This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points

Many of us felt that we couldn't possibly lose to Bush--he was just so obviously bad for our country. At that moment, many of us felt like this could be it. This could be the election when we beat the Right, ended the Bush nightmare, and put a (decently) progressive candidate in the White House. We were wrong.

As we've seen Obama's lead in the polls vanish over the past few weeks (the latest Zogby poll shows McCain with a 1 point lead), it's a fitting reminder: this year's fight will be at least as hard as '04. Get started here.

Part of what got us in trouble in 2004 was complacency: progressives saw Bush's steady stream of blunders, and many of us didn't think that America would make the same mistake twice.  Because McCain is so much like Bush on the issues we all care most about, it'd be easy to fall into the same trap, to think the Democrats have this election wrapped up.

This time it's our turn not to repeat our mistakes.  The blessing in disguise?  It's not too late.  We just need to get moving.

It's time for everyone to get into the fight.  Giving money is great.  But I think grassroots action will be even more important this election.  Obama's ads and speeches might remind people that Bush got us into this mess, show people that McCain can't get us out (not when he voted with Bush 95% of the time last year), and persuade people that Obama can provide the clean break that our country desperately needs. But personal persuasion works much, much better.

We need people to start e-mailing and texting our friends, knocking on doors, engaging our neighbors in discussion, getting our younger friends to register and turn out to vote, and delivering the truth -- face-to-face, person-to-person -- about the candidates and who can lead America in a new direction.

Barack Obama seems to get this. Look at where he came from. Look at how he's run his campaign. But as impressive as his grassroots operation has been, assuming that he's got the grassroots covered could be a big mistake. That's why we're running our own grassroots campaign to help elect Obama, with dozens of people going out in 11 battleground states to recruit volunteers and persuade undecided voters.

And, the same grassroots action that can put Obama into Oval Office can give him the support he needs (or stiffen his spine at times) in the face of the inevitable political, corporate and ideological opposition we can expect after next Jan. 20.

We have a base of volunteers spanning the nation, and we're organized to set you up with the volunteer opportunities and resources you need to do your part this political season. Sign up to make a difference this election; it's not in the bag, but it's not too late.



Display:


You and others still don't get it... (1.50 / 2)

....and that's the problem. This situation is actually worse than when Kerry was running. The Democratic Party wasn't divided.


by soyousay on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:33:13 PM EST

better get to canvassing then (none / 0)

instead of whining!


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to start here.... (1.00 / 1)

...due to the fact that ignorance is bliss. It's mainly up to Obama if he wants to win though. IMO, Obama needs to put Hillary on the ticket. That would help him tremendously; he would pull many of the 25% of Hillary supporters that left the party back to the base.

You go canvas if you think it will help though.


by soyousay on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nah, it takes more than that (none / 0)

Who knows whether doing that would get whatever percentage of her primary voters back.  Even so this is a 50/50 country.  Best for us little folks to just work hard rather than rely on big showy moves by Obama.


by JJE on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nah, it takes more than that (none / 0)

It's true...what the polls say, who Obama chooses as a VP...these things are all important but won't change the fact that this is going to be a very close race and we have work to do.


by shelleyschreiner on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to start here.... (2.00 / 1)

Just a quick thought while dinner's burning:

Obama won half the vote. Clinton won half the vote.

If 1/4 of Clinton's supporters don't support Obama, that means that 7/8ths (Obama's half and 3/4 of Clinton's half) of Democrats will support Obama. Kerry, in 2004, only pulled 89% of self-identified Democrats, without concern about party unity. If you're saying that Obama's already at 87.5% of Democrats, is "party unity" the main concern for VP selection?


by TCQuad on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to start here.... (none / 0)

(Oh, and Gore pulled 86%).


by TCQuad on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

awesome advice! (2.00 / 2)

forget about the 28% that are not on board.  instead we will make up the 5 million people by canvassing a registering new voters!

sounds like a winning strategy...  how close was the election in 2000 again?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: awesome advice! (none / 0)

Thank you, that was a very informative link.

Obama has 83% support, so he's at about 96% of Gore's level and 93% of Kerry's level. Considering that there's still 7% undecided, an even split puts him right between Kerry and Gore. For pre-convention numbers, that doesn't strike me as all that low.

So, I have to ask: if party unity is so bad now, why weren't there great outcries about party unity in those elections? If we need Hillary to solve the party's problems now, why weren't there threats of angry demonstrations if Dean wasn't on the ticket? Was it there, but merely before my time?

The statistical truth of the matter is that Obama has reached a threshold that a Hillary VP choice isn't a prerequisite to party unity. It's simply that the vocal minority is more publicized and organized than in years past.

From what I've seen, the Clinton VP choice would only have a likely effect on the undecideds of the 28%, or about 7% of her vote. That means, rather than expecting a 10-point swing if Hillary joins on, you can expect a 3-4%. A couple of points from undecideds for the general "VP choice", as well as a couple of points from all those undecideds swinging (7% of half the Democrats, who are about half the population translates to about 2% of the general pop.) It'd be nice to project higher, but that's not what the numbers you posted are showing.

Don't get me wrong: it's not insignificant, but by no stretch are we now looking at Hillary-or-failure.

Let's return to my original question. If Obama has returned to historical levels of within-party support, is it obligatory that the choice of VP is soley based on party unity?

What percentage of those undecided former Hillary voters would commit if the VP choice was Biden? Or Daschle (as Jerome suggested)? What percentage do you lose with Sebelius?

Or, better yet, what percentage of independents can you pick up with those alternate choices? Rather than trying to pick up a couple of percentage points in party with Hillary, could you pick them up from Independent voters and dry up one source of McCain voters? This is especially true if you believe that Democrats who supported Hillary will vote (D) in the general due to a combination of her campaigning as well as people voting on the issues that they care about (and McCain opposes).

I'm not saying Hillary wouldn't make a good VP choice; it's just not a simple "You're losing 28%!!!1!1!" anymore. It's now a very careful, very measured analysis.  


by TCQuad on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dude - you're barking up the wrong tree. (none / 0)

i dont want her anywhere near the ticket.  what i do want is a win and that means listen to and reaching out to clinton supporters.  the allegations of racism or ignorance aren't going to fly in the GE.  the bed is made no we must all lie in it.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dude - you're barking up the wrong tree. (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, I got a little confused by your original reply.

My question was to soyousay was in response to his comment of "IMO, Obama needs to put Hillary on the ticket". My first comment simply asked whether it was necessary to choose a VP based on "party unity", so I took it from your reply that you believed it was.

Apologies for that.


by TCQuad on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to start here.... (none / 0)

Well, it can't hurt. Obama can make a lot of choices that will affect whether or not he wins. There will be a lot of factors that he nor I nor any of us can control. What we are trying to do is make sure that we have enough voters out on election day to combat those obstacles.


by shelleyschreiner on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, Ralph Nader agrees with you (none / 0)

He said that he didn't believe Obama was dumb enough not to put Hillary on the ticket and none of the other choices mentioned would help him as much as her.


by lombard on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democratic Party wasn't divided. (none / 0)

The Democratic Party isn't divided. Just infested with a handful of McPuma infiltraitors whose mouths are bigger than their brains.


by Glaurung on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You and others still don't get it... (2.00 / 1)

BREAKING: A piece of sky just fell on my head. More news later.


by mcthatch37 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points (none / 0)

Good point. All the more reason. We will just have to work that much harder this time around.


by shelleyschreiner on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:36:45 PM EST

Kerry already has his Convention and VP (none / 0)

I'm not sure what is to be gained from all the comparisons.

I see it as good that the Democratic Party hasn't united yet. It'll still be easier to win Democratic votes than Indies or Republicans who may not share Obama's values. Plus, I expect the Convention to be a Clinton-Obama lovefest. That'll heal wounds.


by Lolis on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:15:10 PM EST

Re: Kerry already has his Convention and VP (none / 0)

oops ... typo

My point was at this time Kerry had already picked his Convention and VP and had gotten his bounce.


by Lolis on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry already has his Convention and VP (none / 0)

Sure that's a good point. We all know that polls don't really matter and that what makes a difference is the votes cast on election day. That's why we're doing what we're doing -- to make sure that no matter what happens between now and election day, we have the voters and votes we need.


by shelleyschreiner on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry was never the favorite in 2004 (none / 0)

Even at this point, Bush was a 5/7 betting favorite, or 140 to win 100. This time Obama leads, in the 62/38 range.

Speculators realize the situational terrain is more significant than polling numbers. I wish that weren't true. I'd love for that Zogby poll to push McCain to favored or 50/50.


by Gary Kilbride on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST

Re: This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points (none / 0)

Well, at this point in 2004, Kerry was coming off a Democratic convention. So, of course he was winning. In fact, Kerry was leading 301 to Bush's 213 and 24 tie.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pr es/Maps/Aug20.html

Still, given the political and economic situation of the nation, Obama should have won this race a long time ago. I believe Obama is going to win and win with about 300 electoral votes, but if by chance he loses in the most perfect political condition given for a Democratic win in history, there will be hell.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM EST

Re: This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points (none / 0)

Sure but that same source shows Kerry up by quite a bit more on July 15, a bit before the convention.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pr es/Maps/Jul15.html

But that's not really the point. The point is that we were ahead then, and we didn't get it done, and we're behind now, so let's make sure we get it done this time.


by shelleyschreiner on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points (none / 0)

While I too am concerned, I thought that this might give everyone a little comfort:

http://election.princeton.edu/

The proprietor, Prof. Wang, claims that his system analyzes all 2.3 quadrillion electoral outcomes and that it would have accurately predicted the 2004 results but for a few subjective factors that he built into his model (which he subsequently removed).  

For comparison, a partial Kerry map is here:

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/histor y_12oct.jpg


by rfahey22 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:27:53 PM EST

Comparisons with 2004 - full graphs here (none / 0)

For those of you who are interested in a comparison, updated graphs are here:

http://election.princeton.edu/2008/08/18 battleground-state-spending-a-meta-anal ytic-view

Obama is a little bit behind where Kerry was on the same date in 2004. However, in 2004 the VP selection and Democratic convention had already occurred. There is no doubt that the race, at least for now, is very tight.

Here's another look from the Jed Report based on national polls: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/compari ng-democ.html

Also, for what it's worth, the August 2004 fall in Kerry's support, which came after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks, was much more precipitous. I'll guess that this August's changes are reversible. We'll see in a few weeks.

Sam Wang
Princeton Election Consortium
http://election.princeton.edu

p.s. The meta-analysis does indeed calculate the electoral vote distribution for all 2 quadrillion-plus outcomes. Obviously it doesn't calculate them one by one. It's all documented - come on over and take a look.


by mindgeek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:11:39 PM EST

Re: This week in 2004: Kerry up by 4 points (none / 0)

By this logic, Obama should be further behind right now if he wants to win.

Are all of you number geniuses making a killing in the stock market?

Can you tell me if AAPL will be up or down in early November? F? GM? GE? GGGG?

Y'all ought to be putting those prognostication skills to use for the kids' college education!

Predicting the future is a highly valuable skill, and rarer in real life than the population of MyDD would have you think.
 


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.