Take a look at Florida. Dead even. This isn’t anywhere NEAR in the bag.
I’ll tell you something that he needs to *stop * doing… he needs to stop with all the insulting language.
I’m a moderate and an indepenent, and I presume that accounts for a large chunk of the 10% undecided voters that both candidates are looking to convince.
When Kerry was first chosen, he seemed like an OK choice. He had a hard time keeping on-message (kept letting himself get yanked back to the Vietnam thing), but he seemed to have potential for offering a choice come election day.
Now, though, after his big staff shake-up, it seems like everything he says is like nails on a chalkboard. I guess it’s supposed to make him sound tough, but all it’s done for me is make him sound like a right bstrd. Not the kind of behavior I want to see from the White House.
And that’s different from the current occupant in what way?
It’s quite a bit different from the current occupant.
Say what you will about what Bush has done as President (and, believe me, I’d have a lot to say on that topic). But at least he’s maintained a demeanor appropriate to the office, even when dealing with his opponents.
So, what will Kerry do when he reaches his first international crisis? Win the world over to our side, and show that the US is “strong”, by calling foreign leaders “gutless”, “clueless”, “liars”, “bungling”, “incompetent”, (long list of similar invectives omitted)?
This sort of language has no place in statesmanship, nor does it belong in any civil discourse. If Kerry’s trying to show people like me that he’s got what it takes to be President, he’s hurting himself by engaging in it.
“Incompetent” I’ll grant you, and I believe “bungling.” I don’t think they’re inappropriate when one wants to send a strong message.
“Liars”? I’ve heard Kerry specifically avoid that phrase - and I’d also like to see cites for “clueless” and “gutless” before deciding if I thought they were inappropriate.
If Ohio and Hawaii switch over to Kerry, it doesn’t matter what Florida does. Take a look at the projected map; give Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa to Bush, and Kerry still wins, 271-261.
Well, all the pundits on Chris Matthews’ show on Sunday morning are now predicting a Kerry win. They were pointing to:
[ul]
[li]Incumbent presidents don’t get more than their popularity rating percentage in the last two weeks of the race[/li][li]Huge numbers of newly registered voters, particularly African-American. New voters tend to go much more to the challenger.[/li][li]Prediction of 2 million more young people voting than in 2000[/li][li]Cell phone thingy (though I probably heard that here, not on TV) [/li][li]Oh, and the prediction that there will never again be a concession speech on the evening of election day.[/li][/ul]
Bottom line for us mortals: too close to call.
Completely ignoring the requests, and suggestions (I repeat, ignoring) of our other allies, prior to invading Iraq… that’s one example, among many, showing Bush’s inappropriate “office demeanor”. If you want to accuse Kerry of not engaging in “civil discourse”, well I guess you can. But you you certainly cannot expect me to believe that Bush has always acted presidential (while holding office of POTUS).
As bup has already requested, could you provide some cites of Kerry calling our allies “gutless”, or “liars” or anything else in that “long list of similar invectives”? And as I mentioned above, Kerry could probably win some our allies back over (at least a little bit) by simply saying “Look, we need your help. We’re sorry that we went this alone, we were wrong to completely blow you off.”
The point that Kerry is trying to make is that Bush really thinks we have a “true coalition”, when we really don’t.
Poland supplied around 200 troops to the Iraq invasion (cite), yet Bush wants to imply that Poland is providing us with some “grand help”? That’s like me claiming that my cat helps me clean the house, by licking himself.
When Kerry talks about our “Coalition of the Willing”, he is trying to describe the reality of the matter, which is blatantly distorted by Team Bush. When he says “We did not have a true coalition…” that does not mean, “Our coalition allies really suck ass…”, it means “We shouldn’t have pissed off our other allies.”
The fact that people even have to have this explained to them is proof that Bush has not carried the demeanor of a president.
As for what Kerry needs to do for the next week? I would say continue doing what he’s currently doing. I truly believe that if people can still not make up their minds about who they are going to vote for, no amount of statistics, facts, or even propaganda will push them considerably to one side or the other.
LilShieste
Well, I gotta admit…that’s one really clean cat.
And my guess is that Kerry could call our allies ‘limp-wristed shit-eaters’ and they’d still come to the table happily if he’s elected.
They know the difference between campaign rhetoric and day-to-day speech.
I’d like to suggest that it’s absurd to criticize Kerry for being too negative when he’s describing the Bush Administration. Not to be negative is to be grossly inaccurate and, hence, grossly irresponsible.
There’s just no nice way to tell the truth here because the truth itself is so ugly.
Kerry just needs to wait for Bush to say something stupid (again), like coming out in favor of same sex unions or something.
Perhaps my hyperbole was a little too hyperbolesque. 
LilShieste
Kerry may have something: the missing explosives in Al Qaqaa.
Are you assuming Kerry takes Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arkansas? Check out the LA Times Electoral Vote Tracker (free reg req’d) and play with that. When I give Kerry OR, WA, NH, NJ, HI, OH, and MI, those plus the states already in his column give him 252 EVs. (IMHO, Ohio is the only one of thost states where W has a chance. I know the latest poll in Hawaii had W slightly ahead, but this election isn’t for King of Make-Believe.) Kerry needs 18 more to win, with the following still battleground states in my scenario:
NM (5 EVs)
NV (5)
IA (7)
MN (10)
WI (10)
FL (27)
AR (6)
(All state-by-state data I’m swiping from www.race2004.net.)
Looking at those seven battleground states, FL and NM lean Kerry in the latest poll but are too close to call. These were the two closest results in the 2000 election, so we’ll call them tossups again.
NV and IA lean Bush, again too close to call.
Bush hasn’t polled lower than 47% in Wisconsin since 10/13, and he’s almost over the magical 50% level there. There’s a Gore state lost. Fucking “Lambert Field”.
Minnesota: Again very close, but Kerry has broken the 50% ceiling a couple of times lately. W has gotten 48% in a couple of recent Strategic Vision polls, however Kerry got 48 and 49% in those same polls, and Strategic Vision is a GOP outfit.
This leaves Arkansas. The great “Huh?” state of the race. You’d think W would be pulling away here, and the most recent poll has him up 51-45, but you gotta wonder if having Bill Clinton make a few stops in his native state wouldn’t help fire up the Democrats. Also, the Democratic Senator, Blanche Lincoln, is expected to win re-election in a cakewalk, so this is hardly barren ground for the Dems (unlike most of the rest of the South). But if you don’t see any signs of them making an effort, no TV time purchased, no Clinton (or even Wesley Clark) appearances, this one’s in W’s column.
Kerry is already ahead in every place that counts. The mood in camp Republican is quite wonderfully desperate. How I love the screams of frustration in the morning. Unless they have some sort of big bomb to drop on Kerry saved up (which probably wouldn’t hit until Friday for maximum impact with little time to respond), they are in a very very bad place for a personally popular wartime incumbent to be. Granted, it’s far from a huge Kerry lead, and I doubt it will be given the previous advantages Bush has. But it looks like this season’s underdog magic is coming into play. A year ago, I would have NEVER thought it possible that Bush would even be in reach.
You haven’t read Spinsanity’s exhaustive examination “All the President’s Spin”
Who?