October 26, 2004

FROM OFFENSE TO DEFENSE:

Kerry ads canceled in Colorado (The Denver Post, 10/26/04)

John Kerry has canceled ads in Colorado through Election Day. With one weekend poll showing the Democratic nominee narrowly ahead in Colorado, but others showing him trailing, his campaign pulled dozens of spots starting today.

Kerry's national campaign staff wouldn't comment. Steve Haro, Kerry's Colorado spokesman, said that Democrats are focusing on mobilizing voters rather than persuading them with TV ads.

"Television commercials do not a campaign make," he said. "Right now, you have to question the return on the investment, and we did." [...]

Kerry, who campaigned in Colorado Saturday, scratched a potential trip to Colorado today Haro said the trip wasn't needed because "momentum is with us."


Bailing on NV can't be far behind.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 26, 2004 9:43 AM
Comments

My Colorado household has been getting one or two Democratic direct mail pieces a day for the past week, and four calls so far from Democratic operatives urging us to get to the polls.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 26, 2004 10:13 AM

Are they still advertising in NH? Is Bush?

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 26, 2004 10:34 AM

Colorado went for Dole in 1996, why would this state even be close? The Californians who moved there in the interim did so because they wanted to escape the high-crime, high-tax California they came from.

Can Bush possibly still be suffering from the fact that many middle and upper middle class White suburbanites are repulsed by religious extremism manifesting itself in government?

Posted by: Bart at October 26, 2004 10:34 AM

Jim:

Both are advertising on northern MA radio, which I can only assume is targeted at NH.

Posted by: mike earl at October 26, 2004 10:47 AM

religious extremism manifesting itself in government?


For example?

Posted by: pchuck at October 26, 2004 10:49 AM

Mentioning God at all is extremism to some people.

Posted by: Sandy P at October 26, 2004 10:50 AM

Calling for the Supreme Court to illegalize abortion in virtually all circumstances and opposing stem cell research to give two examples. Both of these positions are wildly unpopular in the large swathes of upper-middle income suburbia where Gore beat Bush, such as Northern NJ, Oakland County Michigan, Fairfield County CT, the Lakeshore suburbs of Chicago, to name a few.

Posted by: Bart at October 26, 2004 11:07 AM

Facts please, Bart. The Bush administration has NOT called for the SCOTUS to illegalize abortion (which would be a stupid move; you don't tell the SCOTUS to do something). You seem to be quoting DNC talking points regarding stem cell research as well. Fact: the Bush administration is the first to provide federal funding for stem cell research. They have limited what can be done with embryonic stem cells (ESC) using federal dollars, but they ARE funding it. And there is no ban on privately funded ESC research.

Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at October 26, 2004 11:23 AM

Great news! Kerry conceding CO to Bush puts Kerry in a very small box. He must now hope to win OH and FL, and hope that some combination of "swing" states that have an EV=20 or greater don't fall in the Bush column. In real life, hope is not an effective strategy.

BYW,what's up with NH Bros. Judd?

Posted by: capt mike at October 26, 2004 11:47 AM

Roy,

The question was what kind of religious extremism would cause White suburban voters who would otherwise be GOP to vote against the GOP candidate, not what policies Bush had imposed. If Bush had actively pursued the Gary Bauer agenda, I could easily understand the problems he apparently is having in Colorado. However, as he is not doing so, my question remains unanswered.

FDR didn't have any problems telling the Supreme Court what to do, and he would have done court-packing if they hadn't.

Posted by: Bart at October 26, 2004 11:49 AM

Bart:

He has.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 11:54 AM

There's heavy advertising in NH and if Kerry were to win he might even carry in a new governor.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 11:56 AM

The process is called "Californication"— where people from that state move to another state for "livestyle" reasons. Then they immediately proceed to actively remake their new home state in an exact image of what they left behind. Then they whine and complain that things have gone to hell, it's not as nice as when they moved there, and it's all the newcomers fault. Not themselves, of course, but all the other people who came the next day.

I'm disappointed though, I was hoping that electoral vote referendum passed at the same time Kerry got a majority, in effect denying him four electoral votes. It would be an instructive example of the way "Progressive" Leftism works in the real world.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 26, 2004 12:10 PM

Bart:

They're probably more pissed about the economy than anything else.

The people who dislike social conservatism that much were probably aginst the GOP to begin with.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 26, 2004 12:23 PM

Ali,

Republicans run local government in much of suburban NJ. However, even strongly GOP counties, like Monmouth, went for Gore last time. The reason was hostility to the social conservative agenda. Bush has not been the Savanarola that people expected him to be. He's been conservative but not a loon, which is not unreasonable. He's governed no more than 1 standard deviation to the right(about like Pataki in his first term as NY governor) and that is well within the tolerance of these voters, if their local choices mean anything.

If polling data is accurate, Bush has reversed much of his problems with suburban voters in 2000. However, Colorado is if anything becoming more hostile. I just don't understand it.

Posted by: Bart at October 26, 2004 12:44 PM

Or they're counting on winning Colorado in the post-election lawyer fight.

Posted by: Ken at October 26, 2004 1:01 PM

Bart - I saw one analyst attribute it to Colorado's fast-growing Hispanic population, which leans Democratic. They may be moving from California too.

Posted by: pj at October 26, 2004 1:25 PM

Regarding Nevada: President Clinton is reported to be going there (and to New Mexico).

Let's see if those plans transpire.

Posted by: old maltese at October 26, 2004 2:31 PM

illegalize abortion


So abortion is strictly a religious issue?


Ya know, some people are opposed to abortion on non-religious grounds.


You have an odd amd all encompassing definition of "religious extremism".

Posted by: pchuck at October 26, 2004 2:53 PM

p:

Not coherently they aren't.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 3:57 PM

The Hispanic vote is a chimera. Despite its obvious size and potential, it has very low turnout. In fact, in 2000, it was about the same size as the Jewish vote and significantly less than the Black vote. Thus, I think this explanation is unsatisfactory unless the polling methodology is poor.

I think it's great Clinton is going to Nevada. How much time is he going to campaign compared with how much time he spends in the strip bars?

Posted by: Bart at October 26, 2004 5:00 PM

Several polls now have Kerry up in CO.

He did what he could and is now focusing elsewhere, not necessarily giving up.

Some say hispanic voters will come out in CO for the senate race and give Kerry 'reverse coattails.' Seems plausible in a close race. Kerry got it close enough to give this effect a chance to work.

As I've posted here before, this is the 1st election I've followed state polls. It's scary.

Posted by: JAB at October 26, 2004 8:46 PM

The only pollster to have Kerry up in CO has been Zogby. Zogby's latest has Kerry +4 while everyone else has Bush +8 or so. That said for some reason CO will be close for Bush this year but I think he will pull it out. I draw comfort from the fact that in '02 the pollster grossly underestimated GOP turnout and predicted Allard would lose when he won by more than 5%.
All that said, with a week to go I wonder if the ads lose there effectiveness and it boils down to GOTV time.

And OJ - this is the first time I think I've seen you say Bush won't easily win NH. Changed mind?

Posted by: AWW at October 26, 2004 10:56 PM

AWW:

Governor Benson hasn't been able to put his opponent away either.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 11:02 PM

OJ - so Gregg and the 2 congressmen win in romps but Benson and Bush might lose?????

Posted by: AWW at October 26, 2004 11:34 PM

Hard to see how, with a surplus and no tax hikes, but Benson's had a bunch of controversies and we New Englanders don't like that kind of thing.

It's just his underperformance--polling under 50%--combined with polls showing Kerry leading here, has to be troubling for the party.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 11:43 PM
« DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: | Main | IF ONLY AMERICAN JEWS WERE ZIONISTS: »