Mad Social Scientist

I think Kerry made the right choice in Edwards, for a lot of reasons. Edwards is an exciting speaker, and he balances out Kerry in ways that make the character assassination the media did to Gore a bit harder to sustain this time around.

I was also relieved, because the decision showed wisdom on Kerry's part. If he had chosen Gephardt (for comfort) or McCain (for gimickry and a quick poll boost), I would have worried about the quality of his decisionmaking (and who didn't worry about the choices of Bush I, Bush II, and Perot, to take just a few examples from recent elections). Will Saletan agrees with me:

That's where wisdom had to intervene. Kerry had to recognize that the decision wasn't strictly his to make. Look again at those exit polls. Most Democrats who voted for Kerry weren't in love with him. They saw him as a vehicle to get rid of Bush. Some initially preferred the candidate who vowed to stand up to Bush, or the candidate who preached optimism, or the candidate who accused Republicans of a war against working people, or the candidate who promised to take back our government from the special interests. Kerry absorbed all the votes by absorbing all the messages. He became the optimistic guy who would stand up against Bush's war on work and fight the special interests. More clearly than any Democratic presidential nominee in 20 years, Kerry was chosen not to represent himself but to represent his party. And what Democrats wanted, as polls and crowds made clear, was Edwards—because they like him, and because they want to win.

That's the most important thing Kerry revealed today: He understands that the election is about more than what he wants. Sometimes the biggest thing you can do is to accept what's bigger than you.

EJ Dionne has an interesting counterfactual on what the Republicans would be saying if Edwards wasn't the pick.

For other reactions, check the Iowa Electronic Markets. I have previously mentioned my skepticism about these markets; despite their good performance in the week before the election (as documented most recently by an article in this month's Journal of Economic Perspectives by a former colleague), I don't think they perform well far in advance of elections. Or to put it another way, I'm not sure what the quantity they supposedly estimate is in July (the expected outcome in November? What would happen if the election was today? or, as I think is more likely, some average of what people expect will happen in November, combined with some effects at manipulation/wishful thinking). In a large enough market, these effects should wash out, leaving us with a good aggregation of what informed people expect. I just don't think it's large enough yet.

Despite the long caveat, it is at least interesting that in the hours after the Edwards announcement, the IEM went from favoring Bush by about 4% in the winner-take-all-market to dead-even (I don't think the vote share market is worth watching).

Finally, Bush's reaction: Edwards is too inexperienced to be vice-president. Let's parse that. Edwards total public experience is a single term as Senator. Bush's total public experience, prior to being *president* is a term and a half as governor in a state were the position is ceremonial, and subordinate in every meaningful way to the lieutenant governor. Prior to that, Bush had cushy jobs obtained by family connections, and a history of aimless boozing. Edwards was a plaintiff's attorney. It's not just the pot calling the kettle black---Edwards is only running for *vice*-president. If he gets there, he'd have loads more "experience" than Bush if he ever gets to be president.

Another laugher:

Bush had cordially welcomed the freshman senator to the race hours after Kerry announced his running mate, but snapped when asked here how Edwards would stack up against Vice President Cheney.

"Dick Cheney can be president. Next?" he said pivoting away from his questioner and toward the next one.

Uh, George---he already *is* president.