While the Bush camp goes into overdrive—all pretense of optimism pushed aside—with an all-out charge aimed at scaring the nation (with wolves and suggestions that there won’t even be an economy or social security or environment or whatever to worry about if you don’t elect them [“All progress on every other issue depends on the safety of our citizens,”]), pundits are now predicting the race is Kerry’s to lose:
For all of President Bush’s valiant efforts to make this campaign a referendum on his challenger’s character, it is turning into what the nature of politics demands: a referendum on the incumbent’s performance.
You will notice a bit of hedging in my opening line. Yes, the Massachusetts senator could find a way to lose. He sometimes has a tin ear for the effect of his words, such as when he said he voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it. Not knowing how ridiculous that would sound demonstrated just why he might falter again in the final days.
Putting Kerry’s clumsy campaign style aside, I am predicting his victory based on the overwhelming mood for change I’ve seen around the country.
I’m seeing it even in the comments of some right-wing blog commenters, the sense that they’ll resent Kerry winning, but at least it will provide a fresh start (out of courtesy, and knowing they’ll feel compelled to contradict this if they read it, I won’t point them out until after the election). Now, I know there are those who feel we’re fools to change horses midstream, or that with so many plates in the air, switching jugglers is sure to cause a bit of a mess, but with the experience and connections Kerry has, I predict the transition will go much more smoothly than they expect.
I also believe there are those who are content, if not happy, with the idea of four more years of the same, but that is clearly not the majority of Americans, and this indicator is the number one reason I’m in agreement that it’s Kerry’s to lose:
Mr. Bush’s job approval rating is at 44 percent, a dangerously low number for an incumbent president, and one of the lowest of his tenure. A majority of voters said that they disapproved of the way Mr. Bush had managed the economy and the war in Iraq, and – echoing a refrain of Mr. Kerry’s – that his tax cuts had favored the wealthy. Voters said that Mr. Kerry would do a better job of preserving Social Security, creating jobs and ending the war in Iraq.
Of course, one can always find competing polls, but as I see it, the Bush camp’s best option at this point is to focus on frightening the nation into not voting for Kerry. But, then, they didn’t need me to tell them that.
UPDATE: Contrapositive has posted a very handy hour-by-hour cheatsheet for election night. Among his predictions:
–At 8pm EST, Bush is likely to have opened up a substantial lead in the electoral vote count: Somewhere between 50 and 80 votes. (Kerry supporters should *not* panic.)
–At 10pm EST, if Kerry doesn’t have actual or potential victories–among states whose polls have already closed–adding up to 193 electoral votes, he’s toast.
–We’ll likely know who the next President is by about 11pm EST–or not for several weeks.
PS. We’re using the CNN pullout from the New Yorker in our house. It’s a map of the country with 50 little GOP stickers and 50 little Democrat stickers. If, as I hope, they’ll be plenty of GOP stickers left over, I’ll use them to adorn our Christmas cards. 😉
“Not knowing how ridiculous that would sound demonstrated just why he might falter again in the final days.”
Why is this one thing held against Kerry when every time his opponent opens his mouth he sputters, stammers and misspeaks and makes a fool of himself?
The point of this post should be it’s Kerry’s to win because every time his opponent (or his Administration) speaks it’s stammering or lying.
But I’m sure our head of National Security doing her unprecedented swing-state push for her husb… oops, boss will surely do the trick.
Yes, and while it still WAY to soon to celebrate anything in this election, I think your analysis is quite correct. Ever since the televised debates cracked wide-open the bubble of spin-based alternate-reality in which the Bush White House has cloaked itself since January of 2001, the race has indeed been Kerry’s to lose. Obviously on the wrong side of public opinion on so much (notwithstanding the volume level of their supporters), the Bush-Cheney campaign has been left with little to sway voters with except the tried-and-true Republican tactics of Fear-and-Smear. Never mind the issue, never mind policy choices, never mind the Administration’s record: just keep pushing the buttons of Fear (“A vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists”, etc.), and Smear (“Flip-flopping liberal”, Winter Soldier, “French”) and rely on gaming the system to keep Democratic voting down.
I still won’t rest easy til Nov. 3rd, but I was quite pleased to read today that at least part of the Smear sector of Bush’s campaign has come up short. I read this morning that Sinclair Broadcasting (for whatever reason) eventually caved (somewhat) on the Stolen Honor broadcast, and * gasp * seems to have put on an almost fair-and-balanced show, actually showing clips from Going Upriver as part of their “discussion”.
One more shot from the Rovian locker that’s missed fire – maybe now the rest of campaign can focus on the Bush Adminstration’s record: as it should.
“I read this morning that Sinclair Broadcasting (for whatever reason) eventually caved (somewhat) on the Stolen Honor broadcast, and * gasp * seems to have put on an almost fair-and-balanced show….”
According to the reports that look a bit more deeply, no. They’ve just gone to plan B, covering a bit better; they’re still going to put forth all the most flammatory parts of the film, accusing Kerry nonstop of being a traitor who personally prolonged the war and betrayed tortured POWs; it’s just that now it will be surrounded by some talking heads of the sort you usually find on Fox discussing the attempted censorship of the film, and suchlike and so on. (See Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, for one reporting source on this.)
Everything i’ve read supports Gary’s post above regarding Sinclair’s film.
The NY Times reports job loss numbers that will balance the Sinclair sham. Many swing states lost jobs again last month. Wisconsin -7,000, Minnesota -2,000, Florida -9,500, Michigan -15,000 jobs. Only Ohio and PA added 5,000 jobs and they are both trending Kerry.
By the way, and for the record, I am fully aware that this posts risks me securing a non-refusable reservation at Ol’ Man Dewey’s House of Crow. Fortunately, with enough tabasco sauce, I can choke down just about anything. ;pp
And speaking of choking down just about anything:
Diners lured by super guinea pig
ewwww…
Gary:
You may well be right about Sinclair’s future exploitation of Stolen Honor – disclaimer: I did not see the broadcast last night (reality-based commitments kept me away from TV): my post above was based on reading partial transcripts and eyewitness descriptions, which made it sound like much less of the misleading vicious partisan hatchetjob it was expected to be (and that I am sure Sinclair would have liked it to be). My point, though, was that I think that the airing of Stolen Honor as a campaign tactic: to poison the well of discourse and push the Kerry-is-a-turncoat-sellout-ratbastard meme out into the news cycle may have fallen short of expectations: we’ll have to wait and see.
Given, though that the next news focus will probably be Bill Clinton’s return to the campaign trail on Monday – which will focus (positive) attention on Sen. Kerry and his campaign, I still think the Smear Division of BC04 has suffered significant casualties. Fear Division, though, is still fighting furiously.
wilfred:
15,000 lost jobs in Michigan for the MONTH? Any idea from where? Manufacturing?
I’m looking forward to hearing Republicans and Republican leaning media figures spending the week saying, “I know Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a friend of mine. John Kerry in no Bill Clinton.”
Tabasco sales will go up as those folks find that statement in the talking points . . .
Michigan is losing Jobs in the Auto plants and Service centers. Penn and Ohio trend for Kerry because Job growth there has been much lower salary than in the Clinton years. Jeb Bush will have to outright lie to bring Florida in for Bush–remember the Hurricanes left many in tents, and We are talking about the FDR generation down there. Nebraska is believed to go Democrat for the first time in forty years. Heavy National Guard commitments States to Iraq are showing a degree of Blue. I think all the Polls are wrong, and Bush will imitate Goldwater on Election night. lgl
Wonkette hands Team Bush a plateful of their own cooking on this ad, as well:
There’s a still from the “wolves” ad here.
Scary stuff.
(Hat tip to Digby).
Jay.C,
i went back and looked at the article (on the front page of today’s Business section) and there was no explanation from the Labor Dept. but even scarier was the fact that in just the last 12 months, Michigan has lost a total of 52,500 jobs.
While the Bush camp goes into overdrive—all pretense of optimism pushed aside—with an all-out charge aimed at scaring the nation (with wolves
“The researchers conclude that the risk of wolf attack in Europe and North America today is very low because the factors associated with wolf attack are now rare.” (cite)
What? I’m just saying…
That’s great news, Jesurgislac. It is a happy day to have wolf attacks so rare that they are only a nuisance, rather than an overwhelming concern that preempts the discussion of any other political issue.
You know, attacks by wolves are a serious and highly politically charged issue in Montana. (On livestock, not people). And a part of why Montana is way redder now than in the past.
I don’t know what the undecided blue-collar man on the street in Minnesota thinks about wolves, but I’d imagine he’s against them. Does Wisconsin have wolves too?
Does Wisconsin have wolves too?
Southern Wisconsin doesn’t but the northern part of the state might. Don’t recall it being that much of a problem but then, if it were in the north, I probably wouldn’t have heard about it.
I’d bet that the average Joe in Minnesota can’t hate wolves too much, or they wouldn’t have named their basketball team after them. If Milwaukee gets a hockey team it won’t name it the Illinesians.
(ducks, runs, swears honestly that he has nothing whatsoever against people from Illinois.)