The Dish

A reader writes:

On 20 occasions, the incumbent President has been re-elected. Median margin of victory in the electoral college is 66%. That would require Bush to get 447 electoral votes.
On 11 occasions, the incumbent President has lost his bid for re-election. Median margin of loss in the electoral college is 37%. That would require Kerry to get 366 electoral votes.
If you want to define an electoral “landslide” as being 10% or more difference, then of the 31 occasions described above 29 were landslides (Adams lost by 5 in 1800 and Wilson won by 5 in 1916). If you want to define it as 20% or more, then 27 were landslides (19 of the 20 wins and 8 of the 11 losses).

See my point?

“This is ridiculous: Wright misinterprets his own videoclip (I am grateful that it is available uncut on his website, so that everybody can see for themselves). All I agreed to was that IF natural selection had the properties of embryogenesis (or “an organism’s maturation”), it would be evidence for a higher purpose. But I have always insisted that evolution by natural selection LACKS those very properties. And I insisted on that in the earlier portions of the videoclip.”
UPDATE: Bob Wright replies here.

Tomorrow’s election in Australia could be a sleeper issue in this election. If Howard goes down, Iraq will be the issue. Aussie Mike Jericho worries.

NO LONGER IN DENIAL: The conservative attempt to ignore what has been happening in Iraq is beginning to break down. Good for National Review and the Weekly Standard for dealing with the matter – however belatedly. If you want to know why Bush is in trouble, just look at the cover of one of the leading conservative magazines. If you’re Bush, you don’t want this kind of coverage in October.

How many Bush officials does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. “There’s nothing wrong with that light bulb. It has served us honorably. When you say it’s burned out, you’re giving encouragement to the forces of darkness. Once we install a light bulb, we never, ever change it. Real men don’t need artificial light.” – from Steve Chapman, via lotsa people.

Back in the early spring, I bet Michael Barone that Kerry would win this election. I’ll buy him a drink if I’m wrong. And to be honest, I don’t know who’s more likely to win at this point. But here’s a prediction I don’t mind making. This election won’t be close. Presidents seeking re-election very rarely win or lose a second time narrowly. Either they get trounced – Carter, Bush 41 – or they get re-elected handily – Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. People make a simple decision whether the guy’s worth re-electing. Of course, the alternative makes a difference. My view is that most people don’t want to re-elect Bush but are still unconvinced by Kerry. But they’ll figure it out soon enough. Hence the big interest in the debates – and the huge swing since the first one. Joel Rosenberg of National Review looks at the Zogby data and worries:

There is some good news for the president. Zogby says “Kerry’s edge on the economy is gone. Among those who cite the economy as the top issue, the candidates are in a dead heat – Bush holding a slight edge,” (46 percent to 44 percent). And this: Bush “also leads among those who cite the War on Terror as the top issue” (68 percent to 26 percent).”
But by far the most interesting – and disturbing – finding in his poll is that “among undecided voters, only 15% feel the President deserves to be re-elected, while 39% say it is time for someone new.”
What if the undecideds break 2-to-1 against the president less than 30 days from now? We could be looking at a Kerry landslide.

Yep. In fact, I’d say a clear and decisive Kerry win is now the likeliest outcome of this election. Bush’s only hope is to tear Kerry apart. He can’t defend his record. Every day, the news undermines it. He is losing this campaign in the final stretch. So he needs to attack. And when a Rove candidate needs to attack to survive, it’s going to get ugly. Real, real ugly.

CHECK IN TONIGHT: I’ll be blogging after the debate as usual.

In response to the criticisms of the Kerry campaign and of the press, the Bush administration has now begun to explain better where they have gone wrong in Iraq and how they hope to set things on a better path. That, in itself, is progress. One wonders why it didn’t occur to the White House to let us know sooner, to explain more fully, to detail exactly what they have been doing. Still, it’s good news:

For each of the cities identified as guerrilla strongholds or vulnerable to falling into insurgent hands, a set of measurements was created to track whether the rebels’ grip was being loosened by initiatives of the new Iraqi government, using such criteria as the numbers of Iraqi security personnel on patrol, voter registration, economic development and health care. And for each city, a timeline was established for military action to establish Iraqi local control if purely political steps by the central government proved insufficient. “We’re working on them by population size, by importance to the election,” said one senior administration official, who added that the ultimate objective was to make sure that the main Sunni Muslim cities were able to take part in free elections. “That’s where the bad security situations are, and that’s where we really need to make some major political and economic changes in the next several months if we’re going to have a successful nationwide election,” he said.

I may be too suspicious in seeing some classic Bush payback in the criticisms leveled at Paul Bremer in the briefing to the New York Times – but the White House is now saying that for an entire year, Sanchez and Bremer were working at cross purposes. The plan reassures me, at least, that national elections are still being planned; and the experience in Samarra is also hopeful as to the possibility of success. We can pray it works. My criticisms of the occupation have not been in order to discredit it, but to goad the administration into explaining what the heck it’s up to. It’s just a shame that it’s only the prospect of losing an election that has promoted them to tell their own citizens what is exactly going on.

EMAIL OF THE DAY I: “Slow down on the Republican bashing, my boy. We understand that you’re unhappy with the way the war is being handled, as are many of us. But dear God! Do you really think Kerry would improve things? The guy has no clue how to lead a country in a time of war. He and his little bitch boy, Edwards, are completely out of their league. You may be swinging votes to the left with all your ‘honesty’, but can the world afford to have these two $600 haircut getting dipshits in office?”

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I can’t say I agree with you on every point, but the gist of your arguments is compelling, and I think the Bush/Cheney days are numbered. They certainly deserve it for the conduct of post-war Iraq, and for the incredibly inept way in which they have handled the communications of the war. And if Lieberman or Gephardt were running against Bush, I would happily vote Democrat. But for all the praise you heap on Kerry and Edwards, I am not convinced that their current positions aren’t just election season posturing. In this I think the past IS relevant, and both Kerry and Edwards’ prior votes on national security issues are disquieting. Furthermore, when Kerry is elected, I have to think the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, which has pulled out all the stops for the guy, will call in their chits. The prospect of an already decision-challenged Kerry trying to balance the demands of his anti-war constituency and the winning of the war itself does not fill me with the warm fuzzies. Throw in the fact that Edwards wants to go medieval on the pharma industry, and I am just depressed as hell…” My feelings entirely.

Mickey Kaus asks me to deal with John Kerry’s statement yesterday about marriage rights:

“I think you have to draw that line, so the answer is yes, they reached beyond that line, and in my judgment they’re trying to exploit certain issues,” he said. “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they’re out there misleading people and exploiting it.”

I should be plain. I have never trusted Kerry on gay civil rights, still don’t, and wrote a piece earlier this year for the Advocate, warning gay voters not to trust him. So, yes, Mickey, I am aware of his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on civil rights for gay couples. (This, of course, is indistinguishable from his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on almost every other issue as well). I trust Kerry about as much as I trusted Bill Clinton. The similarity is not just that both Bush and Kerry oppose equal marriage rights for gay couples but that neither have ever given a single argument in defense of their position. Kerry tried to pull the civil-marriage-is-procreation point, until he realized that his own current civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation. In general I have been struck both by how ignorant Kerry has been about some basic facts – like the content of the Missouri amendment, for example – and how eager to pander to both sides. Surprise.

VIVE LA DIFFERENCE: The difference, however, is obvious. Kerry supports civil unions that contain all the rights and responsiblities of civil marriages; Bush doesn’t. In fact, Bush has endorsed a federal amendment that would bar both gay marriage and any civil arrangements that, like civil unions or even domestic partnerships, would give gay couples even basic protections. So the difference is stark. And, of course, the constitutional amendment is a HUGE deal. I endorsed Bush in 2000 knowing full well he opposed civil marriage rights, had backed criminalization of gay sex, and opposed including gays in hate crime laws (while inexplicably supporting such laws for other minorities). I’ve never regarded support for civil marriage rights a litmus test for supporting a candidate. But elevating this to the level of a completely unnecessary constitutional amendment was a new development, an unprecedented attack on gay citizens, on states’ rights and the constitution. Kerry’s opposition to such an amendment is a vast and vital distinction. For gay voters, there is therefore no meaningful choice.

WIPED OUT: I’ll be blogging more later this morning. But I’ve just gotten back from that speaking tour – ten separate forums in less than two weeks across the country, and I’m exhausted. The T-cells need some R&R. Later.

I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways – not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it’s worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war – the threat from Saddam’s existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn’t anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.

A SIMPLE QUESTION: Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I’ve long pondered this, but Bremer’s gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don’t understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference. Am I somehow wrong? Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I’m still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?

YOUR TURN: Don’t miss a bumper edition of the Letters Page, tearing me a new one on the Edwards-Cheney debate.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of the influential 1995 book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” now says he sees a higher purpose in the universe. Bob Wright breaks the news.

BREASTCASTING: The latest in interior design.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “To talk and laugh. To do each other kindnesses. To read pleasant books together; to pass from lightest joking to talk of deepest things, and back again. To differ without rancor, as a man might differ with himself… these, and such like things, proceeding from our hearts as we gave affection and received it back, and shown by face, by voice, by eyes, and by a thousand pleasing ways, kindled a flame which fused our very souls together, and, of many, made us one.” – Augustine, on friendship, in the Confessions. It was wonderful to take a break last night and talk with students at Fordham about the virtue of friendship. Someone from the event forwarded me this quote which I had forgotten. Blogs, I realize, are also a kind of friendship. Yes, I know lots of you disagree with me; and many are mad at me; and many more are supportive and engaged. But, whatever the response, it is a conversation of sorts, is it not? And whenever I meet regular readers, as I do on these speaking tours, I’m struck by the genuine bonds of friendship they seem to feel. It really is a blessing in these difficult and painful times.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “[A] Latino cheating is one who cheats his nature by having only one woman at a time, and if such a Latin man exists, it’s probably because he has Downs Syndrome.” – Julia Gorin, elevating conservative discourse, in the Jewish World Review.

Here’s a fuller explanation of why I thought Edwards triumphed over Cheney – especially among undecideds, with quotes and chapters and verses.

A RHETORIC PROF WRITES: “I would certainly agree with your assessment about undecideds. I am a professor of rhetoric, I analyze discourse in a number of ways, including persuasiveness, for a living. And the basic rule in straightup argumentative persuasion is audience analysis. It doesn’t matter if one audience, whose decision is basically irrelevant at this point, found Cheney dominating. Speaking to the right audience is the single most important factor in persuading an electorate.
And on that score, Edwards was vastly smarter. I said it before, Cheney addressed wonks, Edwards normal viewers.
When I show students clips from presidential debates, they have little to make sense of a flurry of details, the way Cheney argued. They need to be told why something is important and have it boiled down. They are not unintelligent, they just need the speaker to help them listen to complicated material. Cheney did not try to help the listener, he was speaking to his base and to pundits.
I believe it was not a clear win either way on the merits, but in terms of address, Edwards made the right choice.”

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “OK just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry – not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks – you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do.” – David Macho Man Frum, National Review.