A guest blogger, codename Dr. Insight, analyzes what many pols call the "purple states," those battlegrounds that both President Bush and John Kerry need to win in November.
In the 2004 election, most political analysts have tagged three classes of states: one group is "in the bag" for Sen. John F. Kerry, the second is "in the bag" for President George W. Bush, and the third is considered to be "battleground states," the group that will most likely decide the election. However, the "in the bag" judgment of some states is not supported by recent data. Of course, the election is five and a half months away, plenty of time for the candidates to regain their turf, but they should not grow arrogant regarding their superiority in these states.
President Bush's most significant challenge in an "in the bag" state can be found in North Carolina, thanks in large part to Sen. John Edwards.
In a recent Mason-Dixon poll, Bush led Kerry by seven points; however, when Edwards was added to the mix, Bush's lead shrank to a miniscule one point. Bush badly needs North Carolina's 15 electoral votes, and, if Kerry selects Edwards as his running mate, the president will have to fight hard to retain them.
Bush's "in the bag" difficulties, however, are blips when compared to Kerry's woes. In California, a state with 55 electoral votes and a must-win for Kerry (Al Gore won the state by nine points four years ago), Kerry leads Bush by one point according to a poll taken two weeks ago for four television stations in San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego & Los Angeles by Survey Usa, an independent, well-respected polling group (as are all others cited here). Kerry's difficulties in California appear to arise from the popularity of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has formed bipartisan alliances on many issues which may be softening the hearts of some of California's Democrat majority in Bush's favor.
California is the easiest of Kerry's "in the bag" problems to explain. New Jersey at first seems simple (its proximity to the Twin Towers), but Kerry is pounding Bush by nearly 20 points in two New York polls conducted last month. However, a Quinnipiac poll conducted in New Jersey last week found Kerry leading Bush by three points in a state that Al Gore carried by 16 points in 2000. Kerry supporters point out that Bush was in this position at the same time in 2000, an accurate assessment; however, Bush and Kerry now, unlike Bush and Gore then, are much more well-known to New Jersey voters. Add to that an unpopular governor and Bush just might be able to snatch 15 ever-so-crucial electoral votes from Kerry in a place that no political pundits predicted was possible.
Maryland, another "in-the-bag" state for Kerry, seems to have forgotten its role in the election, as a Gonzales Research survey in March found Bush trailing Kerry by five points in a state that Al Gore won by 17 four years ago. Once again, 9/11 on its face seems like a reasonable explanation, but we then come back to those New York polls. Bush might be receiving aide in the form of the first Republican governor in Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, in over 30 years. Once again, it is important to remember that the election is five and a half months away, so many of these dynamics here could change in favor of either candidate.
Finally, we come to Illinois, the most difficult"in-the-bag" state to explain. 9/11 occurred nowhere near Illinois, but Bush trailed Kerry by 8 points in a March poll conducted by Mason-Dixon & just 5 in a poll conducted earlier this month by Rasmussen Reports and the Daily Southtown. Gore snatched Illinois' 21 electoral votes comfortably in 2000, and a loss for Kerry would be devastating.
Most states are decided, and the election will be decided most probably in the "battleground" states; however, the realistic possibility exists that the "in-the-bag" states of each candidate could bag his hopes for the presidency.
“Years ago, it was considered acceptable to have ideologues run news organizations. The Chicago Tribune, for instance, was run by one. Now, it is not considered acceptable, at least not by honest people in the news business."
Jon Margolis on the appointment of Roger Ailes to head CNBC, 1993
By now I should be used to reading blatant opinion pieces presented as objective journalism in partisan media sources like the Chicago Tribune (or is it Libune?), but Sunday morning as I read the Jon Margolis’ column on Ronald Reagan (“Reagan Legacy Stronger Now Than During Presidency,” Chicago Tribune, June 6, 2004, p.1, col. 2) I realized that when it comes to this bunch, like Lily Tomlin, no matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.
This column—not a news story in any sense of the word—is riddled with many half-truths, inaccuracies and laughable misrepresentations. It is clear that Mr. Margolis hopes that the fuzzy memories of those old enough to remember and historical ignorance of those younger will make this drivel fly. Unfortunately for him and those of his ilk, some of us are neither too young nor too ignorant to buy it. Mr. Margolis’ piece is very long, so just for fun, let’s deconstruct just a little of the delusional raveout that Tribune editors chose to present as a historically accurate accounting of President Reagan’s legacy.
Of President Reagan, he writes:
“His political heirs lead by Bush, are more consistently ideologues. Bush, who lost the popular vote in 2000, lacks the electoral mandate Reagan got with his 51 percent majority in 1980. But armed with the congressional dominance Reagan never had, Bush has pursued his conservative agenda with more single-minded fervor than Reagan did in his first term or even after he won with 59 percent of the vote and 49 states in 1984.”
On what does he base the statement that President Bush’s political heirs are more ideological? Has Mr. Margolis’ memory failed him? I seem to recall Ronald Reagan being portrayed as an irrational, trigger-happy cowboy whose ideological zealotry bordered on insanity by those on his side of the aisle. Note the convenient opportunity in this passage to mention that the 2000 election and its popular vote, which under the Constitution is about as relevant as yards rushing in a football game. Once again, I must remind a liberal that the final score, as in electoral college votes, is what counts.
He continues with a bill of particulars against President Bush:
“Bush has abrogated international treaties
What that worthless scientifically bankrupt Kyoto foolishness or the ABM treaty? The former was a victim of science and economics, and as for the latter, that agreement was made with a country that no longer exists, the Soviet Union. No more other party, no more contract. Isn’t that a no-brainer?
launched a war opposed by important U.S. allies
Do you mean the French and Russians who we now know were feeding at Saddam Hussein’s kickback trough? When liberals demean our coalition partners as “the bribed,” as John Francois Kerry has done, once again it turns out that the fingers they point leave three pointed back at them. You’d think a knowledgeable expert like Mr. Margolis would have heard of the Oil-for-Food scandal, wouldn’t you?
started the construction of the anti-missile system Reagan envisioned
That’s the system that the libs like Mr. Margolis mocked and called “Star Wars,” and which ultimately lead to the fall of the Soviet Union (remember Rekyjavik). Oh, that evil President Bush! Trying to protect us again!
cut taxes more often than Reagan
You wouldn’t want to let people keep more of the money they earn when liberals have so many wonderful ways to spend it.
and used his executive authority to weaken protections for workers and the environment.
That’s one way to look at it. Another is that he refused to impose more regulations on business and create opportunities for ambulance chasers to shake them down.
Later in his very lengthy piece, Mr. Margolis writes
“When he became president, the national mood was gloomy. Years of turmoil, the struggle over civil rights, the Vietnam War and its attendant social social conflicts, the Watergate scandal---culminated in the late ‘70’s with the exasperation of gasoline shortages, the humiliation of American diplomats held hostage in Iran and a sluggish economy plagued by high inflation.”
I would have written that differently. Try this: “After years of Democrat mismanagement of both foreign affairs, including appeasement of the Soviet Union and other state sponsors of terrorism and international war, and domestic policy—culminating in the stunning incompetence of President Jimmy Carter, who management to achieve what was previously considered impossible, ‘stagflation,’ which is not something you have at a bachelor party, but the combination of stratospheric interest rates and ridiculous levels of unemployment, Americans felt hopeless about their futures and ashamed about their place in the world.”
By now, you like me, must be thinking just who is this guy? Mr. Margolis was the Tribune’s senior political correspondent during President Reagan’s term in office. He has relocated, appropriately to the land of Ben and Jerry, where he no doubt enjoys the crunchy-granola lifestyle of all the other aging hippies who have infested that state. He is also an unabashed partisan and frequent contributor to left-leaning publications like The American Prospect. In one notable contribution, Mr. Margolis suggested that Illinois’ senior senator, the slobbering toady for left-wing interest groups, Dick Durbin, would make a good candidate for president. I might suggest that Sen. Durbin would have a tough time running for president, since that pursuit would involve appearing in front of audiences other than school children, groups of trial lawyers, unions or similarly sympathetic gatherings unlikely to ask him any challenging questions.
So at least we don’t have to fear Mr. Margolis’ dream candidate actually running. With a 95% rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, his dream is our nightmare.
I’ve saved the best for last. Writing about President Reagan’s popularity, Mr. Margolis writes,
“Large majorities liked him and admired his strength of leadership. They did not agree with him.
In fact, the impression of Reagan as an extremely popular president is a myth carefully orchestrated by that conservative political apparatus, which is still at it … His substantial victory margin in 1980 masked the reality that many voters chose him reluctantly. Even in his landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984, the exit polls revealed an electorate ambivalent about the president and his policies.”
Except that in the poll that counts HE WON FORTY-NINE STATES! Not that Mr. Margolis doesn’t note the “the numbers were impressive,” but only as an excuse to mention that President Reagan received more votes than any other presidential candidate, and the “runner up? Al Gore in 2000.” They just can’t let that go, can they? Don’t you picture Mr. Margolis sitting around sipping herb tea with other lefty fossils, taking comfort in statements like that? “Reagan? Oh yeah, he won, but people didn’t agree with him. Plus, we got more votes in 2000.” Then they see the news feeds from the last couple of days showing that in California, approximately 105,000 people paid their respects to President Reagan. Some of them spent over ten hours just to walk past his flag-draped coffin. In Washington, D. C., by 5 a.m. Thursday, 80,000 had passed and another 30,000 waited outside for the chance.
Why would the editors of the Chicago Tribune select this guy to write a new story about President Reagan’s legacy? Wasn’t Al Franken available? Perhaps Mr. Margolis needs to blow in a call to the Tribune’s editors. I think the ideologues may have taken over again.