The participants in this symposium (besides myself) were Lorie Byrd from PoliPundit & Byrd Droppings, Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters, & Daniel J. Flynn of Flynn Files who wrote Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas which I'm currently reading.

John Hawkins: Before the first debate, Bush appeared to have about a 6-8 point lead nationally in the polls. Then, after the first debate, the gap appeared to narrow to about a point or two. But, since the debates have concluded, we have had a Zogby poll showing a 4 point lead for Bush (and they lean left), Newsweek showing a 5 point Bush lead, and now Gallup showing Bush up by 8. However, the polls taken after the debates showed Bush lost each debate. How is it that Bush is coming out of the debates with momentum?

Captain Ed: I think that the polls themselves are flawed, especially the post-debate polls. But more than that, I think there is a built-in 48-hour absorption time frame for debate effects that they ignore.

Lorie Byrd: I agree about the polls being flawed and also agree that many who think Kerry technically won the debates don't think that equates to being a good president. Kerry's global test moment took a few days to sink in and showed up in the polls around the same time that Bush did so well in the 2nd and 3rd debates.

Captain Ed: I think that's a good point, Lorie.

John Hawkins: As Lorie said, while Kerry won in the polls, he did make a number of gaffes that hurt him, the Mary Cheney comments and the Global Test being perfect examples. Bush also made a good case that Kerry was a liberal. And the American public does not want a liberal President, especially in a time of war.

Lorie Byrd: Bush also made a good case that he is human and Kerry is an elitist robot. I think Bush kicked Kerry's butt in the second and third debates and was surprised that more polls didn't reflect that, but then I don't really understand most of the polls. Who are they talking to?

Daniel J. Flynn: Despite his strong showing in debate #2, Bush lost the debates overall. But Americans aren't looking for a debater-in-chief. Bush comes across as more likable, more of an everyman than Kerry. Having said that, I do think Bush made a mistake in agreeing to three debates. Debates generally put the candidates on an equal plane in the minds of the viewers.

Lorie Byrd: You are probably right, but it actually worked out that Bush needed the final two to make up for the first one.

Captain Ed: As I recall, the flash poll after the Carter-Reagan debate showed Carter the winner -- and the debate wound up burying him. Actually, I thought Kerry presented himself better than I expected in all three debates, but in all three, he continued to make the same mistakes he does on the campaign trail. He talks without thinking, leading to silly mistakes like 'global tests'.

John Hawkins: See Ed, I think that's just the real John Kerry coming through. The fake John Kerry is the guy talking about how he's the guy who's going to be tougher on terrorism than Bush. When Kerry says we have to get terrorism back to where it's a 'nuisance', that's the real John Kerry.

Captain Ed: Exactly. That's why his handlers have kept him from having press conferences since the convention. The one time he did, it was a disaster. That was when he said that he 'might be handed Beirut' in January, and so on.

John Hawkins: See if you agree or disagree with this question. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the three key states. If either candidate wins all 3, they win. If Bush wins 2 out of 3, he wins. If Kerry wins 2 out of 3, it's a 2000 style dogfight.

Daniel J. Flynn: If a candidate wins 3 of 3, that candidate is president.

Captain Ed: Anyone who takes all three wins. Bush could lose two out of three and still win, but it won't be easy.

Lorie Byrd: I agree with Captain Ed.

Captain Ed: I expect Bush to pick up Wisconsin and Iowa, and possibly Minnesota, which negates the effect of losing Ohio or Florida, but not both.

Daniel J. Flynn: I could envision Kerry not winning FL and OH and still winning the election. I can't imagine Bush losing OH or FL and still winning the election.

John Hawkins: Well, let's say Bush loses Ohio, I believe that would put Bush at 268 electoral votes because of the gains made in the 2000 census. Then, if W takes Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, or Oregon and can hold the rest of the 2000 states, he wins.

Daniel J. Flynn: Gore lost those states last time and still came close to winning. If Kerry takes, say, Nevada, New Hampshire, and another state from the Bush column, he could win without taking OH or FL.

John Hawkins: New Hampshire could very well go Kerry and that would be 4 electoral votes. Nevada looks to be leaning Bush.

Daniel J. Flynn: Kerry has a slight Nevada lead in the October 5 Zogby poll.

John Hawkins: But, Kerry's down by 2-9 points in 4 polls since then.

Captain Ed: I'd be careful of Zogby's numbers, Dan. They're reliably unreliable until just before any election.

Daniel J. Flynn: I don't agree, Captain Ed. Democrats used to blast Zogby for inflating Republican numbers. Now Republicans blast him for doing the same for Democrat numbers.

John Hawkins: Zogby had the worst performance in the 2002 polls of all the major pollsters. Zogby missed more Senate races than any of the other pollsters in 2002 and he leaned Democrat in all of them. He uses samples with too many Democrats in them.

Lorie Byrd: He has his own personal biases as well. Remember he called the race for Kerry a while back.

Captain Ed: He also uses on-line polling, which hasn't proved very reliable.

John Hawkins: I'm suspicious of Rasmussen too because their polls don't seem to show movement the way other polls do. For example with Rasmussen, after the Republican convention when all the other polls showed like 8-10 points of movement towards Bush, I think Rasmussen only showed 4. I find that odd.

Lorie Byrd: I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but I don't see how Kerry could lose Florida and Ohio and still win. Bush is currently campaigning in more Blue states than Kerry is Red states. It just looks like there are a lot more electoral votes that went blue last time, leaning red than the other way around.

Captain Ed: I'm looking at Gallup's polling results on a state-by-state basis. They have the following Gore states going Bush right now: Wisconsin (10 EV), Iowa (7 EV), New Mexico (5 EV), with MN too close to call (10 EV).

John Hawkins: You think Kerry regrets taking John Edwards at this point?

Lorie Byrd: I do. I am speaking here as a North Carolinian and I just can't understand why he chose Edwards.

John Hawkins: I never thought Edwards put North Carolina in play, but I think Kerry felt he needed Edwards to help bring in the women's vote and gin up some excitement about the party on the ticket.

Lorie Byrd: Edwards was a successful trial lawyer, but I honestly don't understand how after hearing him campaign. He has so little substance.

John Hawkins: Although of course, hindsight is 20/20, had Kerry taken Gephardt, he would likely take Missouri and its 11 electoral votes making this a much different race.

Lorie Byrd: I wondered at the time why he didn't take Gephardt. I wonder if it was because of Gephardt's stand on the war. He wasn't changing his position on it daily like Kerry was.

Captain Ed: I'm not sure about Gephardt carrying MO for Kerry. Gep's not all that popular state-wide, which is why he's never run for Senate or Governor. But he would have done better with the Midwest than Edwards.

Daniel J. Flynn: I don't think VP selections matter much in a purely political sense. Edwards gives Kerry balance--he's young, charismatic, and from the South.

Lorie Byrd: I am optimistic that Bush could still win New Jersey. Does anyone else think that is still possible?

Captain Ed: I don't think Bush can win in New Jersey, but he can make Kerry sweat there.

John Hawkins: I think Bush could win New Jersey, but only if it's a lopsided Bush win.

Lorie Byrd: Well, personally, that is what I am hoping for -- a lopsided Bush win.

Daniel J. Flynn: If Bush wins New Jersey, then he'll win in a landslide. I don't see that happening.

Captain Ed: I agree with Dan, Bush wins NJ only in the middle of a landslide.

John Hawkins: What do you think about the ballot initiative in Colorado (Amendment 36) that splits the 9 electoral votes based on percentage of the vote won? For example, a Bush win 55% to 45% would mean 5 electoral votes for Bush and 4 for Kerry. It's also retroactive.

Captain Ed: I think some Coloradans want to make themselves irrelevant! I wonder how many people who vote on the issue will fully understand the consequences?

John Hawkins: I mean why bother even campaigning in Colorado if you can only win one vote?

Daniel J. Flynn: If it passes, there will be a constitutional challenge from the Bush camp in applying it to this election. It has the potential of making 2004 more litigious than 2000.

John Hawkins: I'm sure Dan is right and it would go to the courts since it's retroactive.

Lorie Byrd: The way I see it, a state has its own laws and its own interests and personality.

Daniel J. Flynn: In Maine, the split in electoral votes from their two congressional districts might help Bush. I think Bush will win that rural Congressional district, adding an electoral vote that wasn't there last time. In red-state Colorado, the split in the electoral votes will help Kerry.

Captain Ed: Again, it pretty much makes Maine irrelevant in the election, although the district split makes it somewhat more interesting than just a representation of the popular vote. And I think the retroactive part of the Colorado initiative will get thrown out if it passes at all.

John Hawkins: Yeah, I think this would be such a bad thing nationally. For example, let's say 2004 rolls around and the Democrats have managed to split the electoral votes in Texas or Florida or the Republicans have managed to split the electoral vote in California. It creates a situation that puts one party or the other at a huge disadvantage.

Daniel J. Flynn: I think splitting state electoral votes makes us less a republic and more a democracy--that being a bad thing.

Lorie Byrd: I agree completely Dan.

Captain Ed: My concern is that the urban centers will get all the attention. The low-population states will never willingly go for it.

Lorie Byrd: I just wonder, since I don't live in Colorado, if the public is being properly informed about the ramifications.

John Hawkins: Huge amounts of out-of-state money is coming in for the people who favor splitting the electoral vote.

Lorie Byrd: Who is it that is pushing it?

John Hawkins: A Democrat out of California is the main guy and the purpose is to hurt Bush's chances of reelection this year. A quick note on the ballot initiative in Colorado. The last poll I saw was a Mason-Dixon poll that showed 44 percent of Coloradans are opposed to Amendment 36 while 35 percent support the measure. That shows that Coloradans may be turning on the measure. So Ralph Nader. Could he play spoiler again this year?

Daniel J. Flynn: I don't think so. He's on the ballot in too few states. Additionally, many of his supporters regret what happened last time and will be voting for Kerry.

Lorie Byrd: I don't think Nader will be a huge factor. I wouldn't be surprised if many saying they will vote for him now, end up voting for Kerry in the privacy of the voting booth.

John Hawkins: I agree. My gut instinct tells me this isn't going to be as tight as 2000 and Nader won't matter as much. You never know though. Time will tell.

Lorie Byrd: I worry that his biggest influence on the race will come from the Democrats' challenge to him on the ballot costing military and other absentee votes.

Captain Ed: Nader can cause problems in specific states -- possibly Florida and Oregon, which has become much closer than I expected.

Lorie Byrd: I saw Nader on CNN today and Wolf Blitzer spent an unbelievable amount of time trying to shame him into dropping out or at least to bad mouth Bush.

John Hawkins: Actually, I understand how they feel because I feel the same way about Libertarians as Democrats do about Nader. You got a candidate who has no hope of winning mucking things up for the party that in many ways, better represents his views. So tell me who you think is going to win the election and by roughly how many electoral votes?

Lorie Byrd: Groan. Must we?

Captain Ed: Heh...

John Hawkins: Yeah, make your call. I'll go first. I predict Bush by 75-100 electoral votes.

Lorie Byrd: I am going to say Bush will win by 75 electoral votes, but I think two weeks is an eternity in politics. A lot can happen between now and election day, but many of the things that could happen will help Bush more than hurt him.

Daniel J. Flynn: Undecideds generally swing for the challenger. Additionally, the anti-Bush vote is more passionate than the pro-Bush vote. If Bush and Kerry are neck-and-neck next weekend, Kerry will win.

Lorie Byrd: I wonder about all the young people being registered and whether or not they will show up to vote.

Captain Ed: Okay ... I think Bush takes 35 states and wins by 100 EV. I disagree with Dan on passion, BTW; all polls show that Bush's support has been more passionate than Kerry's all along.

John Hawkins: Personally, I think there are a lot more national security voters who will turn out for Bush than Bush-haters who will turn out to vote against W. Also, I don't think it's tied right now. I think W. has a 4-6 point lead nationally after looking at Gallup, Newsweek, and the Zobgy poll which now shows W up by 2 (that means he's probably really up by about 5).

Daniel J. Flynn: I agree that there is more pro-Bush passion than pro-Kerry passion. Read my post carefully. I said the anti-Bush vote is more passionate than the pro-Bush vote. On Bush's side, the red states have increased in electoral power. Bush also holds leads in most national polls.

John Hawkins: I don't know, I think there are a lot of rabid liberals out there who truly hate W and will turn out, but I think there are a lot more people who will be terrified of having a man like John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief during the war on terrorism.

John Hawkins: So Dan, give us your final prediction. Which candidate and by how many electoral votes?

Daniel J. Flynn: My prediction is that it's going to be close--meaning neither candidate will get more than 310 electoral votes. I could see Kerry winning the election. I could see Bush winning. A lot of Bush supporters can't conceptualize the former happening, but there's a good chance of it.

Lorie Byrd: Dan, you are really scaring me. I don't even want to consider Kerry as Commander-in-Chief. It is too frightening a thought.

John Hawkins: I'd put it about 75% Bush winning, 25% Kerry at this point personally Daniel. Kerry could certainly win...

Daniel J. Flynn: Polls generally undercut challengers because undecideds swing toward them. Additionally, the left is passionate to kick Bush out. Keep those things in mind when evaluating poll data.

Lorie Byrd: Are any of you holding your breath and crossing your fingers about a terrorist attack between now and the election?

John Hawkins: That's the last question Lorie. Any October Surprises you see coming up? Terrorist attack? Scandal? Bin Laden captured? Kerry turns out to have been born in France and is thus ineligible to run ;D? Anything.

Lorie Byrd: My opinion is that with so many of the possible 'surprises' the outcome could go either way. It is almost impossible to predict which candidate would be helped or hurt.

Captain Ed: I think the uptick in violence in Iraq has been the terrorists' Sept/Oct surprise

John Hawkins: Yeah, I expect more bloody violence in Iraq all the way through the election as they try to hurt W's election chances. Well gentlemen, Mrs. Byrd, it has been a pleasure. I appreciate all of you participating. That's it.

© Copyright 2001-2009 John Hawkins
	hit counter