Good Polling News?

The ‘generic democrat’ (or, in a different situation, ‘generic republican’) will always do better than each individual candidate, because generic people don’t have any negative traits. And since people generally don’t like politicians, their views of the negative traits generally outweigh the positive ones. This is a longstanding poll effect on both sides of the spectrum.

Ask yourself: What Does the Iowa Market Say? (WDIMS?)

By the way, I know the generics always favour the out party relative to head-to-head because of the points made here. But head-to-head at this stage always favours the incumbent because of differentials in name recognition, so it’s not clear a priori which of these will be a better long term predictor. Obviously there will be sample size issues, but are there studies from 84 or 92 or 96 (or even 72) about which turned out more accurate in the long run?

Brian,
are you suggesting that Bush has better name recognition than ‘unnamed democrat’? Surely not.

I’m deeply pessimistic about this — the Dems seem to be going for Gore-light, voters care little about the economic disaster Bush is inviting because its too far off, the handover in Iraq will be postponed till after the election (good for the people of Iraq, but bad for the prospects of unnamed Democrat)… and the economy is turning up temporarily (good for the poor, bad for unnamed Democrat). It all depends on two things — i) whether I’m wrong about the economy and ii) whether unnamed is a much better candidate in the election than in the primaries. And much ore on i) than on ii) I’m afraid.

And what exactly is it about Bush that should lead people who care about freedom to support him? I take that as an incredibly slur on people who care about freedom, Jim — you think we’re all stupid or something?

“Those who value freedom will favor Bush’s reelection.”

I despise this sort of comment, not because it’s really stupid and untrue (though it is) but because it’s this sort of thing that is making the word “freedom” into a political bludgeon without any meaning, to the point where I and most of the people I know–cringed a bit when they announced the name of Libeskind’s tower. And of course that reaction becomes more fodder for comments about how we don’t care about freedom.

Aside from the generic point already made about the excessive attractiveness of President Generic Democrat, it’s also crucial to note that the election isn’t this week (a revelation, I know). So poll results this far in advance are of little significance, intriguing as they are.

“3. Those who value freedom will favor Bush’s reelection; those with other values, from Islamofascists to believers in the wisdom of bureaucracies, will oppose him.”

Jim, could you please use the word ‘Islamofascists’ nearer to the beginnings of your posts? Then we could save valuable time.

Thanks.

Hmm – I’m not sure the restatement does capture his main point. My guess is that his main point was to annoy people by rhetorically monopolizing ‘freedom’ for the Bush side and calling the anti-Bush side Islamofascists or bureaucrat-trusters. Thus I don’t think there’s a lot of point in restating his post for him in order to make it less obnoxious – I think the obnoxious quality is the point. Kind of a nyah-nyah thing.

Oh, I am so NOT going to get into a debate about whether I might be misunderstanding/being uncharitable towards someone who says I don’t care about freedom, make common cause with Islamofascists, etc. etc.

As for “WMD program which even David Kay admits”, this is from Campaign Desk’s description of a Senate hearing with Kay:

At the same hearing [before the Senate Armed Services Committee], Sen. Mark Dayton (D., MN) asked Kay “how many countries … would you say in the world today would qualify under the category of developing weapons of mass destruction and related program activities, or having such activities?”

Probably about 50, replied Kay.

(emphasis added.)

A point of clarification. I was reacting to the attitude in the post, that it was so obvious that Bush _should_ be defeated that no argument was necessary on the point.

That said, Jeremy Pierce was right. I am suggesting that there are arguments for Bush’s reelection. And there are some against. I have even mentioned some on my site from time to time.

It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated. That does not, of course, show that we should reelect him, but it is something that thoughtful people should consider.

It is also a fact that all of his Democratic opponents wish to expand the government in ways that will reduce the freedom of the ordinary citizen. This may be worthwhile in terms of the financial security the citizens gain, but a complete argument should consider the losses, too.

Some have not read my paragraph about the Sudan carefully. I mentioned that as one example, not the whole case. I am not the only one who thinks the Bush administration deserves credit there. Even the Guardian has praised his efforts there. More recently, the Toronto Globe and Mail did the same.

I think that ending this civil war would be a fine accomplishment. I am not sure that all of my critics above would agree.

It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated.

Two things. First, you offer us no reason to believe this is true. I’ll concede that really compelling evidence for it would be pretty hard to gather, as you can’t commission a survey poll of terrorists, and even if you could there is no reason to believe they’d be truthful. Still, your assertion of a fact here, without even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence, isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on.

Second, I’m comfortable with the notion that Islamic terrorists are often quite wrong about a wide array of factual matters. Even if what you say is true, its relevance cannot simply be assumed.

I think that ending this civil war would be a fine accomplishment. I am not sure that all of my critics above would agree.

Silly me, I took you seriously, despite my better instincts. Now with this mealy-mouthed and inflamatory accusation, you make it clear I’ve been wasting my time.

It could actually be argued, contra Jim, that if one were a terrorist of the Osama tendency, one would like nothing more than a Bush re-election. Why so? Thanks to the 22nd amendment, Bush may have less motivation to pursue (or feign pursuit) of terrorist threats; alternatively, four more years of Bush, with the prospect random politically-expedient invasions of nasty but non-threatening nations, might be construed as perfect recruitment material for yer jihadists.

But it’s a stupid debating point, because arguments saying ‘vote X because the terrorists want X to lose’ have precious little to do with the functioning of a democracy.

Bush does not have to cater to a party base that is so unabashedly racist…

Three words: Bob. Jones. University.

And it’s four years since Bush’s primary campaign in SC, built upon smearing John McCain through push-polls referring to his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. Yes, Bush’s party base is so unabashedly non-racist that he spoke at an avowedly racist ‘university’ and his supporters played the ‘black baby’ card to win a primary.

As for the Waterloo of South Carolina, most of the facts are well-known, and among this group of Republicans, what happened has taken on the air of an unsolved crime, a cold case, with Karl Rove being the prime suspect. Bush loyalists, maybe working for the campaign, maybe just representing its interests, claimed in parking-lot handouts and telephone “push polls” and whisper campaigns that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered a black child with a prostitute. Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence their vote. Now here’s the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an especially admirable thing. Years back they’d adopted a baby from a Mother Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now eleven years old, waved along with the rest of the McCain brood from stages across the state, a dark-skinned child inadvertently providing a photo op for slander. The attacks were of a level and vitriol that even McCain, who was regularly beaten in captivity, could not ignore. He began to answer the slights, strayed off message about how he would lead the nation if he got the chance, and lost the war for South Carolina. Bush emerged from the showdown upright and victorious . . . and onward he marched.

So, two more words: utter garbage.

It seems Thorley think the Democratic party is an anti-semitic organisation, that a mere 80% of Jewish voters vote for. Either there’s a lot of self-hating Jews out there, or someone has a very odd definition of anti-semitism. I assume that’s what the racism accusation amounts to. Or maybe Democrats are anti-white. Or maybe black is white. Or maybe giving a recess appointment to Charles Pickering on the weekend of MLK’s birthday is playing to a racist base. Who knows these days?

So the Dems have sewn up the Islamofascist vote, the anti-freedom vote, the pro-Sudanese civil war vote, and the anti-Semitic vote.

My favorite kind of satire is when you can’t quite ever tell if they’re funnin’ ya. But I’m not getting that special tingle from these comments. :(

One benefit, though, is they lower the quality so much that even I no longer feel self-conscious about posting here. So, there goes the neighborhood.

BRING’EM ON! :)