I was rethinking
my initial response to the debate - you know, that I thought Kerry defended his positions well, better than expected, but that they were positions that Soz and I may agree on, but might actually go down very badly with your average Missourian no matter how eloquently and straightforwardly presented - and I was thinking, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next batch of state polls show some advances for Kerry in the blue states - and a further deterioration of his numbers in the red states.
Think about it. Kerry has been faulted for lacking a coherent message, for being personally unappealing, for not being steadfast and aggressive enough in the face of the Bush and SVFT machines. He now showed a good deal of compensation on those things. So those who actually
do share his general kind of world view, his multilateralist, deliberate approach to world politics, but were unconvinced by him personally, might just fall back behind him now after all. Same with those who highly value having a knowledgeable man in office, but were thus far turned off by Kerry's waffling and lack of focus, they might now think, OK, he
can do it.
On the other hand, the rural and factory town voters that have voted Democrat in the past - just to speak in broad generalisations - they didn't do so because they share a multilateralist world view or get exasperated by lack of apparent intellect; they do so when they feel that's the party that cares most about them and is most in touch with the troubles they face. Talk of the UN, on the other hand, will still most likely turn them off, no matter
how articulately presented. (Scheiber, I see, makes
something of the same point).
Broad, sweeping generalisation, I know. There was an old woman calling in at C-SPAN last night, she didn't talk too smart, just common folk, but she was sighing in relief, cooing almost, "it made me so happy to hear this man talk, to hear a man talk who knows about things, who is an intelligent man ... I miss President Clinton so ... it was a good thing to hear John Kerry". So ... obviously, all my theories are relative. But still I wouldnt be surprised if the next polls show Kerry winning in, say, Maine and Washington, and losing in, say, Missouri and Arkansas.
Consider these maps below. Last week,
Daly looked up what states Gore and Bush were respectively leading in, in the polls, back in 2000, right at this point of the race. They make an interesting comparison with the states Kerry and Bush were leading in
now, last week.
Some eye-catching differences. Kerry actually does
better than Gore (who was overall in a better position) in WA, OR, NM, ME, NH and MD - all states he's either tied or ahead in where Gore was trailing Bush.
But Gore did better than where Kerry now is at in MN, WI, IA, MO, AR, TN and FL - he was ahead there, at this point in the race, while Kerry last week was either tied or behind - or he was tied while Kerry now is behind..
The states Kerry outdoes Gore in are all in the northeast or in the northwest, plus New Mexico. The states Gore outdid Kerry in are all in the midwest or south. Another slight confirmation that the division between red and blue states threatens to become a class/culture thing - with the
Republicans definitively ending up the party of common folk?
ECB Map, 9/29/04
ECB (Classic) Map, 9/29/00