Andrew Sullivan Endorses John Kerry

[jerseyhoya34]

www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFINfAm4eR7PMnY1tkQ2m%3D%3D

Sullivan offers a well written, sophisticated endorsement of sorts. He should be commended for the execution of his argument, although I do have some hesitations with it. Recommended reading.

[thebin]

Oh I see. A year ago Sullivan was a right wing hack- now he is sophisticated and well written.

This is why I remain confident Kerry will lose soundly on Tuesday. Sullivan has not one iota of affection for Kerry- and quite a lot of disdain. For a couple of different reasons, some of them reasonable, others less so IMO, Sullivan decided he couldn't back Bush again some time ago. ( I thought he might endorse a libertarian or other fringe candidate because he denied endorsing Kerry and dislked so much about him right up until the end.) But see there is the rub. Kerry has lots of people who hate Bush and will tolerate Kerry, but he has very few real admirers. But he also has lots of people who hate him for who who he is. Bush has both haters and lovers and that candidate trumps the "Anbody But Candidate" 9 times out of 10. Ask Bob Dole.

[jerseyhoya34]

Interesting criticism there of my point of view, especially coming from a person who said he was done with me earlier in the week and managed to reply to this thread. Also interesting coming from someone who decried my partisanship (which somehow contributes to a lack of imagination and a willingness to toe the party line) and then my "vivid imagination" within hours of each other. Perhaps I could also ask why you felt it appropriate to call Kerry a "pompous [expletive omitted," or why you felt it tasteful to post things referring to sexual acts, or why you saw a need to write about your nausea while listening to a former American President, or why you belittle the handicapped in your references to them without apology to even those who asked you to cease your tirades because of the offense it brings to handicapped relatives and friends who may even read this board.

Anyway, as for my take on Andrew Sullivan, part of my reason for calling him a hack is that he was not willing seemingly to take this major step and endorse Kerry. I appreciate the courage that he displayed this morning in doing so because he put his personal convictions ahead of his party's, which was not a clear behavior of his previously, at least to my eyes, in anything other than his words.

I disagree slightly with your analysis. You are right to point out that Bush supporters have a more favorable view of their candidate than Kerry supporters of theirs. However, the margin there has decreased over the past few weeks to the degree that it may even be within the margin of ecord. Likewise, the fav/unfav ratings are about the same.

The question, however, should not be about comparing the bases. The question is whether Dems are relatively more energized than they were in 2000, when their candidate was also derided as a stiff. Remember that was a close election, and it seemed to me that the Republicans were more energized, but memory could be in ecord there. They certainly had a more favorable view of Bush than they do now (or at least the fav/unfav margin is now smaller). All this said, and Gore received more votes in 2000 in spite of Gore's failings as a candidate and the lack of energy in his campaign. So, if Kerry can just give the Dems a relative bump in the energy department, which I think he (and Clinton) have done and will do, then I think Kerry will be in good shape even if the Dems are not as energetic as the Republican base on 11/2.

[nychoya3]

An interesting theory of politics. I don't see any reason to believe it true. This race bears zero resemblance to 1996. Both parties are ultra-motivated and mobilized - by what doesn't particularly matter. The polls have consistently showed very high interest and very high intentions to vote on both sides. Each candidate garners about 90% of the vote in their own party, give or take a couple points. Moreover, each candidate has about the same favorable ratings, around 55, which pretty much belies your "no one likes Kerry" motif. Actually, Bush's unfavorables are higher than Kerry's. That many on the right have managed to parlay some out of context quotes and a vaguely arisitrocatic manner into the same sort of vitrioilic hatred they've developed for pretty much every democrat in the country doesn't mean everyone else has. That Bush has been forced to make this race about John Kerry, a candidate with a relatively unspectuacular record in the senate, speaks to the bankruptcy of Bush's policies. The damage done scares me. The damage that's still left to do scares me even more.

Clinton ran in 1996 with a favorable rating in the 52
to 55 range. Bush's is somewhere between 45 and 50. Those aren't winning numbers. This race is still very much up in the air, but if you think your guy is going to win handily, you're smoking.

I still don't like Sullivan. He's smart and hell of a writer, but he veers towards extremism on whatever side he happens to be arguing. I think he's just naturally contrarain, which is fine, but it becomes a bit dizzying to watch his politics fly all over the place.

Chris Hitchens is voting for Kerry too. He has a blurb in Slate. Honestly, I can't even begin to make heads or tails of what the hell he's talking about half the time.

[Boz]

nychoya3 said:

Chris Hitchens is voting for Kerry too. He has a blurb in Slate. Honestly, I can't even begin to make heads or tails of what the hell he's talking about half the time.

Christopher Hitchens is a U.S. citizen? Huh. I didn't know that. I knew he lived here, but not that he had become a citizen.

(If that is not the case, I will be sure to file election fraud charges in Washington, D.C. ;D )

I know that as recently as mid-October, he was supporting Bush -- with many reservations -- but I haven't seen the Slate item.

[nychoya3]

Yeah, I thought Hitchens had endorsed Bush too. So I looked it up. And he did! In the Nation of all places! It's pretty tepid, but it sure sounds like an endorsement.

www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=hitchens

Here he is in slate (you have to scroll): slate.msn.com/id/2108714/

Chris has a little multiple personality thing going on. Either way I don't like him and I never have. Pure polemicist. He's very good at it, but still...

[Boz]

Thanks.

Those wacky Brits, with their Benny Hill and their Monty Python. You never know what they're going to come up with.

;D

I really have to leave this board now. I am on the verge of getting sucked in and I just can't do that this week.

Good luck to the reds and the blues ( but not to those weirdo greens! ) One way or another I just hope this is over on Nov. 3.

[jerseyhoya34]

nychoya3 said:

An interesting theory of politics. I don't see any reason to believe it true. This race bears zero resemblance to 1996. Both parties are ultra-motivated and mobilized - by what doesn't particularly matter. The polls have consistently showed very high interest and very high intentions to vote on both sides. Each candidate garners about 90% of the vote in their own party, give or take a couple points. Moreover, each candidate has about the same favorable ratings, around 55, which pretty much belies your "no one likes Kerry" motif. Actually, Bush's unfavorables are higher than Kerry's. That many on the right have managed to parlay some out of context quotes and a vaguely arisitrocatic manner into the same sort of vitrioilic hatred they've developed for pretty much every democrat in the country doesn't mean everyone else has. That Bush has been forced to make this race about John Kerry, a candidate with a relatively unspectuacular record in the senate, speaks to the bankruptcy of Bush's policies. The damage done scares me. The damage that's still left to do scares me even more.

Clinton ran in 1996 with a favorable rating in the 52
to 55 range. Bush's is somewhere between 45 and 50. Those aren't winning numbers. This race is still very much up in the air, but if you think your guy is going to win handily, you're smoking.

I still don't like Sullivan. He's smart and hell of a writer, but he veers towards extremism on whatever side he happens to be arguing. I think he's just naturally contrarain, which is fine, but it becomes a bit dizzying to watch his politics fly all over the place.

Chris Hitchens is voting for Kerry too. He has a blurb in Slate. Honestly, I can't even begin to make heads or tails of what the hell he's talking about half the time.

There is a new poll of just Miami-Dade county out (Zogby). Here are the key stats:

Bush 46, Gore 53
Bush 41, Kerry 55

So, in this part of the country, the left is more energized than in 2000 and Bush support has eroded. It doesn't speak well of Bush's chances in Florida either considering what the margins looked like in 2000.

www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/27/125334/62#readmore

[Cambridge]

Also, do not forget in races involving encumbants undecideds traditionally break 2 to 1 in favor of the challenger.

[jerseyhoya34]

I know that, and it looks like this race will probably be no different. I think the polls are showing the independents breaking for Kerry by a 2-1 margin, but the issue is how much turnout KE04 can generate among that group.

[kchoya]

JerseyHoya34 said:

There is a new poll of just Miami-Dade county out (Zogby). Here are the key stats:

Bush 46, Gore 53
Bush 41, Kerry 55

Then you counter that with this:

LA TIMES THURSDAY: President Bush holding an 8 percentage point lead among likely voters in Florida, John Kerry opening a 6 percentage point advantage in Ohio, and the two men battling to a dead heat in Pennsylvania.

The moral of the story is that it's going to be close next Tuesday and we should all root for the Redskins to win on Sunday.

[GUHoya07]

I think we should root for the skins to lose and the Giants to win! haha

[jerseyhoya34]

kchoya said:

Then you counter that with this:

LA TIMES THURSDAY: President Bush holding an 8 percentage point lead among likely voters in Florida, John Kerry opening a 6 percentage point advantage in Ohio, and the two men battling to a dead heat in Pennsylvania.

The moral of the story is that it's going to be close next Tuesday and we should all root for the Redskins to win on Sunday.

The LA Times polls are outliers at this point. If we see similar things in other polls, that's reason for pause. So, I agree with your conclusion. Barring a major surprise, it is Maalox time for the campaign strategists on 11/2.

[Joe Hoya]

I guess I"ll be rooting for the Redskins for the first time in my life.

That's committing to a candidate right there.

Oh, and E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!! (There's no way I could ever say I was gonna root for the Redskins without also showing my love for the Birds at the same time...sorry)