Item: Tom Ridge makes Scary Speech the weekend after the Democratic convention concludes. Now, If I were cynical, I'd think that they were sitting on this news-- or making it up-- to throw some cold water on the Dem momentum post-convention. But I'm not cynical, as regular readers would know (nyuck nyuck). So it is equally possible that Ridge held off until the convention was over so as not to steal the Dems thunder. He strikes me as a gentleman. A little stiff, but that goes for most in high profile public positions. So let's dispense with the issue of the timing of the speech altogether; APW believes this is a non-issue.

Of course, you had to love the speech he gave. Let me boil it down for you:

"If you work in Citicorp, give some serious thought to telecommuting. Vote Bush!"

It was the perfect blend of terror and party line. The second part of the speech was pure campaign rhetoric, and I give him enough credit to have felt bad about having to do it. He seemed a tad uncomfortable.

What troubles me is that a terorist attack is good for the incumbent. Us New Yorkers remember after 9/11, Giulliani magnanimously volunteering to stay on even after his term expired. And they've already floated the idea that a terrorist attack might mean election day need be postponed for national security, no? Isn't it worrisome that this administration, which has made implications about Kerry letting France dictate his foreign policy because he has the temerity to have learned to speak French (presumably while Bush was failing the same course), is so cozy with the Saudis that THEY make our foreign policy in the middle east right now? Is it not a little troubling that a great big explosion in the middle of NYC is good for Bush politically? I'm not saying I smell a conspiracy-- lord knows, if that's what you want, there are plenty of websites for you. But I would feel better if a great big explosion in the middle of NYC was not in the best interests of the president, is all I'm saying.

Item: Popular vote too close to call. According to the CNN/Time/Gallup/Fenner & Ziggy poll, Bush is looking at 50%, Kerry 47%, with 3 points standard error, a virtual tie in the popular vote. This is a real pet peeve of mine. Why do we care about the popular vote? Is Al Gore president? No? I didn't think so. Didn't he win the popular vote? Wolf Blitzer, you are a real live journalist. I would expect this from Aaron Brown or anyone at Fox. But not the Blitzman.

I'm not going off on a rant about the electoral college here (but if I did, I'd say that in this day and age it is no longer the logical approach that it was in 1789.) But I am going to go off on the news media that continues to report on the popular vote, as if it meant a damn. We all know that what matters is how the electoral votes cume on a state-by-state basis. So here is A Penny's Worth's site of the day. They track polls by state, and report states as voting Bush, voting Kerry, leaning Bush, or leaning Kerry. They currently show Kerry with 215 solid electoral votes, Bush with 198. But the leaning states give the current nod to Bush, 76 to 51, for a total of 274 electoral votes. Note that they show every southern state voting or leaning Bush, including Florida and Edwards's home state. Remember that when APW came out for Kerry (a prediction, not an endorsement), we believed that Edwards and Bill Clinton would help Kerry carry one or more southern states that Gore lost in 2000. Indeed, APW thinks Florida is in play, and that Kerry knows enough to use Clinton and Edwards there up the yin yang, and that he understands he has to win the state by enough to actually take the state (that is, he has to win by a margin exceeding the fudge factor that all state governments have, like it or not.)

Anyway, check out the site. They update it, and as the election gets closer, it will be an interesting sanity check as the networks run around with their popular vote polls.

By the way, a tip of the hat to my cyberfriend W!b for bringing the site to my attention.

Labels: The politics