Heretics' almanac

Bush or Kerry with days to spare

Slate's political editors have taken the trouble of collating all the state opinion polls to guess who would win the election, as of today.

They've sorted states into seven buckets, like this
- Out of play, going to Bush: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Indiana
- Out of play, going to Kerry: California, Illinois, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont
- Bush likely: Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, and West Virginia
- Kerry likely: Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine
- Bush, but iffy: New Mexico, Florida, Iowa
- Kerry, but iffy: Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Hawaii

The result, according to their analysis is that Kerry now has 149 solid electoral votes, 85 likely, and 38 iffy, for a total of 272. That would win him the presidency compared to Bush's 168 solid, 59 likely, 39 iffy for a total of 266.

But, Kerry has fewer locked up than Bush does, so it makes sense that both are trying to make inroads in the "iffy states," i.e., Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Florida (27), New Mexico (5), Iowa (7), Ohio (20), New Hampshire (4), and Hawaii (4). (Though I haven't heard of either of them visiting Hawaii or Alaska).

Voting: a spectator sport

It appears that voters in "battleground" states and possibly elsewhere will find that lots of people are loitering around the voting stations. This is because both parties are sending their people to the stations to make sure that everything about the voting is kosher.

Except, of course, they're worried about entirely different things.

The Republicans are sending "challengers," - people who will challenge an individual's eligibility to vote, so as to prevent them from voting more often than once for each election.

The Democrats are sending attorneys to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote gets to vote, and that their vote gets counted.

You don't have to be too much of a cynic to see the bias here: Republicans feel that it is better that 10 votes too few be cast rather than one vote too many. Democrats feel that it is better that one vote too many rather than 10 votes to few be cast.

Commentators say all this only matters if it's a close race. In a landslide, who cares? Well, I do.

More on Bush, Kerry, and Israel

Going into the last weeks, there is open disagreement on many of the otherwise concordant e-mail lists I belong to about Kerry, Bush, and Israel.

Charles Krauthammer - as one might expect - believes Kerry would readily sacrifice Israel's security to make good with, well, for example, France. Martin Peretz - a bit more surprisingly - is concerned about Kerry's multilateralist tendencies. The National Jewish Democratic Council presents their version of the facts that puts Bush in a less flattering, and Kerry in a more flattering, light.

It's worth reading all these three.

Let me say this: Krauthammer and Peretz are right to be concerned. In all likelihood, the people Kerry wants to make friends with will expect a new administration to put pressure on Israel to prove it's earnestness. And not to put to fine a point on it, that's the moral equivalent of a potential mobster having to kill someone to get "made."

Naomi Ragen rants

Naomi Ragen, who I often (but not always) agree with, has sent out a pro-Bush campaign e-mail that serves as a good illustration of the demonization of Democrats among the knee-jerk subset of the Republican establishment that have more in common with Michael Moore than they'd care to admit.

Her logic is this: Saddam launched Scud missiles at Israel, and Saddam sponsored suicide bombing; therefore we should thank Bush for getting rid of Saddam. Clinton pushed Israel to negotiate with and grant concessions to Arafat, which sparked the current intifadah. Kerry and Clinton are friendly and are both Democrats. Not only that, Kerry wants the US to get friendly with France again, and since France is no friend of Israel, that would be bad. Oh, and Carter shook hands with Kerry, too.

So there.

But I also noticed that when asked about Israel, Kerry gave the most unequivocal and principled statement about his view of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and Bush was the one who referred to a place called "Palestine," calling for further negotiations.

Living notes, third debate

Bush did too say that he doesn't really care about Bin Laden.

They both claim to have plans - I wonder how they're going to detail and back up these plans to the extent that anyone would believe either of them. "A plan is not a litany of complaints," is a good one.

"Bait and switch" was another easy hitter for Kerry - he should have had five examples on hand of Bush's unfulfilled election promises.

"Only president that.." was a good list.

It's interesting that both claim fiscal responsibility, but Bush is incurring the record deficits. It's absolutely remarkable that Bush can get away with accusing Kerry of fiscal irresponsibility. Ah, Kerry is hitting back big time. Tony Soprano analogy was interesting.

Urgent memo to Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry;

To paraphrase the president's father, it's getting hotter in the kitchen. Quoting you out of context and willfully misconstruing your opinions should be the acts of desparate people, but it appears Karl Rove believes in such tactics. It's probably because time is running out, and by the time the press makes an issue out of their tactics, it'll be too late.

You can't afford another debate that ends in a draw, senator. That's the bad news. The good news is that Americans are convinced you can a) stand straight and look presidential; b) express yourself clearly and unequivocally; c) maintain your composure under pressure.

So, here's what you gotta do in the last debate:

The end of conservatives in the GOP

We may have witnessed the end of the political conservative movement in America last night.

In spite of all the jokes Jon Stewart and Maureen Dowd make about Dick Cheney's evil nature, I actually like the guy. I think he holds his convictions with sincerity; he has a reflective and deliberative decision-making style; yet there's a drive and purpose you have to admire. He is what W. probably wants to be, but without the delusion of a "higher purpose."

I also like John Edwards. In contrast with Kerry, he's good at getting to the heart of the matter. He had the most refreshing, direct, and sophisticated platform while he was running for the Democratic nomination, and he seems more fearless than most.

I would say that their debating styles, while different, had equal merit. Edwards was animated and quick; Cheney was calm and deliberate.

But Edwards won, because the content of his contributions won.

The spectacle of presidential debates

You have to both admire and pity the presidential candidates when they debate on live TV. In the course of 90 minutes, they have to:

- Look presidential, but also approachable
- Convey earnestness, but also have a sense of humor
- Be civil, but also show conviction
- Demonstrate deep knowledge, but convey it in simple prose
- Show flexibility, but stick to the message
- Be taller and better looking than the other guy

Surprisingly, I developed greater sympathy for Bush the man last night - I believed him when he said "it's hard work," and I think he was genuinely distressed about being on the receiving end of so much unreasonable criticism. He must have been wondering - during one of those excruciating pauses -

Should Israelis vote for Bush or Kerry?

It's the old cliché: "but is it good for the Jews?" Jews in the diaspora are used to seeing their situation - as Jews - change when regimes change. Katarina "the Great" was bad for Jews. Maria Theresa was much better.

Since nobody's expecting either Kerry or Bush to institute pogroms or a Pale of Settlement in the next four years, a lot of Jews are instead asking the question "which administration would be better for Israel?"

The reflexive response is "Bush." As the US president of recent memory who has been the most principled in opposing terrorism and least concerned about appearing "even-handed," he has largely left Sharon alone to deal (quite effectively) with terrorism directed at Israel. And it actually helps Bush gain the Jewish vote when so many left-wing anti-Zionists argue that Bush perpetuates terrorism by supporting Israel.

But for the traditionally liberal Jewish community, it's difficult to vote for Bush on this single issue when so much of Bush's other policies - ranging from the war in Iraq to the environment to economic policy, etc., run counter to their convictions. Jews, the saying goes, "live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans."

So, what to do?

Rudy and John are ill-advised

John McCain and Rudy Guiliani - two Republicans so moderate they barely fit in - appear early at the GOP convention to put their weight behind keeping Bush in the White House. I am probably in the target market for this effort - I'd vote for McCain over Gore and Guiliani over, say, Koch.

But I'm not impressed. Bush, it must be remembered, has done nothing for the libertarian/moderate wing of his party. Whitman resigned as soon as it was decent for her to do so, and Bush's treatment of McCain is shameful. And there wasn't a lot of love lost between the Bushies and Rudy prior to 9/11. I don't know if it was easier for Bush, Pataki, and Rudy to work together as fellow Republicans, but it shouldn't be.

This may be McCain's way to show party loyalty after his name was floated as Kerry's running mate ("prove to us you didn't consider it!" but in Rudy's case it can only be sheer opportunism.