Is this election now Bush's to lose?

[jshore]

@qts

Nice straw man. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

In other words, “I am going to condemn the Democrats for trying (by legal means) to keep Nader off the ballot while not saying anything about Republicans actively going and collecting signatures to put him on the ballot for the same reason.”

@qts

Good for them - I couldn’t get on to it - but the fact remains that the suggestion was made in the first place, and that’s not on.

I am awaiting your condemnation of the Republicans for the poster here who suggested bombing Mecca…Far worse, don’t you think?

The point is that you used what one Borders employee suggested on a messageboard as the basis to make a general condemnation of Democrats! You didn’t just condemn one random person.

[Mal_Adroit]

@dalej42

The polls have indicated more and more states going Bush.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep16.html

"Kerry is doing better in some of the key battleground states. A new Gallup poll in Michigan puts him ahead 50% to 44%. An ABC News poll in Pennsylvania cuts Bush’s lead to a bare 1%, 49% to 48%, a data point corroborated by the Rasmussen 7-day tracking poll. And in all-important Ohio, the Rassmussen 7-day tracking poll also puts Bush ahead by a mere 1%, 49% to 48%. The Strategic Vision poll stays in the spreadsheet for the moment, but tomorrow Rasmussen’s becomes more recent and will take over.

Conclusion: Kerry is slipping is some states where he was way ahead, but is making a comeback in the real battleground states."

[Nonsuch]

@Sam Stone

There’s Kerry’s problem. It’s not just his campaign - it’s Kerry himself. The man is incapable of speaking clearly. There are numerous examples of this - Kerry giving some long-winded answer to a simple question, leaving the questioner more confused than ever.

Recall that people were saying precisely the same thing about Bill Clinton in 1992. Then in the debates, when someone asked him about term limits, he said, “They’re popular, but I’m against them. Here’s why.” Bam—simple, direct, but still nuanced answer.

Granted, Kerry is no Clinton. But with a newly installed passel of Clinton advisors, I think Kerry could, and will, come off very strongly in the debates. In a sense, he and Bush are two sides of the same coin: Bush only has to not stick his foot halfway down his throat for his performance to be considered a “success”; likewise, Kerry can beat expectations by simply being direct enough that a majority of people say, “OK, I understood that.”

[bup]

@qts

You admit when you are probably wrong (also see this).

In principle, I want to agree with that advice. I certainly have more respect for someone who can admit a mistake. However, my wife has a PhD in psychology and says people tend to believe those who are adamant regardless of the evidence. And I see a sitting president who cannot recall a single mistake he has made in that office.

[Quartz]

@Nonsuch

Granted, Kerry is no Clinton. But with a newly installed passel of Clinton advisors, I think Kerry could, and will, come off very strongly in the debates. In a sense, he and Bush are two sides of the same coin: Bush only has to not stick his foot halfway down his throat for his performance to be considered a “success”; likewise, Kerry can beat expectations by simply being direct enough that a majority of people say, “OK, I understood that.”

A good point.

[SPOOFE]

Kerry’s positions on the issues are complicated

So’s quantum physics. And the average voter knows jack about quantum physics, and CERTAINLY isn’t going to spontaneously learn it watching the morning news.

That’s what’s killing Kerry: He can’t express himself in an understandable way. Take Sam’s challenge… read his Imus answer, and tell us what he said.

[Sam_Stone]

There’s a difference between complexity and incoherence. Kerry’s plans aren’t complex - they’re incoherent. They are incoherent because Kerry doesn’t have a consistent framework to operate from. His opinions shift and twist with the political wind, and therefore every new opinion he utters becomes increasingly confused as he tries to prevent contradicting his own previous utterances.

That’s Kerry’s problem. It’s not that he’s some super-genius with incredibly smart but complex and nuanced ideas.

[jsc1953]

@jshore

Well, there are lots of possible scandals this administration is currently covering up:

(1) The outing of Valerie Plame,

(2) The U.S. being used by Iranian intelligence through Chalabi to do their dirty work,

(3) Someone giving Chalabi super-duper top secret info on the U.S. having broken Iranian codes which he then told to the Iranians.

The question is whether the fuller story will emerge on any of these before the election and how the public will react.

If I were Kerry I’d bring these up every damn day. Add Abu Ghraib to the list, too.

It does come down to the debates, as Kerry’s last chance to draw a distinction between himself and the incumbent. He painted himself in a corner, when he fell for Bush’s “if you knew then what you know now” trap. So here is my free advice to the Kerry campaign:

Draw a simple analogy. You’ve hired a guide who tells you he knows a fabulous fishing hole, where the trout just jump in your boat – and he lead you into a swamp, and alligators are chewing on your leg. At this point you do not want “consistent leadership” to get you out of the swamp. You want new & competent leadership.

[Mal_Adroit]

@Sam Stone

There’s a difference between complexity and incoherence. Kerry’s plans aren’t complex - they’re incoherent. They are incoherent because Kerry doesn’t have a consistent framework to operate from. His opinions shift and twist with the political wind, and therefore every new opinion he utters becomes increasingly confused as he tries to prevent contradicting his own previous utterances.

That’s ridiculous. I don’t know what utterances you’re hearing; to me, he’s pretty clear in his positions. Not always speaking in sound bites doesn’t make you “incoherent.”

But when did changing one’s opinion become the mark of an untrustworthy individual? Conditions change. Circumstances change. I’d certainly rather a leader who kept an open mind over one who refused to veer from, or even acknowledge, a horrifically disastrous course of action merely to appear “steadfast.”

[Spoke]

@jsc1953

Draw a simple analogy. You’ve hired a guide who tells you he knows a fabulous fishing hole, where the trout just jump in your boat – and he lead you into a swamp, and alligators are chewing on your leg. At this point you do not want “consistent leadership” to get you out of the swamp. You want new & competent leadership.

Kerry could use you on his debate prep team. He seems incapable of drawing such simple (and evocative) analogies on his own.

[jsc1953]

You’re too kind, spoke-. I swear I’d forward this to the Kerry camp if I knew how.

[jshore]

@Moody Bastard

But when did changing one’s opinion become the mark of an untrustworthy individual? Conditions change. Circumstances change. I’d certainly rather a leader who kept an open mind over one who refused to veer from, or even acknowledge, a horrifically disastrous course of action merely to appear “steadfast.”

Right…What marks the Bush Administration is that they make policy decisions on the basis of their ideology (plus paybacks to friends) and then use the current facts as convenient props to sell the policy. (“Same wine, different bottles.”) You can see this in a wide range of issue:

(1) Bush tax cuts: Originally proposed as a way to give back the surplus, they became a stimulus policy when the economy tanked and there was even some attempt to sell them as supply-side voodoo when people started worrying about deficits.

(2) War in Iraq: As we know, this was something many in the Administration were interested in from Day-1. It was sold as part of the “War on Terror” after 9/11. [As a sidelight, the Congressional Resolution, including the authorization to use force, was originally sold by Bush as a way to “keep the peace”. Subsequent to this, however, the President and his minions have characterized those who voted for it as having voted for the Iraq war.]

(3) “Healthy Forests Initiative”: A policy to open up more of the forests to logging but sold as a way to prevent forest fires after they became a big news item.

And so it goes.

[Abbie_Carmichael]

Pretty much what you said, OP. While I don’t put any faith in the polls, I think you’re right in that, currently, Bush is winning.

I think it’ll depend on the dirt Kerry is sitting on that he releases about Bush in October. It’d better be particularly nasty (to the tune of a Michael Jackson sleepover at Neverland) if he wants to pull enough Bush voters away to secure a win for himself.

I think the worst dirt (for Kerry’s campaign, I mean) Kerry could release is some kind of moral gaffe that Bush committed in his young and stupid days. If he comes out with something like “Ooh, look, Bush’s college girlfriend had an abortion and he paid for it” or something along those lines, I think it’ll just piss people off. Among those who are likely to vote for Bush, I think it’s pretty well accepted that he was a hellion back in the day and didn’t straighten up and fly right until he was about 40. The change, when it came, was (apparently) pretty profound, though, so any reminders Kerry could dig up relating to sex/drugs/rock n’ roll would probably backfire. It’d be seen as the height of desperation: Kerry can’t win simply challenging Bush’s record and prove that he has better ideas, so instead he’ll just try to humiliate him a week or so before the election and hope for an emotional reaction.

I base this theory also on the idea that MOST people have skeletons from their past that they don’t want people to know about. The nice thing is that we grow up, we get our lives straightened out and we no longer do the things we’re ashamed of. To tell the nation of something Bush did when he was, oh, in his 20s would be more likely to engender sympathy for ole Dubya, rather than enrage the conservatives. And as far as swing voters go, they too might see Kerry’s action as a grasping-at-straws thing rather than an issue truly important to the nation, and decide that he’s not the man for the job and vote accordingly.

I’m all for spilling the beans on a President’s past if it affects national security or a President’s ability to lead, don’t get me wrong. But it’s gotta be the right kind of beans. Clinton’s pot smoking in college had nothing to do with his ability to serve as President, and rational voters knew this. As a voter, I don’t give a rat’s ass how many girls Bush and Kerry slept with in college, how many joints they smoked 30 years ago and what they did or didn’t do in Vietnam. I want to know what they are like TODAY. How do they conduct themselves TODAY? What are their ideas and plans for the future? What are their values TODAY? People change way too much during the course of a lifetime to base a vote on anything more than what they’ve done recently (voting records, etc.).

Unless Kerry has something REALLY terrible (that can also be verified) on Bush, he’d do well to stay away from last-minute smears if he wants a shot at the White House.

[Quartz]

@Abbie Carmichael

I think the worst dirt (for Kerry’s campaign, I mean) Kerry could release is some kind of moral gaffe that Bush committed in his young and stupid days.

I disagree: it’s public knowledge that Bush was a wastrel at that time, but he reformed. Now if Kerry were to reveal that Bush’s reform wasn’t real, then Bush is going to have a very hard time.

[Abbie_Carmichael]

@qts

I disagree: it’s public knowledge that Bush was a wastrel at that time, but he reformed. Now if Kerry were to reveal that Bush’s reform wasn’t real, then Bush is going to have a very hard time.

Depends on how recent the dirt is, and WHAT the dirt is. What, in your opinion, would Bush have had to do post-reform that, if found out, would lose him the election?

Clinton’s infidelity proved that Americans don’t care whether or not their President can keep a vow. If Bush, say, had an affair after he supposedly turned his life around, I don’t think it’d be considered a big deal.

If he’s snorting coke now, that’d be a problem. But something he did, say, 6 months after his reform probably wouldn’t matter much. Old habits die hard.

[BrainGlutton]

@Abbie Carmichael

Depends on how recent the dirt is, and WHAT the dirt is. What, in your opinion, would Bush have had to do post-reform that, if found out, would lose him the election?

Well, suppose he were to lie to the American people for the sake of leading us into a pointless war . . . oh, wait . . .

Well, suppose he were to run for president as a “conservative” and then slash taxes on the rich, start a war, and saddle us with the most whopping budget deficits since Reagan . . . ermmm . . .

At this point, I guess he would have to get caught with a live boy or a dead girl, as the saying goes.

[Polerius]

@dalej42

Has this election reached the point that Bush must make a major mistake in order to lose? The polls have indicated more and more states going Bush.

It’s beginning to look a little different today: Kerry 239, Bush 256

Also, if you ignore states where the polls show less than 1% difference, the result is: Kerry 239, Bush 247

Anyway, I guess this all shows that it’s too soon to tell, although Bush has a slight lead.

[AHunter3]

Actually, Zogby, polling for the Wall Street Journal, still has Kerry ahead in the EC. Map updated yesterday.

Zogby is an outlyer here, but they’ve also got the track record of being right when most pollsters were wrong (about the pop. vote) in 2000.