Is anyone else pissed at Gergen's "tie goes to Bush" argument?

[dolstein]

Professional "former presidential adviser" David Gergen, as he typically does, flawlessly regurgitated the conventional wisdom that Bush, not Kerry, would benefit from a draw. The establishment, already hostile to Kerry, has stacked the deck even further against him by effectively declaring that anything other than a decisive victory must be scored as a loss for Kerry. Some have even suggested that the election will be over for all practical purposes if Kerry doesn't inflict some major damage in tonight's debate.

But when you think about it for a moment, this argument is far from convincing. After all, in 1980, Reagan merely had to appear presidential in order to win over an electorate that had a largely unfavorable view of the incumbent but remained very queasy and skeptical about Reagan. Why should this year be any different? A majority of the electorate doesn't like the direction we're headed in. The really don't want another four years of Bush's policies. Even those who say they'll vote for Bush want to see major changes in direction. Why wouldn't Kerry GAIN from a draw? Why wouldn't people think -- "gee, this guy held his own against the President. And since I don't like what the President is doing, I'll give Kerry a shot."

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. ok repeat after me

it is the media stupid, just like begala used to say, it is the economy stupod

Now follow the money, when they have billions in front of congress (the corporate meda, some suspect trillions) you think they want Kerry?

It is that simple, and anger does not help.

[napi21]

2. Actually, he's probably right. Remember this time

we are trying to unseat a sitting president. That's different than 2000.

I don't think Kerry would lose anything in a tie, but for him to win the election, he has to be better than the current office holder.

I really think Gergen is one of the few realistic comentators on cable.

[Lex]

6. I think on his worst day Kerry would look like a better choice

in a side-by-side comparison.

[dolstein]

7. Reagan was trying to unseat a sitting president in 1980

NT

[napi21]

9. Of course he was, but do you remember what things were like then?

I do! Interest rates were 20%+. Unemployment was shy high. The country wasn't a very happy place to be.

[Lex]

11. Unlike the happy place it is now?

[Cha]

13. Dean made a very good case for Kerry

on Tavis Smiley tonight. He said the People already decided they want to give bush the "pink slip". What Kerry has to do is connect to the American People..said Kerry has a "core of Steel" and he's a Strong Closer!

[Lex]

15. That's it. What Dean said. Exactly.

Thanks for posting that!

[secular_warrior]

19. Gergen in very principaled

Gergen is one of the true moderate voices out there in a cable news world of right wing whores. I've always found him to be very independent, fair and honest.

He is a throwback -- an old school moderate Republican that we can only read about in history books.

[geek tragedy]

20. One sometimes forgerts he's a Republican, compared to the Bush/DeLay crowd

Lowered expectations aside, Kerry should shine tomorrow.

Kerry will win if he connects with voters. That's all he has to do, and he wins.

[secular_warrior]

23. the Christiano-fascists have hijacked the Republican Party,

which for 100 years was more of a moderate libertarian party of Northern secular values, more like Dwight Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe than fascist fundamentalist thugs like Delay.

[geek tragedy]

24. That party is dead.

The South has completely destroyed that great party, after it almost destroyed the soul of the Democratic party.

[secular_warrior]

26. I was reading an article which said the Southern conservative dominance

of the GOP -- especially the religious right -- will eventually drive the moderates out and lead to the downfall of the GOP. The South has only started to really implement it's far right social agenda. Once the rest of the old Southern Dem seats go Republican, they will have almost total control of the party. So what may look like a lost region for us will be the end of the GOP as a majority party.

[geek tragedy]

27. That is contingent on working class people putting aside their prejudice

against gays and opposition to abortion to fight for their own self-interest.

Hasn't happened yet in the history of the Republic, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

A more likely turnaround will happen as more and more minorities move to the South.

[secular_warrior]

29. That sounds like a probable scenario

I am from a northeastern metro area and every day I hear of people who are moving to places like Tennesee, Kentucky and of course Florida. Once Florida becomes a solid Dem state (the hurricanes may have an impact on whether this happens later rather than sooner) we will have a much larger electoral vote base and will be able to run on a much stronger liberal message.

Metro vs. Retro. It's all about expanding the "metro" base. The "retro" base has expanded as much as it can and there is no where to go but down as cities spring up and metro people move in and change the political balance in retro states.

ps. I still feel the GOP will become very divided between the Southern fundamentalists and the McCain types. McCain has not made it a secret that he detests the power the Falwells and Robertsons have over the GOP. Don't think the McCain moderates won't make a play for control of the party. And the Southern conservatives won't give an inch once the GOP is forced to move to the center as the party electoral base declines. The Southern conservatives will try to split off and go third party just as they did with the Democrats over social issues (civil rights/segregation) a generation ago.

[geek tragedy]

30. One reason to hope for the collapse of Castro's regime is that

it would get the Miami Mafia to move back to Cuba, thus making the place a solid BLUE for a generation.

Georgia may be within reach in a decade or so--same thing with West Virginia and North Carolina.

Right now, we just have to wait for all the white Southerners who were alive during the 40's and 50's to die off.

[secular_warrior]

31. I still think the new generation of white southerners will go GOP

These people all think alike.. maybe slightly more moderate than their parents and grandparents, which for the new generation means they maybe won't support the klan or segregation.

What concerns me with our electoral base is the upper midwest - Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin - seems to be slipping away. What's puzzling is these states were once hardcore liberal states, not DINO conservative states.

[geek tragedy]

32. Suburban voters are the problem.

They are very conservative, very antigovernment. They hate the cities upon which they depend for their livelihoods.

They are very anti-tax.

[secular_warrior]

33. Taxes have always been the death-knell to the liberal message

We can never again run on higher taxes and fiscal irresposibility. Nobody -- not even most Dems and especially most middle class voters -- wants to pay higher taxes. Liberals need to focus on how to make the tax system more progressive -- not simply raise taxes on everyone. Kerry has it exactly correct by cutting middle class taxes and making the rich and the corporations pay their fair share -- that's the way to bring back Democratic populism and sell the liberal message. We need to run on a platform of getting rid of regressive taxes like sales taxes, gas taxes and other taxes that hurt the poor and middle class. We need to focus on accountability and results when it comes to liberal social programs so we can go before the voters with simple cost/benefit analysis -- hard numbers to dispel the notion their taxes are going towards wasteful programs.

Howard Dean had a very compelling, fiscally responsible message -- but killed it with his plan to roll back all of the tax cuts -- a sure loser in a presidential election -- just ask McGovern and Mondale. Dean's message of fiscally responsible, deficit hawk liberalism is the future of the party, combined with the progressive/populist Kerry/Edwards tax approach.

[Andromeda]

35. That's exactly right.

God, guns and gays. Just like Howard Dean said, only when he said it, it made everybody squirm, at first. Dean has a way of nailing things and this time he hit it square on the head.

It's unbelievable to me that people who don't have an education, healthcare, a job or a decent place to live will consistantly vote against their self-interest.

They're too brain washed to know any better.

[geek tragedy]

38. God, guns, and gays has been the Repuke strategy since 1994.

Dems still haven't figured out a way to beat it.

[Carla in Ca]

3. Can they show clips during the debate? (I wish)

Here is my choice
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/abc-bushlie.html

This is how Kerry wins.

[BootinUp]

4. I suspect the media pundits will have less impact

this time then 2000 by a wide margin. This is the year of high turnout, high voter interest, divisive politics, etc. A pundit spin will not have the same impact in that environment as the apathy of 2000. Don't fret. Kerry is the man and more people than ever before will learn that tomorrow.

[Lex]

5. dolstein--I think your analysis makes more sense

If Kerry just shows up and looks good and sound reasonably smart, which he'll do, then he wins.

Remember, no one has stood beside Bush for comparison in 4 long and frightening years. Most people will see the stark difference when they are side-by-side.

[secular_warrior]

8. Bush is not as unpopular as Carter was

Unfortunately Democrats have not found the way or the will to counter the GOP media machine which has influenced the non-partisan mainstream media. This has resulted in the worst president ever coming across as simply average, and a debate tie would go to an average incumbent president.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. Bush's job approval rating is significantly higher than Carter's in '80

That is the difference, IMO. I think Kerry WILL benefit from a tie, but it would undeniably be plenty if Bush had a kick-his-ass-out job approval number like Carter in '80 or Bush Sr. in '92. The Bush approval rating is stradling 50% depending on which poll you consider. That is uncharted territory for an incumbent heading into an election. Kerry's chances appear to vary dramatically if Bush heads toward 45 or 55 prior to November 2.

I copied this off Gallup's site early this year:

"The average job approval rating for the years in which presidents have sought re-election since World War II is 54%. Truman had a 48% approval rating in 1948, Eisenhower had 72% in 1956, Johnson had 73% in 1964, Nixon had 56% in 1972, Ford had 49% in 1976, Carter had 38% in 1980, Reagan had 56% in 1984, Bush had 41% in 1992, and Clinton had 56% in 1996. Of these presidents seeking re-election, Ford, Carter, and Bush eventually lost the elections in those years, and it is noteworthy that all had averages below 50%.

"For the three losing incumbents, the final Gallup job approval rating before the election was 45% for Ford, 37% for Carter and 33% for the elder Bush."

[secular_warrior]

17. exactly - because once numbers get below 50% it usually means

Democrats are abandoning a Democratic president (which happened to Carter) or Republicans are abandoning a Republican president (which happened to HW Bush).

This time around the country is so polarized that Repubs are sticking with Bush no matter how terrible a president he has been. Democrats would vote for a ham sandwich if it was the Democratic nominee -- anything to prevent Bush from getting re-Selected

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Good point

Yesterday I checked out the partisan percentages in key states at http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ Bush is maintaining an extremely high level of Republican support, generally losing only about 5% to Kerry and sometimes as low as 1 or 2 percent. The only significant slippage I noticed was in Arizona at 9% and New Hampshire at 11%.

Of course, sometimes Democratic registration numbers are a joke in the south and lower midwest, Republican voters who never switched party allegiance. Kerry normally loses about 10% of Democrats in the states I looked at, but it's an absurd 25% in Louisiana and 30% in Oklahoma. The troubling number is West Virginia, where 21% of Democrats are apparently ready to betray us again.

[secular_warrior]

25. As I've said before -- the DINOs remaining hurt us more than help

because it always looks as if "Democrats are abandoning the party" --which supports Zell's argument.

It's why if this party is to survive it has to decide what it stands for and be proud of it -- instead of trying to walk the tightrope between the liberal base and conservative Dems leftover from the pre-1960s Democratic party. Anyway the DLC tries to slice it, the party is now a moderately liberal party united by cosmopolitan, secular values. Liberals and moderate liberals ARE the majority in this country, but the DINOs leftover entice the party to run center-right in national elections in hopes of getting these voters back, instead of running a strong, responsible liberal message to build a true majority coalition.

[Cha]

12. Hogwash! I also saw a talking

head on charley rose who said that the debates could be decided by the pundits who were making the analysis afterwards.

It's like in their subtle way they are trying to decide the debates for us before the fact and beyond.

[TnDem]

14. 1980 though was different

While it's true that in 1980 Reagan only had to "look presidential", the whole situation was different. Carter,(fairly or unfairly), was viewed as a weak incumbent, hand-wringing president who had no direction or guts. Bush* is viewed as strong by the public at large and Kerry is the one viewed as indecisive.

And you're right....The elite are definitely against us in this race.

[elperromagico]

16. Bush has been losing to "Someone New" for some time, hasn't he?

It seems to me all Kerry has to do is convince the fence-sitters that he's "Someone New."

[secular_warrior]

18. "Un-named Democrat" was destroying Bush

All Kerry has to show is he is good as "un-named Democrat". The people are dissatisfied with Bush but Kerry has yet to close the sale. Thankfully, Kerry is "the closer".

[David Dunham]

22. I think dolstein is right.

[CityDem]

28. I don't disagree

Kerry has to knock Bush out, otherwise the media will spin it as a victory for AWOL.

[progdonkey]

34. what is a tie?

I mean, it's not like they're taking standardized tests (God, how I wish they were... 25th percentile, anyone?), so how would a "tie" be objectively quantified? The number of uncontrollable sobbing fits?

The question of "who won the debate?" is almost completely subjective. Barring a complete breakdown on either candidate's part, Kerry's supporters will say he won, and Bush's will say he did (and the self-haters--myself included--will say the opposite out of disappointment). The media will appear "balanced" by saying, "Well, they both did well. It was a tie." Of course, they're already setting up this bullshit line that "a tie goes to Bush," so they can appear unbiased when they say, "It was obviously a tie, and we told you a tie goes to Bush way before the debates, so you can trust our impartiality."

[Awsi Dooger]

37. A tie goes to the dummer

Bush wins

[Andromeda]

36. It doesn't surprise me that he said it.

Although Gergen is an experienced politico I have to disagree with him on this.

People will compare Kerry and Bush, notwithstanding what kind of spin the media will put on the debates, and I believe Kerry will be the clear winner.