Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Michael Perelman wrote: Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to just get over the hump. Sounds like a stupid strategy. The alternative strategy would be to arouse public passion (and participation!). It has long been my own theory that the DP leadership would always choose losing rather than risk such arousal. The Public is a great Beast, and dangerous when aroused. (I think Zinn argues this someplace, but I'm not sure of my memory on this.) Carrol
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Well I think that Plato argued it a bit earlier..in The Republic.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] No Bounce for Kerry Michael Perelman wrote: Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to just get over the hump. Sounds like a stupid strategy. The alternative strategy would be to arouse public passion (and participation!). It has long been my own theory that the DP leadership would always choose losing rather than risk such arousal. The Public is a great Beast, and dangerous when aroused. (I think Zinn argues this someplace, but I'm not sure of my memory on this.) Carrol
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
ken hanly wrote: Well I think that Plato argued it a bit earlier..in The Republic.. :-) Yup. My post was a bit ambiguous -- pronoun reference not clear. I was thinking primarily of the DP rather than the general principle re a great Beast. Whether the DP leadership reads Plato or not I do not know, but I suspect they remember the '30s and '60s well enough not to need specific guidance from him. I think Zinn argues specifically that the DP has existed above all to keep the Beast down, but I'm not sure. Carrol ken hanly wrote: Carrol wrote: The alternative strategy would be to arouse public passion (and participation!). It has long been my own theory that the DP leadership would always choose losing rather than risk such arousal. The Public is a great Beast, and dangerous when aroused. (I think Zinn argues this someplace, but I'm not sure of my memory on this.) Carrol
No bounce for Kerry
So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce? Tue Aug 3, 7:09 AM ET By Susan Page, USA TODAY There was a bounce after last week's Democratic National Convention. But it went to President Bush, not John Kerry. Pollsters and strategists are puzzling over Kerry's failure to get a boost from a convention that even critics acknowledged went almost precisely as planned. Polls show it improved voters' impressions of Kerry as a strong leader and a potential commander in chief. It burnished views of the Democratic Party. (clip) Since polling became a routine part of politics, the only other candidate who failed to see any improvement in his standing after the convention that nominated him was George McGovern in 1972. That year, Democrats fought bitterly over credentials and the platform. Their convention in Miami Beach was so chaotic that the candidate didn't deliver his acceptance speech until well after midnight. This time, the Democratic convention in Boston was a sea of tranquility. With an emphasis on Kerry's biography, particularly his service in Vietnam, the convention succeeded in improving his image on almost every front, the poll shows. He boosted his standing as a candidate who is optimistic, honest, trustworthy and caring. The ingredients were carefully chosen, the recipe time-tested. So why didn't the cake rise? Among the theories: There wasn't enough red meat on the menu. The Kerry campaign tamped down direct criticism of Bush, fearing that harsh convention rhetoric would repel swing voters. One result: Kerry's ratings went up, but Bush's ratings didn't go down significantly. Bush's approval rating fell just 1 percentage point, to 48%. The percentage who said Bush has the personality and leadership qualities needed to be president stayed the same at 55%. Those who said they agreed with Bush on the issues that matter to them stayed precisely the same. What they didn't really do was clear contrast with Bush, says Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. All the contrasts that were made were inferential. There wasn't anybody who said: 'Here's the problem. Here's what we're going to do differently.' Some Democrats now will press Kerry to take a harder line. Republicans already have made it clear they won't repeat the Democratic strategy. Criticism of Kerry, especially of his career in the Senate, is expected to be a major component of the Republican convention, though that approach carries its own risks. Kerry failed to specify what he would do about Iraq. A 52% majority still says that Kerry doesn't have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, down only slightly from 56% before the convention. Just 38% say Kerry has a clear plan, compared with 42% for Bush. That makes it more difficult for Kerry to capitalize on the political vulnerabilities Bush faces stemming from the war. In Boston, Democrats didn't blast the decision to invade Iraq, in part because Kerry voted to authorize the war. The percentage of voters who say it was a mistake to go to war actually dropped after the convention, to 47% compared with 50% before. He hasn't presented how he would do things differently, says Brooke Fox, 40, a natural resource policy consultant from Windsor, Colo., who was among those surveyed. How is he going to persuade the international community to get on board? What he has said are platitudes. full: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=676e=11u=/usatoday/sowhydidbushnotkerrygetthebounce -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: No bounce for Kerry
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce? Tue Aug 3, 7:09 AM ET By Susan Page, USA TODAY There was a bounce after last week's Democratic National Convention. But it went to President Bush, not John Kerry. Kerry should lose Licorice the hamster. Carl _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: No bounce for Kerry
Kerry should lose Licorice the hamster. Carl G.O.P. QUESTIONS KERRY'S HAMSTER HEROISM [by Andy Borowitz] Rodent Story 'Doesn't Add Up,' Mass Email Claims A mass email from the Republican National Committee is questioning whether or not Democratic nominee John Kerry actually saved his daughter Alexandra's pet hamster, Licorice, from drowning during a family boating trip as Ms. Kerry has claimed he did. The email, with a subject line reading Kerry Hamster Story - We Smell a Rat, was sent to over two thousand news outlets just hours after Ms. Kerry charmed the Democratic national convention with her tale of the Senator's hamster heroism. In the email message, the G.O.P. quotes an unnamed witness who claims that not only did Mr. Kerry not save the rodent's life, but he may have actually been responsible for its premature demise. According to the witness, Licorice was breathing normally when Mr. Kerry pounced on the hamster and administered unnecessarily forceful CPR in an over-the-top bid to appear heroic, breaking several of the hamster's ribs and puncturing its left lung. Speaking at a fundraiser held by the Creative Coalition in Hollywood, Mr. Kerry defended his daughter's version of events and was joined onstage by several veterans of the boating trip during which Licorice fell overboard, a group Mr. Kerry called his band of brothers. But perhaps the most vehement defense came from wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, who told the gathering, The Licorice story is true, and if you don't believe it, you can shove a live hamster in a secure, undisclosed location. Mrs. Kerry's remark drew long and loud applause from the Hollywood crowd, especially from actor and Pretty Woman star Richard Gere. [I don't get the joke in the last line.] Jim Devine
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/04 12:28 AM I was struck by the same thing as Michael H. I doubt that they will reciprocate for the Dems. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:24:33AM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote: related point: tv media abandoned past convention coverage in giving reps so many opportunities to sprinkle on dem parade...michael hoover Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to just get over the hump. Sounds like a stupid strategy. Michael Perelman meant to write in previous post that conservative media set up dems on bounce by giving rep talking heads pre-convention opportunities to talk about how kerry would probably get double digit post-convention bump... re. dem/kerry strategy, elections are mechanisms of social control, narrow kerry win will actually be narrow bush loss, kerry's people think this can happen with existing likely electorate which, of course, means doing nothing to get more folks to vote, result will be few 'progressive' expectations of kerry administration...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
The strategy guarentees that Kerry will have no coattails. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote: re. dem/kerry strategy, elections are mechanisms of social control, narrow kerry win will actually be narrow bush loss, kerry's people think this can happen with existing likely electorate which, of course, means doing nothing to get more folks to vote, result will be few 'progressive' expectations of kerry administration...michael hoover -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and why is Nader now down around 2%? Doug
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Kucinich had no money supporting him; Kerry has an organize (well, well-funded) party. Gore's support picked up when he did populism, so would Kerry's. All he had to do was to take Edwards' 2-America's riff a bit further. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:52:16PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and why is Nader now down around 2%? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Doug Henwood wrote: If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries... it may not be populism, but leftist sentiment might be present. its a media affair involving millions of dollars of course: kucinich was relatively unknown to most, let alone his stand. in a democratic nominees focus group session that was broadcast on c-span, some of the participants referred to him not by name, but as the guy who was not serious because he was looking for a bride on the internet. --ravi
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
I don't know about Kucinich, but I remember that someone was complaining about his singing of America the Beautiful at his rallies and how embarrassing it was. Maybe that hurt. Also, Nader is likely falling because of the view that any vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also, Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media did Kerry in. (BTW, when will PK get back to Ec?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Michael Perelman: Kucinich had no money supporting him; Kerry has an organize (well, well-funded) party. Gore's support picked up when he did populism, so would Kerry's. All he had to do was to take Edwards' 2-America's riff a bit further. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:52:16PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and why is Nader now down around 2%?
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
I worked for Kucinich in the Iowa caucuses. Lots of folks that supported Kerry were way more progressive than Kerry. In particular, they were against the war. What moved them was the electability issue. They wanted to back a winner. I don't claim that this completely answers your question (nor that there is necessarily a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism), but it's an important piece of the puzzle that should not be discounted. At 03:52 PM 8/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and why is Nader now down around 2%? Doug -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Devine, James wrote: Also, Nader is likely falling because of the view that any vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. My understanding is that plans are afoot to arrest him and put him on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
no, they're going to put him in the free speech zone in Boston, now that it's no longer in use. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I wrote: Also, Nader is likely falling because of the view that any vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. LP: My understanding is that plans are afoot to arrest him and put him on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Michael Perelman wrote: Kucinich had no money supporting him C'mon - he was in the debates, he was on the road a lot. He should have done better than, what?, 2% of the primary vote. Doug
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Robert Naiman wrote: What moved them was the electability issue. They wanted to back a winner. This is the popular attitude that disturbs me most, for more than any other attitude it represents despair at the possibility of people affecting national policy. Carrol
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Devine, James wrote: BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also, Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media did Kerry in. Cruising the dial after the speech it seemed that all the pundits pronounced Kerry's speech a major success - which confused me, because I thought it sucked. Doug
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Carrol Cox wrote: This is the popular attitude that disturbs me most, for more than any other attitude it represents despair at the possibility of people affecting national policy. The other interesting thing going on is the trivialization of the campaign, with major statements being made about Kerry's donning of a clean suit at NASA, debunking his mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of a hamster, etc. I strongly suspect that the corporate media will be going gung-ho for Kerry in the next few months. I wouldn't be surprised at a Bush landslide at this point. When Kerry functions in the electoral arena like the opponents of the Harlem Globetrotters did in basketball, what else would you expect? I myself think it would be a good thing if Kerry lost, both in terms of the issues Andy Stern raised (and then was pressured into recanting)as well as the likelihood that US imperialism will have less room to manueuver with Bush reelected. In any case, I think that it is imperative for those forces committed to Nader to coalesce in preparation for 2008. If unchallenged DLC type politics can't deliver the goods, then people might be ready to fight for an alternative which surely won't come from within the DP. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
alas I missed his speech. I had to work last night. (I like to watch the candidates' convention speeches for the same reason I saw Terminator I and II, i.e., to keep up with popular culture.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] No Bounce for Kerry Devine, James wrote: BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also, Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media did Kerry in. Cruising the dial after the speech it seemed that all the pundits pronounced Kerry's speech a major success - which confused me, because I thought it sucked. Doug
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/04 3:52 PM If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and why is Nader now down around 2%? Doug uhhh, who said anything about 'untapped reservoir of leftish populism' (whatever that is)... come now doug, you know answers to above questions... however, 'conventional wisdom' holds that dem positions on civil rights/civil liberties issues began to alienate white working class in late 1960s, race ostensibly drove wedge between white and non-white working workers with resultant diminution of class voting, such analysis is mostly based upon assessments using self-identified class, this measure fails to address voter economic circumstances, analysis relying upon relative income situation of voters reflects relative level of resources folks have, results show increasing support among less affluent for dems, differences in voting by income position (social class) have been increasing, not decreasing... mainstream poli sci guy jeffrey stonecash uses nes data - see his _class and party in american politics_ - to show that *even in south* white working class voters remain more likely to vote dem than more affluent white voters, big problem is relative scarcity of white working class turnout in south (condition exacerbated nationally by similar scarcity at polls among all workin people)...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
When has a person in the debates been called a vanity candidate before. The singing schtick was stupid, though. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Kucinich had no money supporting him C'mon - he was in the debates, he was on the road a lot. He should have done better than, what?, 2% of the primary vote. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
Devine, James wrote: alas I missed his speech. I had to work last night. (I like to watch the candidates' convention speeches for the same reason I saw Terminator I and II, i.e., to keep up with popular culture.) That seems a better motive than most have. :-) Maillists tend to tell you everything you need to know (and sometimes a lot more than you want to know) about popular culture. The main problem is that no one seems to be able to describe what they mean by popular culture. That was partly behind the long list of questions I posted not long ago. (How many watch Fox News, watch CBS, don't watch any, etc.) For example, in addition to the high-rated TV shows there are in fact hundreds of TV shows, presumably watched by _some_ people (who also presumably make up part of popular culture). What percentage of the adult population regularly watches at least one of the top three TV shows in a given year? What do we have to say about those (number unknown to me) who do not watch any of the top three TV shows? What percentage of the population does NOT see at least seven of the 10 most popular movies? What information about popular culture is given us by the existence of the Western Channel on cable tv. What is the cultural status (popular or freakish) of those who watch reruns of Gunsmoke or old Autry movies? How many do watch the reruns of Gunsmoke? Carrol P.S. The last president and/or presidential candidate that I heard deliver more than two consecutive sentences by (the time it takes to reach the radio dial) was LBJ in 1964. But I've never had any trouble understanding anything anyone said to me about the current president and/or candidate.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
I wrote: alas I missed his speech. I had to work last night. obviously, I meant that night, i.e., last Thursday night. More coffee is needed. I remember Bill C's DP convention speech well. He clearly came off as intelligent, as opposed to W (in 2000), who came off as dumb. Both were wrong, but that's another issue. By the way, Jim C, where did you get that quote from Monica Lewinsky. (I tried to google it, but hit upon a site called JewWatch which turned my stomach, so I gave up.) jd
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, 1. Kucinich is nice, poor, and white. 2. Kucinich is short: 5 feet 7 inches. 3. 93% of Americans are still unsure about how to pronounce his last name. and why is Nader now down around 2%? 1. According to Gallup, Nader appears to have peaked at 5% in the June 3-6, 2004: img src=http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040713ii.gif;, so his inability to get on the Green Party ballots brought down his popularity. 2. Nader is forced to waste money fighting off Democrats' demagogy about Republican funding and legal challenges to his ballot accesses: blockquoteWhile Mr. Nader digs in his heels, the Democrats are trying to sideline him. The party has enlisted Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has declared an extraordinary emergency to stomp out Nader votes. And some former associates of Mr. Nader are organizing an extensive, well-financed national campaign against him. Organizers include Toby Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut and onetime Nader Raider, who lost a close race for the Senate in 1982 after his former boss endorsed his opponent. Mr. Moffett, now a lobbyist in Washington, worked against Mr. Nader in six states in 2000, an informal effort that he now calls amateurish. With that experience under his belt, he said, we're vowing not to let it happen again. Mr. Moffett and others from labor and feminist organizations spent their time at the Democratic convention coordinating six or eight anti-Nader groups. Calling themselves United Progressives for Victory, they are raising money through an independent political committee known as a 527, named for the section of the I.R.S. code that governs it, and are working with other 527's that are already identifying sympathetic voters. (By law, such committees can raise unlimited amounts of money but cannot coordinate with the Kerry campaign.) The group is armed with a poll conducted by Stanley Greenberg, who was President Bill Clinton's pollster. The group includes Roy Neel, a former Gore associate who worked for Mr. Dean and is now preparing the computer model for finding the 2.8 million people who voted for Mr. Nader in 2000 and might vote for him again. Mr. Moffett said there was no chance that Mr. Nader would drop out, so the only way to stop him from throwing the election to Mr. Bush is to discourage his supporters. . . . . . . [For instance,] when Nader supporters learned that Mr. Nader had accepted help and money from Republicans to get on the ballots in various states, they dropped away. And one of the few public figures who has credibility with Nader backers is former President Jimmy Carter, who is perceived as not compromised by or profiting from the political system. So some of the group's officials say they have discussed redeploying Mr. Carter, who they say has indicated a willingness to help. The briefings in Boston drew dozens of donors, lawyers and activists, including Arianna Huffington, the columnist. . . . Mr. Moffett said that he and Elizabeth Holtzman, the former congresswoman from New York, were coordinating with election lawyers in several states to challenge Mr. Nader's ballot petitions. Their strategy, he said, is to try to undercut Mr. Nader strong not only in swing states where he could make a difference but in safe states, to drain him of resources and force him to spend his time and money./strong . . . Mr. Nader has raised $1.5 million, tens of thousands of it from Republicans, who also collected the signatures to get him on the ballot in Michigan. But he shrugged off the significance of their help, saying, We had nothing to do with it. . . . I wish Republicans who support us would send us some donations, Mr. Camejo said. In polls, 25 percent of our vote is from Republicans and only 5 percent of our money. (emphasis added, Katharine Q. Seelye, Convictions Intact, Nader Soldiers On, emNew York Times/em, a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/campaign/02nader.html;August 2, 2004/a)/blockquote -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
No Bounce for Kerry
No Bounce for Kerry: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/no-bounce-for-kerry.html.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/02/04 6:22 PM No Bounce for Kerry: bounce thing is extremely overrated, has had little relation to electoral winner, if memory serves, with exception of clinton in 92, candidates with biggest bounces have lost (and carter almost lost), most have been dems... in any event, room for bounce this year was negligible if poll numbers can be believed, bush, kerry, nader numbers leave few undecideds... kerry people appear to believe that they can beat bush (just barely) on issues except for 'security', poll numbers going into convention indicated solid bush lead in that area, dems seem to think that if they simply say things about 'making 'america stronger', 'protecting homeland', and 'destroying terrorists' enough times they will whittle away at bush in this area (all the while blathering on about kerry's wartime mettle, blah, blah, blah)... strategy suggests that kerry people hope to barely make it over hump in november, strategy also conveys that kerry campaign is absent any other appeals, has attractiveness of flagpole sitting in drawing attention to drab man... related point: tv media abandoned past convention coverage in giving reps so many opportunities to sprinkle on dem parade...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: No Bounce for Kerry
I was struck by the same thing as Michael H. I doubt that they will reciprocate for the Dems. On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:24:33AM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote: related point: tv media abandoned past convention coverage in giving reps so many opportunities to sprinkle on dem parade...michael hoover Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to just get over the hump. Sounds like a stupid strategy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
