Extended Phenotype

Wow. Bush and Kerry are proving that it doesn’t matter whether questions come from a single moderator or “town hall” citizens — they can repeat the same answers and attacks nearly verbatim. So far, this is playing out as a repeat of last week’s debate, with a little more walking around. President Bush has managed to get his facial muscles under better control, but I thought he was going to go ballistic on the moderator there when skewered on the “coalition.”

More later if I can stay awake.

Is this real? A joke? If so, Lewis Lapham’s “pre-writing” of the convention story is nothin’ compared to AP’s prognostication of the election:

At this hour, President Bush has won re-election as president by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin in the popular vote nationwide. Ralph Nader has 1 percent of the vote nationwide. That’s with 51 percent of the precincts reporting. Bush has won 324 electoral votes in 33 states. He is leading in 4 states for a total of 43 more electoral votes.
Kerry has won 105 electoral votes in 8 states and the District of Columbia. He is leading in 5 states for a total of 48 more electoral votes.

Nader has not won any state and is not currently leading in any state.

In the 435 U.S. House races, the Republicans have won 173 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. The Democrats have won 145 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 3 seats. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the House.

In the 34 races for the U.S. Senate, the Republicans have won 14 seats and are leading in the races for 4 seats. The Democrats have won 13 seats and are leading in the races for 3 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 1 seat. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and will gain 3 seats.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

I don’t really know if this is real, but several TV and news networks carried the story, according to California Yankee.

I’m guessing that no clear winner is going to emerge here, with half an hour to go.

Ouch. The moderator just asked Cheney if their spin on trial lawyers means that John Edwards is part of the health care problem. Cheney chuckled, the audience laughed, and now Cheney is telling some story about doctors worrying about malpractice insurance. Edwards has got to be able to deal with this. And he’s doing well. Even Cheney sort of softballed it, and I’m getting the feeling that nobody wanted to discuss it. Nobody has anything meaningful to say about tort reform because in reality it’s a tough issue — sure, costs would be lowered if less lawsuits meant lower costs to insurance companies, but lawsuits are one of the only ways available to prevent abuse by companies and occasionally unscrupulous managers.

Again, no clear winner. Each side is likely to think their candidate won. Some undecideds could break for Edwards simply because he’s articulate and likeable, and Cheney — while clearly knowledgeable — is barely likeable.

Edwards is getting slammed on his lack of experience, as we knew he would. But ouch, several times. Edwards is returning the questions as best he can, but ultimately it’s tough to answer.

It’s interesting. Cheney uses a few of the talking points, but only when hitting Edwards. In normal discussion, he’s not big on the “values” language we’re normally used to hearing from the Republicans these days. He’s concrete. In fact, he’s a holdover from an earlier time in the Republican party, before the “social conservative” takeover. Oddly, it makes me wonder if we’d be better off with Cheney than with Bush.

Man, this is actually getting pretty boring.

This is a tough one. Cheney’s no slouch, and in watching him one understands why everyone always uses the term “gravitas” to describe him. The questions are pretty tough and on point. Edwards is doing a good job, in my view, but this is a ground war, without flashy rejoinders or clear hits. Cheney’s strategy is to answer in incredible detail, and he’s very articulate.

Cheney just managed to really duck the “Halliburton and sanctions” question when asked, but Edwards is punching back. Hard. Cheney just called the Halliburton discussion a “smokescreen” and brought up FactCheck.org. This appears to have caused everyone in America to point their browsers at FactCheck.org, because it seems to be taking heavy traffic.

Ouch. Cheney is accusing Edwards of missing all of his key votes and committee meetings. As President of the Senate, “first time I ever met you, was tonight when you walked on stage.” Damn, this guy is tough. But Edwards is hitting back with Cheney’s voting record….oooh, he voted against HeadStart and Meals on Wheels for seniors….I think Cheney’s devil horns are starting to show.

First presidency in 70 years to lose jobs….Edwards is hitting hard on job losses, after Cheney ducked the jobs question by talking about No Child Left Behind. “John Kerry and I believe that we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of dollars of debt for our grandchildren.”

Wow…same-sex marriage. The moderator is drilling Cheney on his comment that “freedom means freedom for everybody”, and now Cheney is trying to duck why that doesn’t mean same-sex marriage. Wow. Cheney essentially just blamed Bush for the FMA, saying that “the President sets policy in this administration, and I support the President.” Now Edwards is waffling his way through same-sex marriage.

When I hear people voice their concern about “switching horses” in mid-stream, I can’t help but reflect on how deeply the administration’s talking points have penetrated the general consciousness. Lincoln’s slogan was a tactic, not a logical argument — whether applied to one of our nation’s greatest Presidents, or to the current incumbent.

Because out in the real world, nobody really believes that “switching horses midstream” is a bad idea. Corporations fire underperforming CEOs (as with Craig Conway being fired from PeopleSoft). Companies fire under-performing employees, after giving them a chance to improve. When your Internet provider gives you terrible performance and even worse customer service, you escalate your complaint and then find another ISP. You get the idea.

In a democratic republic, we operate on the same principle. We call it by different names, but it’s important to remember that we interview candidates for a job, and then select the most popular candidate (whom we hope is also the best) for the job. The new employee gets a contract: four years for a President, six years for a Senator, and so on. When their contract expires, we evaluate their performance, and if they’ve performed badly, we pick somebody new.

A healthy company depends on creating a spiral of constant improvement — in ideas, and in people. Keeping an underperforming CEO or business plan isn’t how companies succeed in a competitive market. To succeed, they learn from mistakes, hire talent, and fire underperformers when necessary.

Scale it up into global terms and nothing changes. Healthy democracy and a strong, competitive nation depend on a spiral of constant improvement — in ideas and of people. Not “switching horse mid-stream” is little more than the plea of the employee that knows they haven’t been performing well.

And the incumbent has little to offer except “more of the same,” and a flimsy attempt to scare us by touting the dangers of “switching horses midstream.” Well, I for one, don’t buy it.