evil internet bloggers or not because of evil genius Rove but because they got fat and lazy and they stopped practicing journalism and started practicing propaganda.They stay in their cocoon of Manhattan and the Potomac and they live in a incestous world where they are cut off from the country and just talk to each other to tell us what we are and what we want.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:33 pm 27. Terrye:ed:
There is a reason why the Dems got beat.
Social conservatives are not the bad guys. Michael Moore is a fraud. Who is it that got to sit next to Jimmy Carter?
If not for a mayor in SF I doubt gay marriage would have even been an issue, but when the voting public goes against it at 60% or more then the attitudes are main stream. Stem cell research would not even be an issue if Bush had not agreed to fund it in the first place. These kind of issues are not only a result of some weird evangelical strain in American politics, they become politcal issues because certain people feel they can use them to create divides in the population. Social conservatives have a right to their opinions and they don’t freak me out half as bad as some of the people at Moveon.org.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:37 pm 28. Terrye:jamie:
What about me?
Don’t I merit a speical mention?
Catherine this, John Moore that….
sniff
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:43 pm 29. Knucklehead:Kevin P,
I had a similar observation last night. Before calling it quits way too late, I made a clicking scan and found one of the networks (can’t remember which) running through a bunch of potential scenarios for how Kerry might win without OH if thus and such happened. Then they interviewed the OH Sec of State (I should remember his name, but don’t) who tried valiantly (and quite effectively to even my over-tired brain) to explain what the situation was in OH and how their election laws worked but all they kept doing was asking him stupid questions about some phantom 250,000 provisional ballots. I just lay there wondering why the hell they just didn’t listen to the guy, recognize that he was telling them there was no way in hell Kerry had even a remotely realistic chance to overcome a 140K deficit, and call the freakin’ election already.
But they didn’t want to hear it. They wanted Kerry’s chances to still exist. I don’t know if that was purely a matter of keeping bloodshot eyeballs glued to the screen or if it was yet more bias and wishful thinking on their part of what. I suppose the former ’cause surely they weren’t dumb enough to hope for the latter.
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:51 pm 30. Matt Evans:A little OT but did anyone catch Tony Blair’s speech which followed the president. I thought that was VERY interesting, in that Blair was making a public congratulation- and clearly indicating he expected our help when his election bid comes up.
Here’s my question- Americans were pretty damn irritated when the Brits who read the Guardian tried to get involved with our election- what is our duty as conservatives and as a nation, to support Blair’s re-election ? And would our assistance trample on the clear right of the Brits to choose the course for their own country ?
Nov 3, 2004 - 1:55 pm 31. Catherine:Jamie Irons, Samuel, maybe Skookumchuk & others
This morning I gave my husband the terrific article, written on Sunday by Kerry’s pollster, Mark Mellman, predicting 51.6% of the vote for Bush.
I told him it would make him feel better, and it did.
So for any of you whose spouses or family members are depressed by the election, this might help. You can honestly point out that Kerry did a good job getting as far as he did.
Here’s the link if you want to look at it.
The uphill battle is impossible to predict
Of course, I read Mellman’s article and wonder why political writers can’t include some of this info in their pieces.
To wit:
Since I’ve apparently given myself permission to Complain about the Media today, let me just say that when I read something like Mellman’s article, I Despair!
For months and months and months and months we have heard nothing but the fact that President Bush’s job approval ratings were below the “magic number” (Gallup’s term) of 50%.
How hard would it have been to point out the appropriate historical comparisons?
How meaningful is a “magic number” of 50% outside its historical context?
Or consider this.
Awhile back I mentioned a dinner party I’d attended at which a well-known liberal political writer was present.
This was shortly after the Dean meltdown–everyone was in shock–and I was eager to hear what he had to say about political punditry and predictions.
I asked whether there were any pundits or writers who frequently made good calls.
He said no.
Then he said this was because “no one can predict the future.”
At the time I took this to heart & went around quoting it to people, mainly because . . . uh . . . no one can predict the future.
But then a little while later I came across Ray Fair (not to mention DennisthePeasant & Rick Ballard). Obviously, Ray Fair thinks he can predict the future, and has been doing a decent job of it for maybe 20 years now.
Moving on, I discovered that there exist something in the neighborhood of 8 different predictive models, 6 of which (if I’m remembering correctly) were forecasting a win for Bush.
So here’s the “I Despair” part.
Why do I know about these models while my dinner companion, the Famous Political Writer, apparently does not?
How does someone whose profession is covering and analyzing politics think that the entire answer to a question concerning political predictions is, “No one can predict the future”?
As I say, I don’t know how the MSM affects us (or even how it affects itself.)
But it makes me crazy that we should have major writers apparently unaware of even the existence of core research in the field they cover.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:01 pm 32. Lola:Catherine and Knucklehead . . . aww, shucks! (smiling)
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:03 pm 33. WichitaBoy:Terrye,
Well, for what it’s worth, I would pretty much lay my conversion to the idea that the Iraq War was a war worth fighting at your feet. You are very persuasive, in some ways the most persuasive person on here, because when you say something I don’t get even the whiff of BS. Maybe you should go into sales?
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:13 pm 34. davic:I recall just 2 weeks ago the LA Times predicted that prop 66, health care for taxes adn all the other liberal oriented initiatives would win by 18%. Well many lost, and the few that won, such as the 1% millionaire surchage pased by a few percentage points. What pathetic liars.
If you do not want to cancel your LA Times because there is no other challenging local rag, call the LA Times and tell them you want to cancel, and they will offer you an unbelievable deal, which is what happened to me and I couldn’t resist and took it. I pay somethign less than $2 a week for daily and weekend delivery.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:17 pm 35. Fresh Air:Catherine–
To me, this is the most interesting sentence in that Mellman article: Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.
I think we need to reflect on the fact that the economy was in pretty good shape in 1992, and it was only the media’s constant drip, drip, drip of “bad” economic news that allowed Clinton to win.
They’ve done it before folks. This time it was worse, but the MSM is like a small child: It must be spanked when it does something wrong. If it isn’t, it will assume it’s doing the right thing.
The blogosphere now holds the paddle.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:17 pm 36. Fresh Air:BREAKING STORY:
Freepers are reporting Arafat is back on the banana peel. The election results must have upset him. Darn.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:21 pm 37. Jamie Irons:Terrye
I am an idiot.
Of course you merit special mention.
Actually extra-special, special mention.
I knew as I wrote my little encomia I would forget somebody. I am dumb.
When my beloved and I discuss what’s going on, I always mention you (and what I see as your views) because I absolutely trust your instincts and your perceptive intelligence, insights always served up in that inimitable, razor-keen style.
So forgive me. (I don’t deserve it, though.)
Jamie Irons
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:25 pm 38. Catherine:Charlie & (heck–I’ve forgotten the name–starts with an M):
My son says only 3 kids in his class got the answer to the number machine, ‘and they all got help’:
“One kid asked her brother, he probably already had the problem. You asked online, and the other kid said he did it himself, YEAH, RIGHT!”
So I’ve got Jamie beat on the gratitude front.
On Election Day 2004, right here on this blog, I was:
Saved from election night emotional collapse
Saved from projected 2-week-long number machine hysteria
Oh, wait! There’s more.
One of the items in my son’s homework tonight is to “challenge a family member with the number machine problem.”
YEAH, RIGHT!
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:37 pm 39. Rick Ballard:Terrye,
Jamie is probably busy admitting a Bay Area Dem to the suicide watch unit but I would certainly like to thank you for all the times that you clarified issues to an extent that allowed me to articulate an appropriate response. You’ve provided so many Aha! moments for me that it is impossible to identify (as WB did) the most important one. Thank you.
Catherine,
You asked on another thread what was specifically wrong about the Fair model. What was wrong was that a model that misses a prediction by double the MOE is definitonally not a ‘model’. Why it was wrong is tied to the inability of an econometric model to incorporate the impact of the MSM acting as the propaganda arm of the Dem party. Secondarily, the use of the exit polling model to specifically try and drive down W supporter turnout cannot be factored into any model. This is the second consecutive attempt by the media to distort ‘news’ in a manner that amounts to telling an egregious lie in order to steal an election. They have used the same apparatus both times. No one with a shred of common sense should ever believe an exit poll prognostication again in their lives.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:39 pm 40. Sandy P:I have learned a lot from everyone here and I thank you all.
– such as the 1% millionaire surchage—
Good, now they put their money where their mouths are.
Revenge of the poor. They voted to open your pocketbook.
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:45 pm 41. scott orrell:Davic,
Dude, I was just about to write that and you beat me to it. I called two days ago to cancel and they gave me that fantastic deal. Which, of course, I took. I couldn’t help myself. Oh well, I guess I can keep stealing my neighbor’s WSJ to keep me sane. The LAT must really be hurting. 2$ a week is their old Sunday only price.
And Brownstein is a putz, and Scheer, and Carleson (Carleson fer Christ’s sake-way to go Kinsley-THERE’S some new blood in the paper).
Nov 3, 2004 - 2:50 pm 42. Charlie (Colorado):Secondarily, the use of the exit polling model to specifically try and drive down W supporter turnout cannot be factored into any model. This is the second consecutive attempt by the media to distort ‘news’ in a manner that amounts to telling an egregious lie in order to steal an election.
Only the second?
The second in this quarter.
Maybe.
Seriously, as Fresh mentioned above, it’s been happening all along. 1992 was mentioned: a mild recession became a depression, Bush(41) was an out-of-touch guy who’d never seen a grocery scanner, and his VP — who’d been a two-term Senator — became a cretin barely able to tie shows and “no Jack Kennedy”. Reagan was an empty suit, controlled by mysterious forces; Nixon the spawn of Satan, who started the Viet Nam War all by himself — rather than inheriting a war he’d sworn to finish, instead of letting it drag on indefinitely; Eisenhower an affable dummy (and not the driving force behind the greatest and most sustained strategic and logistical effort in history).
It used to really annoy the hell out of me; now I think I sort of feel as Bush is reputed to — you know, go ahead an “misunderestimate” us. We can use that.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:03 pm 43. Rick Ballard:Charlie (C),
I was referring specifically to the exit polling model used to do the early call in FL in ‘00 and the early calls for Kerry yesterday that were used to panic certain blogs – like NRO. I guess I need to work on my writing.
I do agree with every point you make.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:10 pm 44. M. Scott Eiland:The behavior of both the NYT and CBS News has been beneath contempt in recent years, and I favor making examples of them. A memo from the WH to all executive departments making it clear that the only response to be given to either news organization for any question is “no comment” should communicate nicely to the media the price of political thuggery by those who claim to be “objective.”
Oh, and I favor “Piltdown Dan” as a monicker for the increasingly delusional Mr. Rather.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:21 pm 45. DennisThePeasant:I Guess I Might As Well Jump In Here While Everyone’s Getting All Gooey And There Exists A Degree Of Brotherly Love One Sees Maybe Once In A Lifetime…
and say, hey, I agree! I am fucking terrific.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:22 pm 46. Catherine:Dave Schuler’s post on the Democratic Party is great!
I agree with him that Bush underperformed Ray Fair’s model, rather than the model being wrong. Think what Bush’s re-election numbers would have been without the Iraq War, and with no further terrorist attacks.
I especially like this line, which is a perfect way of saying something Terrye & I have said repeatedly concerning Michael Moore:
All parties have crazy people in them. There are people who are so viciously partisan that they’ll say and do anything solely for partisan political advantage. It’s not unique to either party. The Democratic Party has to get their crazy people off the front porch.
Terrye & I both have repeatedly said that as long as Michael Moore is front and center in the Democratic Party, there’s no room for us.
Get him off the front porch!
(Terrye–hope it’s OK to paraphrase, and hope I’ve got it right.)
http://www.theglitteringeye.com/archives/000416.html
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:29 pm 47. Catherine:Terrye
Oh, don’t worry about Jamie.
He just made the same mistake Cher did that year when she won her Academy Award and only remembered to thank her hairdresser.
It happens.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:37 pm 48. Catherine:Rick B
But . . . does Ray Fair include a ‘foreign policy’ element in his model?
I’m remembering that he doesn’t, but I could be wrong.
I’d love to see serious research done on the MSM, how & why they say & do the things they do, what effect it has, etc.
Everyone must read THE RIGHT NATION right away!
Their argument is that America is an inherently conservative country, and that the conservative “movement” begun by Goldwater has won.
To the extent that they’re persuasive (I was persuaded) that undermines (I think) the belief that the liberal media radically skew voter perception of reality.
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:45 pm 49. Jamie Irons:Dennis
…and say, hey, I agree! I am fucking terrific…
OK, Dennis. Anything nice I said about you is hereby retracted.
Catherine
See my abject apology to Terrye, above.
Did I forget to thank my hairdresser?
Jamie Irons
Nov 3, 2004 - 3:48 pm 50. Catherine:OK, now that I have managed to FORGET THE FACT THAT I AM A WRITER WITH EXACTLY THE SAME DEGREE OF EXPERTISE AS ALL THE WRITERS I’VE BEEN CRITICIZING HERE (what was that thing about glass houses??), I better hurry up and say that I’ve found all kinds of interesting stuff in the MSM today:
Anne Applebaum in WAPO http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21057-2004Nov3?language=printer
This made me wonder whether the huge turnout wasn’t about good “ground games” on both sides, or about Bush-hating, or about Kerry-hating, or even about 9-11.
It made me wonder whether the huge turnout was about 2000 pure and simple, about restoring legitimacy to the system we took for granted.
That would explain why the massive turnout did not help the Democrats, which is, I believe, what you would expect to see under normal circumstances.
It helped democracy.
My husband says there’s a rich literature out there on the ‘psychology of democracy,’ and I intend to look into it one of these days.
I know I consciously perceived myself as adding my 1 vote for George Bush to the popular tally.
That’s what mattered.
Here’s something else:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20547-2004Nov3?language=printer
Sullivan and Noam Scheiber are reporting that Kerry took “the moderates” (and again I say, 51%! 51% of the voters in this election are conservatives? Really?)
I’m looking forward to the post mortems.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:02 pm 51. Neo:I suppose in a few months we will be able to find Dan down at “Flaming Moe’s” with Barney and Homer.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:25 pm 52. Fresh Air:Catherine–
Re Fair’s Model: It does not reflect foreign policy per se, though it has an extra variable called “WAR” that is set to either 1 or 0, depending upon whether we are at war or not. (This year he said it should be 0). In every other respect, it is a “pocketbook” model.
For what it’s worth, here it Fair’s model: Bush % = 55.57 + .691*GROWTH – .775*INFLATION + .837*GOODNEWS ["GOODNEWS" refers to upside economic news. There is no "WAR" variable for 2004 according to Fair.]
Re Turnout: Jay Cost had an interesting post yesterday about wishy-washy voters. He said those less motivated to vote would be less likely to stand in long lines. As the lines shortened, the value they placed on voting (low) would equal the cost of their time. This trend would oscillate throughout the voting day, as people showed up, found lines long, departed and returned later; or found lines short, voted and went back to work.
Cost’s point was that in situations of high turnout, it’s often not the undecideds or weak supporters who inflate the numbers, but the diehards who place a higher value on voting.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:32 pm 53. Catherine:btw, I wanted to mention that yesterday I managed to miss the fact that the exit polls had called a sweep for Kerry!
I chalk this up to the same survival instinct my 84-year old dad used to survive 8 days on his basement floor.
I was frantically upset entirely because I’d heard about the huge turnout in NJ breaking 2-to-1 for Kerry, and because I’d read on Kerry Spot that 57% of the national turnout was women.
But my poor husband. What a nightmare his day was.
First he gets interviewed at length, as an American pundit and expert on the U.S. elections (!), by French radio. Important French radio; French radio on the order of NPR radio.
Then he gets calls from Important French People who’ve heard him on French radio.
He said he can see why pundits are pundits; it’s a total high.
So next he learns that John Kerry is mopping the floor with George Bush. The exit polls say so, the media says so, and the White House isn’t not saying so.
He thinks, “That’s crazy.”
But then, after awhile, he thinks: HEY! JOHN KERRY IS MOPPING THE FLOOR WITH GEORGE BUSH!
He’s already on a high, so why not?
So 5 o’clock comes, and he’s supposed to go to the French embassy ‘for election night’ (I didn’t ask), and apparently no one there is watching TV or cruising right-wing blogs, so no one gets the word that the facts on the ground are starting to change.
Of course, neither do I, since I have no idea that the Bad News of the day was the exit polls. I’m still crushed by the NJ turnout, and no one’s on TV saying, ‘Don’t worry folks, we got the NJ turnout figure all wrong.’
So my husband, by the time he gets home, around 10:30, has still heard nothing about the returns. He finds me in a state of obvious despair, which he logically interprets to mean that John Kerry is still mopping the floor with George Bush.
I log off rogerlsimon, and drag myself back into the bedroom, which is now the home of PBS & Gwen Ifill instead of Fox News and Brit Hume. My husband takes a look at me and offers to turn the TV off & go watch downstairs.
“There’s no reason for you to lose any sleep over this,” he says.
He’s being chivalrous, and I don’t have a clue.
I climb in bed, will myself to sleep, and dream that George Bush has lost, John Kerry has won, and I’m screaming at my husband. The dream is so bad it wakes me up and I’m flooded with relief that it was a dream.
Then I fall back to sleep and have another dream in which George Bush has lost and John Kerry has won.
So in the morning I open my eyes and just lie there for a minute or two, gathering my courage.
I’m thinking: It’s over, and I have to go find out that it’s over.
The rest is history.
When my husband gets up I find out he has stayed up until NBC called Ohio, at which point he knows it’s over.
He’s completely blown away.
He always knew a Kerry win was a long shot.
He got his hopes up when Kerry tied up the race; he thought it was possible.
Then he had the entire universe telling him it was not only possible, it was actually happening.
Let me tell you.
If you think those exit polls were hard on Bush supporters, they were hell on the other guys.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:34 pm 54. Catherine:Rick B
This year he said it should be 0
OK, so my question is: given the fact that it obviously (IMO) should not be set at zero, what would the prediction have been if he’d put in a 1 for war?
What do you think of The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President by Allan J. Lichtman?
Apparently he’s been predicting a Bush win all along.
(I read Jay Cost’s post on turnout–it was great.)
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:39 pm 55. Catherine:Oops, sorry—-I mean Fresh Air!
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:39 pm 56. jerry:Catherine:
If Sullivan’s view hold true for a majority of Democratic thinkers then they are on their way to repeating past mistakes. The left always defines moderation as agreeing with their positions. Given the fact that Sullivan is a single issue voter he probably defines a “moderate” as someone who support gay marriage. I bet that many lefties voted against it in the privacy of the booth.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:40 pm 57. Catherine:Jamie
Did I forget to thank my hairdresser?
I’m afraid so.
Nov 3, 2004 - 4:41 pm 58. Patrick Tyson:Catherine—
Regarding the Fair Model, Goof®’s first comment here:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/09/strong_stuff.php
will provide an answer from a professional who did pay attention and wasn’t impressed.
jerry—
Should you end up here, Goof® left at 9:59PM last night. His final comment is in RETURNS II. He posted it when he concluded that one of the four states he still considered undecided a week ago
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/10/dangerous_flipf.php
(10/25 5:44PM comment) was going to go for the President and give him an electoral vote total that meant victory. He didn’t make this determination by listening to pollsters and pundits. Like others here, he watched the counts in certain counties and drew his own conclusions.
Goof® was like that. John Moore, TmjUtah and Dennis were his favorite reads.
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:01 pm 59. Catherine:Jerry
I think the ‘day after’ is too soon to know whether the Dems are going to take WichitaBoy’s advice and reassess its view of reality–although I think it’s certain that Katrina vanden Heuvel and Daily Kos will argue that Kerry lost because he was too centrist.
http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?pid=1979
http://www.dailykos.com/
For me, the question is what the NEW REPUBLIC folks will do. (I don’t know if that’s ‘the’ question, but it’s a question that interests me.)
Sullivan and Scheiber are basing their arguments on the fact that Kerry won “by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates.”
But the term ’self-described moderates’ is meaningless; the majority of people in this country are self-described moderates. That’s why all the polls finding no-liberal-bias in the MSM are so silly; most journalists call themselves moderates, too.
It’s going to take a long time for everyone to process this election, and I think that holds for Bush supporters as well as Kerry voters.
Here’s Scheiber:
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:27 pm 60. Katherine:Jamie,
Thank you! And thank you for your sense of humor. I needed it a lot. (Crawl space is being duly prepared for a big bash!)
Terrye,
I LOVE your writing!
I thanked all the participants here before, all of you who helped me to survive this election with mind relatively intact and without a visit to a hospital, but I’d like to do it again and again.
Forgive me if I do not address all of you be name (you know who you are!
.
At this point I am still nursing vicious headache and I have a feeling that it will be of the 3-day variety. But no complaints!
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:27 pm 61. Old Grouch:Catherine,
I’ve seen stories similar to yours in comment threads on a number of websites: The committed (Republican) voter in a safely red state who went to the polls just so “at least there won’t be any question about the popular vote this time.”
AFAIK none of the “professional analyists” has yet identified this particular slice of the electorate, yet I’d be willing to wager that it might have been just as important a force as the “evangelicals.” I’m sure it contributed to a bunch of the Republicans’ down-ticket victories.
The writer of the Post story seems to be dancing around the obvious conclusion that in this election there was a constituency that viewed national security as an overriding issue (like many inhabitants of Roger’s place). Why he tries to obscure its importance by linking “national security” and “lower taxes” is puzzling. (Perhaps he’s worried that the existence of a “national security” constituency confers legitimacy to the WOT?) As to Ralph Reed’s comment about “not doing much better… among seniors, women, Hispanics…” maybe his categories aren’t the right ones. I recall a report that Bush had improved among married people (both men and women) as opposed to singles. (Sort of a “duh” conclusion for anyone already concerned about the WOT.)
And well, I guess if we didn’t vote for Kerry we can’t be moderates, huh?
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:33 pm 62. Catherine:Patrick Tyson
Thanks!
I notice that the Brookings guy also says Bush would be winning in a landslide absent Iraq . . .
DtP
I found your comment saying Bush won the election the last week in September—–what was happening then?
I’ve forgotten.
I remember the convention as having happened in early September. Was there something going on in Ohio?
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:40 pm 63. Catherine:Old Grouch
yet I’d be willing to wager that it might have been just as important a force as the “evangelicals.”
Wow!
I’m thrilled someone else thinks this might be so.
This was an unbelievably juicy election; people are going to be chewing it over for a long, long time.
I know I am.
(Isn’t Ralph Reed arguing that the Republicans did take moderates?? I’m skimming things rapidly today, so I haven’t read this closely yet . . . )
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:45 pm 64. Catherine:OK, the folks at New Republic are going to have to do better than this:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/election
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:50 pm 65. Old Grouch:Catherine,
You’re right… I was the one doing the skimming, and I skimmed right past the crucial not (as in “You don’t win by the margins we did and not do much better…”).
But what a convoluted sentence! I blame American education: Nobody learns rhetoric anymore.
Nov 3, 2004 - 5:53 pm 66. Doug:I have no faith that the Democrats get it at all. ALready today I can see the hate, disgust and contempt oozing through them. Because of the relative tightness of the election, they think they are within striking distance. I really think they have a bit of Lenin in them. They would impose their entire view on all of us if they could and they appear to have contempt for the Democratic process. They appear incapable of introspection. Where is the Democratic Ronald Reagan? They are just waiting for the country to “wake up” to what they know is the truth. I suspect they will be waiting a long time.
Nov 3, 2004 - 6:00 pm 67. Old Grouch:Re: the “Moral Values” thing, there’s some discussion over on the Van Gogh murder thread.
I was going to post there (but didn’t, so I’m posting here) that I can just imagine the New Republic writer seeing “moral values” and thinking “Evangelical Christian doctrine,” totally missing the issue of personal integrity of the respective candidates. (Which also ties into the Swift Boat/VVAW issue.)
Not to minimize the “gaily married stem cell” issue– I’m sure that was important to many red state voters.
The question was too poorly cast to gather any useful data unless there was a follow-up that’s not being reported. And didn’t they report this as being the #1 issue for 70-some percent of the voters? Even as a catch-all, that feels awfully high to me.
Nov 3, 2004 - 6:07 pm 68. Catherine:While there’s quite a lot of Reality Principle happening over at Kevin Drum’s blog, which is a good thing, there is also this:
I always like watching the processes of historical revisionism play themselves out inside one person’s head.
Apparently, according to Neil, liberal Blue Staters from Blueville (hello, Knucklehead) knew all along that Saddam had no WMD.
Or, alternatively, liberal Blue Staters from Blueville understand that they, like everyone else on the planet, believed that Saddam had weapons at the time that we invaded, but they take it as a given that while they themselves have absorbed the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, the poor dumb Red Staters did not get the memo.
I’m gonna just abandon all restraint here, and Blame the Mainstream Media.
I’d put money on it that a HUGE part of the reason this person thinks poor dumb Red Staters are uninformed is that g*d* poll someone did way back when that got huge play in the press.
Mickey Kaus has his work cut out for him.
Nov 3, 2004 - 6:09 pm 69. Old Grouch:OT-
Michele is running a post-election limerick contest.
Nov 3, 2004 - 6:20 pm 70. Martin Lindeskog:Have you read Bloggers Let Poll Cat Out of the Bag by Cynthia L. Webb?
Nov 3, 2004 - 9:11 pm 71. richard mcenroe:Blogging Machine? Why do I keep hearing the sound effect of Jack Benny’s Maxwell…?
Nov 3, 2004 - 9:18 pm 72. WichitaBoy:Patrick Tyson,
Welcome. It’s good to see you here.
Nov 3, 2004 - 9:43 pm 73. Kevin Murphy:Roger–
Perhaps you do Ed Bradley a disservice. I caught a wee hour CBS segment (circa 3:30am EST) where Ed Bradley was sitting, calculator in hand, suggesting that Ohio was indeed out of reach (something about needing 79% of the maximum suggested outstanding ballots), and that Kerry should bag it. Rather got rather snippy at that point, telling Bradley that this might be his hypothesis, but CBS News’ decision was to not call Ohio, that that is that.
Wish I had thought to TiVo it. I don’t think that 60 Minute’s Bradley and 60 Minutes II’s Rather are quite the buddies people think.
Nov 3, 2004 - 10:20 pm