October 29, 2004

THE GORE EFFECT (via Tom Morin):

Cheney, Gore Headed To Hawaii To Campaign (Hawaii Channel, October 28, 2004)

Vice President Dick Cheney is heading to Hawaii for a Republican rally on Sunday, Gov. Linda Lingle said. The rally for Cheney starts at 11 p.m. at the Hawaii Convention Center. The vice president is scheduled to appear in four other states before arriving in Hawaii on Sunday. [...]

The Democrats are also sending some big names in the party. Former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry's eldest daughter, Alexandra, are scheduled to arrive Friday.


As Howard Dean can attest, an endorsement from Mr. Gore is the political equivalent of jumping the shark--move HI to the Red column.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 29, 2004 12:57 PM
Comments

I wondered earlier if that HI poll was a fluke. Now we know Hawaii really is in play.

Posted by: Gideon at October 29, 2004 1:35 PM

They shoulda sent Jenna and Barbara. And a volleyball.

Posted by: Mike Morley at October 29, 2004 1:55 PM

Harry?

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 29, 2004 2:03 PM

I sure hope that rove Rove (shouldn't "rove" be a synomyn for evil manipulating genius by now?) knows what he is doing, 'cause this strikes me as too weird to be true or good.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 29, 2004 2:15 PM

Here's betting Gore manages to link Pearl Harbor and 9/11 during whatever speech he gives in Hawaii, and blames Bush for both.

Posted by: John at October 29, 2004 2:27 PM

Well, it is pretty obvious by now that FDR was really a Karl Rove mole.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 29, 2004 2:36 PM

Honolulu TV and radio are being deluged by Democratic ads the past few days. They're running scared. The strange thing is that there is no discernible Republican presence on the airwaves...

Posted by: brian at October 29, 2004 2:49 PM

As Howard Dean can attest, an endorsement from Mr. Gore is the political equivalent of jumping the shark...

Or a real desperation move.

Posted by: Ken at October 29, 2004 4:29 PM

Still doing my own 'polling,' which means I ask everybody I meet whether they take this seriously or not.

So far, the answers are unanimously, not.

It could be different on Oahu, I wouldn't know.

But for a Democrat to lose Hawaii, he almost has to lose Maui, and that ain't gonna happen.

Just had a discussion with the editorial page editor and the city editor about Honolulu polls. Both used to work for the Advertiser.

Neither takes the poll, or the polling system there, seriously.

Pretty good example, I think it will turn out, of a stress-induced panic based on bogus information.

On Nov. 3, they'll be knocking themselves on the forehead and wondering, 'How could we have been so stupid?'

This is a union island -- more than 10% of the entire population, including infants -- belongs to a union. There's no sign of a break in union solidarity.

If the polling was Oahu-centric (which I'm sure it was), it picked up the big military presence there. That, in my opinion, skewed the Bush vote up.


Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 29, 2004 4:37 PM

Chaney will be losing an awful lot of time to chase these 4 blue-blue votes. Rove may be a genious, but he's also the guy who had Bush in Calif. on a fools errand 4 years ago.

Posted by: curt at October 29, 2004 4:54 PM

Looks like we're conceding OH and throwing a Hail Mary.

Posted by: JAB at October 29, 2004 5:32 PM

Harry: There were 2 polls, not one. Both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin got the same result. Doesn't mean they don't both have the same flawed methodology, but there's reason for some confidence there. The main reason for belief in the polls is the reaction of the campaigns. I've seen a poll or two showing AR close, but no one similarly high profile has been sent there.

I'm actually not sure how many military on Oahu are actually registered there. In general people in the military don't switch their registration every time they move.

In the Honolulu mayoral campaign, the election is down to 2 Democrats (it's a non-partisan office with a runoff system), and the more "Republican" candidate has a huge lead. Also, Neal Abercrombie, who is not exactly a moderate, bases his re-election campaigns exclusively on how much military funding he brings in (as does Sen. Dan, who does all the real lifting in DC, of course). The fact that this is a national security election makes HI eminently winnable for Bush. Doesn't mean it'll happen, of course...

Posted by: brian at October 29, 2004 5:34 PM

Winnable, but not, in my opinion, eminently winnable.

It would have to be a 'national security election,' and that's up in the air, too, I think.

However, I wouldn't take my own advice too seriously.

Here on Maui we have a Republican incumbent running for House who got caught putting his hands down a cop's trousers at a notorious Honolulu gay hangout.

Now, I think he handled himself just about right, and probably rehabbed himself with most voters and will be re-elected against an unknown opponent. He hadn't done anything in the Legislature to make anybody mad.

But on alternate days, I tell myself, you're kidding yourself. Those are Christians in the voting booth, and there's no charity in them; he'll lose in a landslide.

At the moment, giving credit to the voters for humanity, I'm predicting he wins but not by much.

Check Wednesday and we'll see how sensitive my antennae are.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 29, 2004 5:58 PM

This Hawaii resident (Oahu) thinks Bush does have a good chance here. At the final Honolulu mayorial debate, neither candidate (both Democrats) would admit to favoring Kerry. We're more attuned to happenings in East and Southeast Asia. We have more than our share of residents who remember Kerry's fecklessness on Vietnam, and the bloodbath that followed upon the North's victory. Same sex marriage lost here by a 70-30 vote.

Posted by: Steve at October 29, 2004 6:48 PM

JAB: If you're going to go into panic mode, I don't this as a good reason. The notion that Bush is conceding OH is ludicrous, as he's been there much of today, and will appear with Arnold, no less. Also, since OH is a red state with a marriage amendment on the ballot, I'm still skeptical that Kerry can win. As for HI, it's a reach, but look at the schedule--the Cheney appearance is at 11pm. So he can campaign most of the afternoon on the West Coast, make the HI trip, and then take a redeye back for a full day of campaigning Monday. Very little time will be lost.

Personally, I think the results will be clear when NJ is announced. If Bush wins, they're it's landslide city, since it'll show Kerry has little support, and the Dems in the West will have little incentive to vote anyway. If Kerry wins by a fair amount, it'll be a squeaker.

Posted by: brian at October 29, 2004 7:02 PM

Mortion Kondracke says the Cleveland Plain Dealer poll tomorrow has Bush up three and running very well in Bush country, surprisingly well in Kerry country.

Posted by: oj at October 29, 2004 7:28 PM

Local Dems are emailing me a retrospective of 15 polls from 2000, that supposedly had Bush winning the popular vote by 2 to 6%, losing it in reality by 0.5%.

I don't believe in polls, anyway.

Steve is right about 70-30 split on same-sex marriage, if that's the only issue on the ballot. That's what Gabbard is counting on in our congressional race.

A neighbor, who also works with me and is a very conservative Christian asked me yesterday who I was voting for.

I said I wasn't making a choice in most races, but wondered how she felt about Gabbard's "Christian agenda" (I put it in quotations because I don't think it represents a lot of Christians I know).

She said she felt conflicted. "I usually vote Republican," she said, "but I don't know."

That's the kind of indicator I look for. She's a solid Bush vote, not so solid on some other Republicans.


Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 29, 2004 7:37 PM

How many national candidates even visit Hawaii? Sure, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida are used to being asked directly for their votes, but Hawaiians [sic]? I have to think Cheney may have a better shot at moving the needle there than in the typical swing state.

Posted by: AC at October 29, 2004 9:17 PM

As long as Cheney works the time zones and snoozes on the plane, this is prudent and not a sign of desperation. Barone's reasoning on HI was interesting. Apparently they tend to go for incumbent parties.

Still not sure drawing Gore off the mainland was a good idea. I'd much rather see him frothing in FL.

Posted by: JAB at October 29, 2004 10:12 PM

And another thing: isn't the electoral college neat. Even today, with cultural homogenization, each state has a distinct character.

Posted by: JAB at October 30, 2004 12:03 AM

We get Gore, for about 10 minutes, and Alexander Kerry, too.

In 1988, I interviewed Kitty Dukakis, the closest a presidential campaign ever got to me.

If I was a prayin' man, I'd pray to keep presidents away from me. Got my wish, too, as Clinton visited Maui and ate a sandwich at an unlicensed restaurant.

I didn't have to watch, though.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 30, 2004 1:15 AM

And I wake up this morning to read that we're getting Kucinich again! He came twice during the primaries.

The Department of Labor says there are 60,000 different jobs in America, but it probably doesn't include making a career of being a joke candidate for president.

You're right about the electoral college, JAB. Regions have political needs as well as individuals do.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 30, 2004 3:50 PM
« BACK IN THE BLACK: | Main | CARRION WAYWARD SON: »