Ace of Spades HQ

« Newsweek: Eleven Point Lead | Main | Tentative: LAX "Explosion" Not Terrorism »

September 04, 2004

Bush's Temporary Rally

I think that the convention was just about as successful as one of these things can be. It accomplished three key goals:

* It apparently succeeded in persuading some undecided voters, at least for the moment.

* It re-convinced many of what they had at one time believed. A lot of people who once strongly supported the War in Iraq and Bush's handling of same were, to some extent, reminded of why they'd once felt that way.

* It energized religious conservatives, who had soured on the Bush presidency. Karl Rove thinks that if he can get the votes of four million evangelicals who had sat on their hands in 2000, Bush is a lock for re-election. That's a lot of votes. But the base does seem to be much more enthusiastic now than it was two weeks ago. A lot of this was accomplished not by promising them the moon (although Bush did of course state we needed to "make a place for unborn children" and that marriage was between a man and a woman), but by persuading them that a John Forbes Kerry presidency would be flat-out intolerable to them.

All of these are very important.

But Bush's newfound electoral strength is likely to be short-lived. Voters favor Bush when 9/11 is the issue; but we also know their memories quickly fade. The RNC did a superb job of reminding everyone Why We Fight, but, if the public largely forgot about 9/11 three years after the actual tragedy, it's not likely to remain in their minds for very long after a mere reminiscence.

Of course we're coming upon the anniversary of 9/11, and that will extend memories for a time, but by the end of September, the public will forget again.

And Bush still faces major potential setbacks. We have not yet dealt with al-Sadr because we fear that when we do deal with him (and by "deal," I mean "kill"), the country may explode in civil war. We are attempting, I think, to put off this inevitable confrontation as long as possible, but I don't think we can dely for much longer. I don't think the public will gladly accept another month of intense fighting and high casualties.

Al Qaeda will, of course, attempt a major terrorist attack before 9/11. I don't believe that such an attack "helps Bush." I think it hurts Bush just as it hurts the country. And while we may be better at thwarting terrorist attacks now than I'd previously thought, it's impossible to stop many kinds of terrorist attacks, and especially when the Bush Administration is still somewhat unserious about doing what is necessary to protect us.

All that said, there is still the potential for good news as well as bad news. One big month of job production in September will seal the deal.

So would a major Al Qaeda capture.

A bit of pressure can crack John Forbes Kerry's confidence and shatter the fragile loyalty of Dean-lovin' Democrats.

And, of course, it's better to have a temporary lead than a temporary deficit. Bush seems to have more potential voters than Kerry, too; the numbers suggest that, on his best day, Bush can garner 50-52% of the vote, while Kerry can only garner 48-50%. Bush on a good day will beat Kerry on a good day, but November 2 won't necessarily be a good day for Bush.

There's a lot of things that yet have to happen, or not happen, for Bush to win this election.

Electoral Watch: As expected, Bush advances in electors.

And Terezzzza Will Be a Continuing Source of Good News, Too: The "candid, refreshing" idle-rich billionaire gold-digger delights in a 1994 speech by explaining that the Christian right "broadcasts its hatred" and appeals "to the dark corners of the human soul."

I had been a doubter, but I will concede it right now: She really is refreshing.

I feel very refreshed. Keep the refreshments coming, Terezzzza.

Skewed Sample in Newsweek poll?: So says this poster on Free Republic, pointing out that the poll sampled 374 Republicans, 303 Democrats, and 300 Independents.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are roughly at parity in this country, but this poll sampled about 25% more GOPers than Dems.

This is always a problem in polling. If you get a lot of people identifying as Republican, does that mean there's been some big shift of people to the party (in which case your numbers are accurate, more or less) or does it mean you just got a non-representative sample (in which case your numbers are worthless)? Do you attempt to correct/adjust for this imbalance, or do you report the raw figures?

I actually think that the convention might have minted a few more people identifying as Republican -- Guiliani and Schwarzenegger did a great job, and so did Bush, it turns it out -- but 25% more? Seems very high.

Good Point: Fred Barnes notes:

Kerry won't have an easy time making up ground he lost since the Democratic convention in late July. It's clear now his theory of the campaign was wrong. A majority of Americans haven't basically decided against giving Bush a second term. Thus it's not enough for Kerry to demonstrate simply that he's competent to be president. The bar isn't that low. Kerry will have to be far more appealing than he's ever been to scoot past Bush. Or the president will have to screw up badly. Both are possible, especially the latter.

posted by Ace at 02:50 PM

Comments

Can't agree with this analysis.Kerry is finished because he is Kerry and because his Party is bankrupt.What is important about the latest polls (well actually ALL the polls in August)is not Bush's rating;it is Kerry's rating which had been on a long slow slide since the DNC and now just fell off the cliff last week.
If Bush loses this election it will be a sign that the end is near as 'historical reality'is clearly pointing to a blowout in preparation for the world conflict with Islam.This is not a NORMAL election.This is an historical turning point election and should not be viewed through the norman prism.

MSM self-destructing and losing credibility each and every day.
Hollywood gone off the cliff already and showing how shallow it really is.
Michael Moore considered a profit by the LLL when any normal person just sees a FAT,GRUBBY,DISHEVELLED,IGNORANT,propagandist.
Zell Miller telling it like it is for MANY MANY MANY fed up people.And as a bonus he managed to take on the media as well.Remember he was supposed to be too HOT,but yesterday GWB was playing him up as a man who would campaign with him, to BIG appluse in Pennsylvania.
United(anti-terror)Republican Party.See Zogby comments.
Divided and fearful Democratic Party.Watch and listen to ANY of their spokespeople.
Bush ---- decent man.This is allowed even by his opponents.
Kerry---- waste of space.This is allowed even by his supporters.
I don't think these are biased points.They may be one-sided but not biased.
Titanic is exactly the analogy as you have pointed out previously.Once you hit the iceberg,there simply is no turning back.Its just a matter of time.Any terrorist attack simply makes the damage to Kerry worse.Most decent people have had enough and it shows.

Posted by: dougf on September 4, 2004 03:10 PM

Ace, don't you dare question Teresa's patriotism.

Posted by: Cpl. Menno on September 4, 2004 03:14 PM

I question your patriotism.

Posted by: ace on September 4, 2004 03:23 PM

I question EVERYONE'S patriotism.
New data from Rasmussen below--- All GOOD NEWS.

http://tinyurl.com/66n2b

Posted by: dougf on September 4, 2004 03:40 PM

Dougf,

Good stuff, but since Kerry's onetime lead was soft and easily lost, what gives you confidence that Bush's lead is solid and permanent?

Posted by: ace on September 4, 2004 03:44 PM

That was sort of rhetorical, by the way. You don't need to prove your hunch.

Posted by: ace on September 4, 2004 03:45 PM

Ace--

Have you been paying attention to your site visits and views? Perhaps I'm reading Sitemeter wrong, but it looks like you're positively on fucking FIRE lately.

Or just look at the numbers of comment postings-- double digits on nearly every post during the past few days.

In my informal polling, you're responsible for a massive energizing of the Republican/conservative/shitkicker base, and doing more than your part for a safer, more hopeful America.

Congrats!

Your number #1 fan (like Kathy Bates, only sexier),
Dave
Arlington, Virginia

Posted by: Dave on September 4, 2004 03:49 PM

Have you been paying attention to your site visits and views? Perhaps I'm reading Sitemeter wrong, but it looks like you're positively on fucking FIRE lately.

I look at that thing more that I'm comfortable admitting. It's not so much that I'm getting more traffic (although I am; I got a couple of big linkers, like Instapundit), but that I re-did my template so that SiteMeter is on my archive pages. I was actually getting a lot more hits than sitemeter was recording; now they're being recorded.

Or just look at the numbers of comment postings-- double digits on nearly every post during the past few days.

That's cool too.

In my informal polling, you're responsible for a massive energizing of the Republican/conservative/shitkicker base, and doing more than your part for a safer, more hopeful America.

Hah. I choose to pretend you're halfway serious.

I'm doing all this for the freaking Bush Administration, and not a one of them invited me to any cool convention parties.

And I assure you my schedule was open.

I lay down this marker: If someone in the Bush administration doesn't show me a little love, I too might begin feeling "heart-ache" about Abu Ghraib and gay marriage.

Posted by: ace on September 4, 2004 04:28 PM

Hey, no one wants me to go all Sullivan.

I'se just sayin' it's time for the Bushies to give me some props.

Just a little somethin'-somethin'. That's all I'm axing for.

Posted by: ace on September 4, 2004 04:46 PM

I work for the Pentagon. . . is that close enough to count as the Bush Administration?

Yeah, probably not. Although I'm certain that a Kerry Admin would make my job look very different than it does now, we are, after all officially apolitical.

And, besides, all our parties suck since Tailhook ruined the fun for everybody.

Ace, I'll do my best to find a Bush appointee to send you the love you so richly deserve-- I'm important. I know people. I drive a Dodge Stratus.

Cheers,
Dave
Arlington, Virginia

P.S. Too bad about the Sitemeter thing. Like that poorly designed Newsweek poll, it's just The Man lying with his "statistics" again. But it should help out big in your future, so continued good luck!

Posted by: Dave on September 4, 2004 04:48 PM

Ace,

'Preciate the voice of restraint and realism, but come on, you don't sound that convinced of your own pessimism. Consider these polls as less a bounce than a recovery to the correct level. Awhile ago, before the invasion and during all of the talk of street-to-street fighting in Bagdad, I was chatting with some European coworkers who were certain that Bush would be trounced come the next election, and I pointed out that if the Saddam crumbled quickly (he did) and the economy began to uptick (it has - more cowbell), Bush would win easily. Once the Democratic primary came down to Dean/Kerry, I felt even more comfortable. The RNC was run without any pandering to the left, and frankly generated huge momentum. Even the aforementioned Europeans were greatly impressed, although despondant (ha ha). And there is no reason why Bush won't let up. In fact, let me now make the comparison between the upcoming election and the pre-invasion jitters - and we know how that one turned out.

The histronics coming from the left's bloggers and pundits? Smell's like victoy...

Posted by: Mike on September 5, 2004 01:53 PM

'Preciate the voice of restraint and realism, but come on, you don't sound that convinced of your own pessimism.

I don't think I'm pessismistic. I'm more optimistic now than I've been in six months.

But he's not up by 11. He's up by four or five, and he could easily lose that lead. He will definitely lose some or most of it within three weeks.

Things could break his way. But things could break against him.

Posted by: ace on September 5, 2004 03:18 PM

I take strong opposition to the comment that people cant take another month of casualties in Iraq. Maybe the left cant, but those supporting the war can, because the implications of success there has ripples effects on all 1 billion muslims and on our safety for future generations.

Like Zell, I stand with securing our safety in the future.

The whole Iraq situation is a Rorschach test: It's a crucial part of the war on terror to us; it's a useless diversion to others. Saddam sponsored, aided, funded, harbored terrorists. And had links to Al Qaeda, including offering safe haven to Bin Laden. HE was a threat, and moreover, this state sponsor of terrorism had a $10 billion corruption-based slush fund to support our enemies, undermine our policies, support terrorists, and pursue banned weapons.

The War on Terror is World War IV (viz Podheretz article) and that the liberation of Iraq is a key part of our effort to win that war.
This idea that we would 'fold' due to casualties is absurd if put in that context. Are we really saying we must win World War IV, but not if there are too many casualties???

Liberating Iraq

Posted by: Patrick on September 5, 2004 05:24 PM