Replies

If I may jump in here with $0.02 worth, and a pessimistic penny's worth it is:

I think Bush will do very well to win this thing yet I do not think it will be nearly as close as it now appears or as it was in 2000.

Once out of the old red states, Bush must swim against the demographic tide on the coasts and around the Lakes. He must hold all he won last time with the exception of a throwaway like W. Va. because of the adjustment in the college due to population shift. If Bush loses Ohio, he probably cannot win because that has more than mathematical significance, it means he will not win any blue states and probably lose Missouri or Florida and Nevada or even Ark. and La. as well.

Its further significance is that it will mean that some event or some trend or some gaff in the debates went against him and took the battleground states in its wake.

On the other hand, if Kerry cannot carry Pa. he cannot win and for the same reasons. He could then likely lose Ohio, Wis, Mich. Minn and Ia. and perhaps Or.

History teaches that it is extremely unlikely that the election coin will land on its edge two election cycles in a row. So I believe that we will not muddle along as we are until election morning with no major break. But if no major break occurs, then the advantage goes to Kerry because Bush must really swim against the demographic tide when he plays away games. I just believe the numbers are easier for Kerry in Ohio than they are for Bush in Pa, or will prove to be, barring a major event, when the states revert to their normal stasis. This applies to a lesser degree to Fl. and Wis.

But I believe a major election turning event is historically predictable. If the turn is to be a debate gaff, I do not share the majority view that Bush will easily win the contest. We see the game as junkies but the debates are for undecideds who by definition are ignorant. It all turns on perception and Bush can have that deer in the headlights look. Kerry, stiff as he is, does not lose his cool and is articulate. We are foolishly counting him short. We discount him because we disagree with his politics but soccer moms who will decide this thing in Ohio see the world through a different prism. And the big spender has the advantage seen through that prism. She also wants security for her kids and she want to know that the most competent LOOKING man will be there to protect them.

An external event such as a terrorist strike or an assassination, or the capture of Bin Laden would probably help Bush. But a catastrophe in Iraq or in Arabia or a severe oil shortage or a market crash would knock him out as would a major scandal. Although Bush has gone far in the last weeks to fix his vulnerabilities in the war, he still remains hostage to events in Iraq. He simply cannot control the state of play there but al Sistani can.

Until now Bush has done an execrable job in geting credit for the recovering economy because of his tax cuts. Equally, he has failed to scare folks with the real facts that Kerry will kill the recovery with tax hikes. If Bush can improve his public relations performance here and if the Iraq war ends with a whimper and not a bang, he has a chance to win the soccer moms on the economy and win a narrow victory.

But the likelihood remains that some event will sweep all in its path one way or another.

While I agree with you that the election will be decided by event that are yet to happen, I don't have quite the pessimistic view that you have. For starters, if events take a turn for the worse, Kerry has to actually be capable of capitalizing on them. Secondly, all indicators point to things taking a turn for the better.

Sure I may discount Kerry because I don't like him, but from what I see he's not winning anyone over who isn't staunchly anti-Bush anyways. From what I see, all the Bush haters will hold their noses and vote for Kerry, but he's not actually convincing anyone of anything.

Reagan was able to unseat Carter because he actually had a positive message and a clear vision. Reagan had a reason to be president. John Kerry has never even tried to pretend that he does, and if he did, no one would believe him.

The one question I have regarding Kerry is: does his stiff patrician demeanor and his measured monotone speaking style make him appear as important and authoritive, or self-important and aloof to the average voter?

Compared to Bush's more casual demeanor and shall we say, "inexact" speaking style, will this be a positive, a negative, or a wash for Kerry?

regarding Bush getting credit for the economic recovery, I imagine that as the election approaches, people will begin to take notice. He certainly has done all he can to take credit for it, and get the message out, making it one of his central themes at every speech. It is not Bush's fault if the media ignores the recovery and keeps talking the economy down despite the facts and his speeches. You may notice that a new campaign ad from Bush about the economy has begun airing. This should have some effect. Remember, we're just now at the point in the election cycle when campaigns begin in earnest.

The one thing that I'm really confused by is that you say of the states that could flip for Bush, "perhaps Oregon". It's the only one that you added the extra hurdle of "perhaps".

Of all the states that Gore won last election, Oregon is the MOST likely to go for Bush this time. He barely lost there, and he's been polling at tied or ahead of Kerry there. It could easily go for him without any election altering event.