damnum absque injuria

September 3, 2004

How Do You Like Them Balloons?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 1:14 am

At the end of the convention, it took the first families, not a frickin’ village, to bid everyone farewell. Our balloons came down when they were supposed to, and no one swore like a sailor on national TV. That pretty much sums up how the whole convention went.

Overall, the convention could scarcely have gone better. President Bush’s speech got off to a slow start, but it got much better as it progressed, and he ended up with a speech even Spoons could appreciate. Laura Bush made the case to the soccer moms without watering down the message at all. McCain, Guiliani, Schwarzenegger and Pataki, the RINOs who were supposed to sell us all down the river, didn’t (h/t: Michelle Malkin). True to form, the only speaker who lost it was the Democrat, and even he only stood out because he was bashing Democrats at the Republican convention rather than the other way around.
[I'll reconsider that last statement just as soon as anyone can provide a link to Kevin Drum, or any other blogger of his stature, dropping an f-bomb on Al Sharpton or Al Gore, both of whom expressed equal amounts of anger toward people who, unlike in Miller's case, had given them nothing to be angry about.]

The Vodkapundit thinks Bush won the convention round, by running as the ambitious challenger of the establishment despite being the incumbent, even while Kerry ran on an incumbent platform despite being the challenger. Jay Reding went much further, arguing that Bush just won the election (or, in the alternative, that Kerry lost it when he lost it moments later, in a response speech that he had no business making).

Reding makes a strong case, but even though I agree with the basic points he raised, I’m not ready to declare this election over and done. Yes, the Republican convention kicked ass, and will likely get Dubya a significant bounce in the polls. Yes, the Democrat convention sucked ass by comparison, resulting in a “bounce” which was, depending on whose polls you believe, either really, really small, zero, or possibly even negative. No, today’s poll numbers do not tell us all that much about how people will vote on November 2, only how they would vote if the election were held today, which of course it won’t be.

Think of it this way. We’re in the World Series. Game one consisted of the two conventions. Final score: Democrats, one run, three hits and eight errors. Republicans: 17 runs, 26 hits, and one error. We got this thing in the bag! After all, we only need two of those runs to win that first game, so why don’t we just apply the other 15 to Games 2, 3 and 4, giving us an automatic five-run lead every time? Then we’ll win this thing in four straight, easily. The only problem is, it doesn’t work that way. Today’s 17-run lead is really no better than a one run lead. In fact, it’s not really even worth that. In the end, all that will matter is who wins the contest on November 2. If Kerry loses every poll from now until Election Day, but ends up winning then by one measly electoral vote, he wins. By a landslide, by a whisker, it doesn’t matter. And how they did in August and September won’t matter at all.

So where does this leave us? Basically, we just clobbered the Dems in an exhibition game. It doesn’t count toward the final score, but it does tell us a lot about what both teams can and cannot do. If both teams go on playing like they have so far, Bush will win in a landslide. If they don’t, all bets are off.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt, whose attention span rivals that of the L.A. Times editorial staff, disses Bush for not talking about the soldiers who died in Iraq. Heh.

UPDATE x2: Looks like Bush’s convention bounce was even bigger (h/t: Instapundit) than Kerry’s.

4 Responses to “How Do You Like Them Balloons?”

  1. Dman Says:

    I agree with the baseball analogy but find comfort in the fact that I am sure Bush also agrees with you.

  2. Patrick Says:

    “UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt, whose attention span rivals that of the L.A. Times editorial staff, disses Bush for not talking about the soldiers who died in Iraq. Heh.”

    While I don’t agree with her assesement of Bush’s speech, I will point out in her defense that her comments were made in the present tense.

    “I’m listening to Bush and so far he’s not saying anything. He’s boring. He should fire his speech writer. 1,000 soldiers died in Iraq and he wants to talk about creating a new tax code and going after trial lawyers?”

    Bush did not talk about Iraq and meeting with the wounded and the families of the dead until much later in his speech. At the time she was listening and blogging, he had not gotten that far.

  3. Xrlq Says:

    That’s true; to her credit, she didn’t pull a full Lapham. To her discredit, however, she never fixed her post after it became clear her entire premise was was wrong. This despite the fact that she did update the post twice afterward.

    With the original post, I frankly think she did an excellent job illustrating, albeit unintentionally, why liveblogging is generally a dumb idea. It’s one thing to liveblog in generalities (e.g., “the first fifteen minutes of this speech have been utter crap”), or to harp on something the speaker said that was inappropriate (e.g., Santorum’s disparaging remarks about Kerry’s overly broad interpretation of separation of church and state, which was clumsily worded to sound like a broadside against the very idea of there being a separation of church and state). If your beef is over what should have been said but wasn’t, it’s better to wait until the speech is over.

  4. Joel Thomas Says:

    I agree that Bush had a good convention. On to the debates! And here’s to wishing Bill Clinton a speedy recovery!

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.