Electability framing of 2004 -- this does not appear to be based in fact

[beachmom]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/01/post_2363.html#014971

ELECTABILITY MYTH: Jonathan Cohn has a great online piece in TNR today, arguing that Democrats should stop chasing the ghost of electability. He analyzes their mistake in 2004, where they found reasons to disqualify every contender but Kerry, even though none found him inspiring. But Cohn leaves out a strong point that supports his argument. Polls among Iowa and New Hampshire primary and caucus voters showed a majority of those who voted for the candidate they actually liked voted for Edwards, while a majority of voters who voted for who they thought would win in the general election voted for Kerry. Meanwhile, Independents and Republicans heavily supported Edwards. Clearly the Dems were making a mistake at the time. Why did they think that their guess as to what swing voters would prefer was more trustworthy than what those voters actually did prefer?




I went to the "polls" link, and the only thing it proved was that "electability" was the #1 reason people voted for Kerry. However, I do not see anywhere where it says people didn't "like" him. I also don't see where Republicans and Independents liked Edwards more. I don't have a subscription to TNR, so I don't know what that article says. But this all seems to be a re-writing of history. As many have said, Edwards doesn't grow with wear. And he has a thin resume plus he is vulnerable with he and his wife falsely claiming to have been "poor" or less elitist when they are, in fact, millionaires. There are other issues I have with his message, which I don't think will have broad appeal. What is up with TAP, anyway? Why is it all pro-Edwards posts suddenly?

[TayTay]

1. TNR hated and hates Kerry

If it isn't there in the data, they will make it up. Remember, this publication didn't even include KErry in it's list of possible candidates in a special issue devoted to the 04 election that ran in '03.

Sometimes it doesn't make sense, cuz there ain't no sense in it.

[beachmom]

3. I know that to be true of TNR, but why is TAP piling on?

I thought they were a reasonable liberal magazine. But they don't seem to like Kerry, at least nothing I've seen on their blog.

[blm]

2. They were big on Edwards then, too. I suppose Kerry should apologize for outperforming

everyone at his townhalls and during the debates where everyone had their shots to gain the votes.

These pundit idiots never get it right.

[beachmom]

4. TAP was, too? So, like, who were the proponents of Kerry back then?

Not the Nation, not TNR . . . who? That would be good to know going forward.

[whometense]

5. Robert Reich at

the American Prospect. Charlie Pierce too.

He had a number of individual smart thinkers in his corner - but I don't know that he had a lot of institutional advancers. The staff at TAP has changed since 2003, and there are fewer Kerry supporters there now, I think.

[ProSense]

8. There are posts

there critical of others too. Greg Sargeant, Ezra Klein and one or two others post some good stuff on Kerry. The opinions range:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2246.html

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2293.html

[beachmom]

9. Thanks. It must just be the last week where this Edwardsmania

has erupted. If they are like other pundits, they will flit and float a dozen times among the candidates.

[Democrafty]

12. Probably.

I just don't see the pundits consistently supporting any one person for two entire years. It won't sell papers, for one thing.

That said, I appreciate your posting this, because it really speaks to the "truthiness" problem we have to deal with from certain editors. We are all forced to read these opinion pieces by people who are SO CERTAIN their interpretations of data are correct that they don't even consider the possibility that the TNR might not be representative of the actual opinions of the people who participate in these polls.

[wisteria]

6. I would of thought it was the other way around. Edwards'would of

been the "golden boy" of eligibility back in 03/04. Southern,friendly, charming, a populist.
I also think I remember something about Senator Kerry hitting one out of the park in Iowa with a very inspiring speech and that sent him over the top. Up till that point no one paid much attention to him.

This is all Edwards hype. This reminds me of the recent Iowa piece trying to claim that Edwards won Iowa back in 04.
Obama last month, Edwards this month. Obama backlash has started, Edwards time is coming.

Obviously, TNR and TAP do not want a challanging primary amongst Democrats. Senator Kerry would add a much needed demension to the primaries-the others would really have to know what they were talking about. I think some people would rather see a dummied down race on the Democratic side.

[MBS]

13. I agree with you

I think the "likability" of Edwards is really about the conclusion of some that only Southerners are "electable". this may be my failing, but I personally find it hard to take Edwards seriously, and find myself mystified by Talking Heads who profess enthusiasm for him. I often wonder whether there's a whiff of condescension to voters in their conclusions: i.e., they pronounce him "likeable" or "electable" not because of their own opinion, but because they figure that The People should find him "likeable" or "electable".

Apparently, people need to be reminded, again and again, of the FACT that Kerry won in Iowa because he ran a good campaign there, and because he connected with voters there, one-and-one, and in town meetings.JK totally earned his Iowa victory, for all the right reasons.

Also, on the likeability issue: these idiots really expect me to believe that the people laughing, clapping, whooping, and giving JK standing ovations in speech after speech over the last year-- in Faneuil Hall, at the Take Bake American conference, at the Lance Armstrong cancer conference, at Pepperdine, and elsewhere , don't like Kerry, but are merely cooling concluding that he's "electable"? Give me a f___ break.
I am totally, totally sick of the silliness of what passes for political discourse among the Talking Heads and MSM print media. Has everyone really become this DUMB?

Rather than repeat myself, I'll just post bits from my latest rants elsewhere:
1. my response to beachmom's wonderful 12/31 daily Kos diary:"Thank you for presenting the truth on John Kerry (17+ / 0-)
He is one of the most courageous, thoughtful, committed, capable and forward-looking public servants we've had in decades, and it's high time he got the appreciation and respect he so deeply deserves. As these stories demonstrate, Sen. Kerry is a good person and a true patriot -- that is, someone who's in the business of politics not to move his career forward, but to move our country forward.
Kerry is a truth-teller, at a time when facts and truth have been out of fashion, in the White House, in the media, and in political conversation generally. The least we can do in return for Sen. Kerry's courage is to tell the truth about him ourselves. And also, next, for everyone, Democrats most especially included, to honor the truth of who he is, and what he has to say. It's in our interest, and our country's interest, to do so."

2. Also, I recently left a long post at http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/01/happy_new_year.html. Mine is currently the last post (#85) on this thread. (Sorry about typos) Here's the paragraph most relevant to current discussion:
"My hope – my prayer – for 2007 and 2008 is that truth-telling will be the hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign, No more lies. No more tempests-in-teapots over trivia. Emphasis on things that matter. Citizens caring about real issues. Citizens using adult criteria to select an adult for president. Journalists doing their job, resisting corporate and power-politics pressures, reporting on issues, on things that matter."

Less diplomatically, my real prayer is that journalists and my fellow Dems will GROW UP so that there's some prayer of a chance that they will make adult choices in 2008. I'm already exhausted by this stupidity and it's only the 3rd day of the year.

[karynnj]

15. He was PUSHED by the press in 2004

The strangest were in articles after Wisconsin. He was also labeled a "smaller winner" on the day when Kerry won NM, AZ, DE, MO , and ND and Edwards won SC and Clark won OK.

Imagine it were the other way around, Kerry had done almost as well as Edwards in Iowa, then was 4th (the media would not say tied for third with Kerry) in SC. Then won only NH out of 7 contests that were mostly coastal and liberal. Would he have been spoken of as a secondary winner or woud it be "dead as a doornail".

I hope the spotlight is intense over the next few months - I don't know how they would handle it.

[ray of light]

7. CNN and others really used the 'electability' meme. &

they will continue to use whatever meme they want to use. What they did though is ignore all his merits. And those that decided to learn more about him discovered that he was more than qualified and not as flippy as the media made him out to be. They discovered that there was more beneath the surface. And they discovered that he had integrity even if he didn't play 'politics' as well as Rove and the Bushites.

[wisteria]

10. Rove and the Bushite politics need to be denounced as damaging

to our country. Their political games are unethical, caustic,vile and dangerous. We should never stoop to their level every again. Destroying people's careers with lies and character assignations and lying to the public for political gains is beyond reprehensible.These types of things should be against the law.

[ProSense]

11. OT: a piece on McCain

The pundits keep mentioning this lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3039160&mesg_id=3039160

[karynnj]

14. I saw that in a lot of the polls

I did - when I could - look to see the actual question. I have a major problem with the design. They usually had a list of reasons - and you were forced to choose one. The reason that he can win - says more than I like him or I share his values.

Looking at the list then - I would have picked that he had the ability to win. Which he did because he was wicked smart, Presidential and he made the rest of them look like high school students next to him in a debate. I assume I don't have to say that I liked him. :)

Having to pick one thing - I seriously didn't think then or now - that my "liking him" was as important as knowing that he could do the job. (In fact, that Kerry got so many "can win" ones may be somewhat the root of the problem now. In 2004, listening to Kerry was very comforting - he knew what to do, seemed trustworthy and was very convincing that he could win! When he didn't, some here almost take it that he lied to them - sort of like the kid mad at you because you did promise to let her go to the beach - but it's raining?)