Politics Blog

Finally, an independent poll on the Landrieu-Terrell matchup in Louisiana. It shows Landrieu leading 50-34. Before you give up on this race, it’s worth noting that this poll’s accuracy is very suspect because:

1. It estimates that 28% of voters will be black. Black turnout has usually been 23-24%, reaching 26% when David Duke was in a runoff for governor on a general election day. Now that runoffs are held a month after the general election and David Duke is a distant memory, it’s hard to see black turnout even reaching 23%.

2. This same pollster had the numbers all wrong for the general election. On 10/23, they released a poll showing Landrieu 45%, Terrell 16%, Cooksey 9% and Perkins 4%, with 27% (!) undecided. The actual election results were Landrieu 46%, Terrell 27%, cooksey 14% and Perkins 10%

So it’s still a close race and these numbers mean nothing. Sigh. I get my first independent poll and it’s worthless. I always thought New Hampshire had the worst polls in the country; but Louisiana seems to be giving it a run for its money.

I pointed out before the elections that the Wellstone memorial rally would hurt Democrats everywhere:

It’s hard to overstate the impact of the Wellstone rally. Conservativetalk radio hosts have been playing it up all day and the Republican base is thoroughly energized. As usual, the pundits, with their liberal D.C-area dinner party friends, have been unable to catch the strong undercurrent of anger that runs among Republicans today.

Now that the elections are over and it’s safe to indulge in 20/20 hindsight, liberal media “experts” agree. But, like Democratic spokesmen before the elections, they try very hard to whitewash the rally:

“To expect that 15- or 20,000 Wellstone supporters would be quiet as pictures of Trent Lott and others flashed on the screen was too much to expect,” said Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Too much to expect?” Why? Are they martians? Just what did their grandmothers teach these freaks?

Looks like the pollster who did that Louisiana Senate poll showing Landrieu with a 16 point lead over Terrell is uncomfortable with his numbers.

You can see my post on the accuracy of the poll here.

Al Gore is the latest to take on conservative media outlets:

“Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh

The numbers show that the economy is doing better than expected. Call me nuts; but I think that the clear GOP victory on election night will do a lot to propel the confidence of American enterpreneurs and send growth soaring in the next couple of quarters. Witness how the success in Afghanistan did the same early this year, when growth hit a breakneck 5%.

Finally, an independent poll on the Landrieu-Terrell matchup in Louisiana. It shows Landrieu leading 50-34. Before you give up on this race, it’s worth noting that this poll’s accuracy is very suspect because:

1. It estimates that 28% of voters will be black. Black turnout has usually been 23-24%, reaching 26% when David Duke was in a runoff for governor on a general election day. Now that runoffs are held a month after the general election and David Duke is a distant memory, it’s hard to see black turnout even reaching 23%.

2. This same pollster had the numbers all wrong for the general election. On 10/23, they released a poll showing Landrieu 45%, Terrell 16%, Cooksey 9% and Perkins 4%, with 27% (!) undecided. The actual election results were Landrieu 46%, Terrell 27%, cooksey 14% and Perkins 10%

So it’s still a close race and these numbers mean nothing. Sigh. I get my first independent poll and it’s worthless. I always thought New Hampshire had the worst polls in the country; but Louisiana seems to be giving it a run for its money.

I pointed out before the elections that the Wellstone memorial rally would hurt Democrats everywhere:

It’s hard to overstate the impact of the Wellstone rally. Conservativetalk radio hosts have been playing it up all day and the Republican base is thoroughly energized. As usual, the pundits, with their liberal D.C-area dinner party friends, have been unable to catch the strong undercurrent of anger that runs among Republicans today.

Now that the elections are over and it’s safe to indulge in 20/20 hindsight, liberal media “experts” agree. But, like Democratic spokesmen before the elections, they try very hard to whitewash the rally:

“To expect that 15- or 20,000 Wellstone supporters would be quiet as pictures of Trent Lott and others flashed on the screen was too much to expect,” said Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Too much to expect?” Why? Are they martians? Just what did their grandmothers teach these freaks?

Looks like the pollster who did that Louisiana Senate poll showing Landrieu with a 16 point lead over Terrell is uncomfortable with his numbers.

You can see my post on the accuracy of the poll here.

The 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate

Since I got lucky in predicting Election 2002 by following my gut and going out on a limb, I’m going to try it again. You heard it here first: Barring an unforeseen mega-event, Al Gore will be the Democratic party nominee for president in 2004.

The media is still pretending that it’s trying to figure out whether Gore is running for president; but you don’t give major policy speeches criticizing the Bush administration, write a book on “the American family” and then do a frenzied media book tour, unless you want to run for something. And Gore sure ain’t running for governor.

If Gore runs, he’s practically a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination because:

1. The Democratic primary schedule has been compressed, giving the front-runner an advantage. In effect, it’s more like a national primary, in which the person with the most name recognition and money will have an enormous advantage.

2. Democrats haven’t gotten over the “we wuz robbed” theme. Now, I don’t pretend to understand Democrats; they’re pretty much martians to me. But, when you look at the polls and talk to Democrats, it’s apparent that Florida 2000 is fresh in their minds. Since liberal Democrats are disproportionately represented in the Democratic primary, this gives Gore a huge advantage.

3. Gore is a candidate with nothing to lose. He will, therefore, “out-left” the other candidates, as he has begun to do with his blistering Iraq policy criticisms and single-payer healthcare endorsement. This plays well to the Democratic primary electorate.

4. The other candidates are remarkably unappealing. It’s hard to say that when you’re comparing them to (drum roll) Al Gore! But it’s true. Would you rather be put to sleep by John Kerry, unimpressed by John Edwards or repulsed by Joe Lieberman?

So there you go. Barring an unforeseen mega-event, Al Gore will be the Democratic party nominee for president in 2004.

The Political Wire has links to Gore’s slow book sales, his dropping popularity among the general electorate and his continuing popularity among Democrats.