Posted on 09/04/2004 2:25:46 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I think Bush is now up but not by 11 points. I'd guess he's really up about 4-5 points, and that could quickly change. It sure changed quickly on John Forbes Kerry.
But however much he's up, there's not much doubt that he has all the momentum at the moment.
SurveyUSA has been tracking not "who will you vote for" but "who do you expect to win."
They do this to capture shifts in political momentum-- or at least perceived political momentum, which is of course just a redundancy. In the big liberal cities, Bush has jumped 15-20 points so that about 58-60% of the citizens there now expect him to win.
In Las Vegas, only 55% expect him to win. But in Oklahoma City, 78% expect him to win, which is pretty goshdarn high.
I don't know what this means, but it must mean something: Bush's big speech garnered 28 million television viewers, while the Kerrey's only managed 25. The entire RNC also pulled in more eyeballs than the entire DNC.
The New York Post quotes a "veteran Democratic operative" as saying "The smell of panic is in the air."
Kerry has two problems.
His first problem is his liberal Democratic base. My current pet theory is that both sides of the political aisle have become somewhat radicalized by the twin political shocks of impeachment and the Florida recount, and that partisans in both camps have overly personalized politics. Many of us (myself included) are now cheering on political parties as if they were sports franchises, and we live and fall with each victory and each defeat, just like a dedicated football fanatic might (myself, again, included).
And we're not just cheering to cheer; we all of us now have some personal stake in all of this nonsense. We're not just looking to win elections, but to win arguments, arguments this nation has been having now for ten years. The arguments never get settled, but we're always hoping the next victory will finally give us the personal vindication we're looking for.
At any rate: Kerry's supporters don't just want him to win. They now have an emotional need for him to win, and furthermore, they don't just have an emotional need for him to win the election-- they have an emotional need for him to vindicate them by humiliating Bush and finally proving they were right on Iraq/Impeachment all along.
The problem is that these people are misprioritizing, especially from Kerry's viewpoint. They want validation; he just wants to win a freaking election. They are demanding that he do certain things -- like call Bush AWOL and Cheney a draft-dodger, and, you know, actually announce a clear and coherent position on Iraq -- that help their> cause but not necessarily Kerry's.
And furthermore, since there is emotion riding on the outcome, Kerry could easily be turned on by his supporters the moment he seems to falter. They picked him as their candidate not because they liked Kerry or his policies (whatever they are) but because they hated Bush and wanted Bush humiliated before the world as the AWOLiarThiefWarCriminalFascist he is. They picked Kerry because they thought he'd make a good champion; whether or not he'd make a good ruler is something of an afterthought.
The only thing holding them to Kerry's side is the belief that he can win. When that belief fails, so does their loyalty.
And if it looks like Kerry can't deliver them the delicious vindication they crave, they will turn on him. We won't have recriminations; there won't be time for that. We'll have precriminations, starting in October.
The other problem Kerry has is simpler: Kerry does not perform well when challenged. He can perform adequately, if unremarkably, so long as he's ahead/winning; when he's losing, he acts, talks, and looks like a punch-drunk corpse dripping with sweaty desperation. Some men can portray a winning optimism whatever the circumstances; Kerry isn't one of them.
It's way to early to say "it's over" or any of that. But a big key to Kerry's strategy was to get ahead and stay ahead. Once behind, he becomes a bad candidate with supporters whose anger at him is only surpassed by their anger at the Bushcreature.
The Big Mo is especially big this election, and it just turned like a bitch.
I am somewhat disturbed by this trend.
Even though I am a conservative and vote Republican nearly 100% of the time, I like to think of myself as open-minded. Thus, I can honestly say that I'd vote for Zell Miller over just about any other Republican. I'd vote for Harry Truman too if he were still alive. The only problem is, there aren't many Zell Millers and Harry Trumans around.
The last Democrat in Massachusetts I would have voted for was John Silber. Some in the Boston area might have remembered him as running for governor in 1990. I was all set to vote for Silber that year but they he got stuck with Marjorie Clapprood as his running mate. Clapprood was so Marxist that she made Hillary appear to be be a centrist. So I had to go against Silber and vote for RINO Bill Weld (who did win).
I, too, have suspected that the "supporters" would turn on Kerry if he starts to drop. Because I believe their support was a mile wide and an inch deep. They did not understand anything about their candidate except "he isn't Bush". They can never articulate why they are for him, only why they don't want Bush.
I, on the other hand, can tell you for ten minutes why I want Bush re-elected without ever mentioning anything about JFK. Therefore, my support is deep and would remain whether Bush was up or down in the polls.
So, I expect them to turn on him, for "running a poor campaign", being the "same as the Republicans", and a host of other reasons. Nader's numbers will go up as they realize they are not going to win and they might as well vote for the guy that really represents their position on the war.
Kerry is not used to losing or even being behind. He's been in office in liberal heaven for 20 years without ever really being challenged. Now, people are seeing how he responds when the going gets tough. I expect it will not be pretty and he will turn off even more tepid "supporters". When Kalifornia comes into play for Bush, then you will know it's over. No democrat, especially kerry, can even think about winning without Ca.'s 55 EV's. If Bush actually took Ca., that would be a 110 vote swing!
Finally, I wonder how Soros feels about throwing away 65 million bucks. I think his support will dry up real soon too.
You can bet the DemocRAT 'smear the Swiftees' campaign will be kicked up to a whole new level now.
Support for the Swiftees is crucial right now, so they can get these ads on the air on REGULAR TV in battleground states.
FReepers are key in getting the word out about the righteousness of the SBVFT by exposing Kerry's FRAUD.
Proceeds from the Swiftee stickers go to swiftvets.com
Swiftee window sticker thread - get yours! Freep mail for details.
Well, I remember that Bill Weld gave him a run for his money in 1996, and Kerry beat him in the debates (I think; Sam since you live there you can relate how close that Senate race was).
"Kerry does not perform well when challenged."
He sure doesn't. William Weld had him on the ropes and I recall Kerry acting and looking strange (uncomfortable) in those debates. He was getting his clock cleaned and it showed. Unfortunately Kerry won.
Kerry is not just down for the time being. He is down for the count. He will stagger around the ring taking more knockout punches. He will continue to respond with jabs that are intended to be strong, but which will be swatted away. He will remain on his feet to 2 November, not for a standing eight count, but for a standing ten count. And no bell will ring to save him.
And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, IMHO.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
