Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I saw Luntz on NOW a few weeks ago. He seemed very edgy about the war. Very edgy. In fact, I'd say that if Bush loses because the Iraq war brings Bush's negatives down on terrorism, Luntz will blame himself and become an alcoholic.

Well, there's no question that the GOP emphasis is going to be on ripping Kerry. While they may make some lip service of defending the president's track record, it's pretty clear that when your argument is that three consecutive quarters of declining GDP constitutes turning the corner, when you're reduced to making the same, increasingly empty justifications for iraq, you better change the subject.

Now, am i remembering correctly - didn't Luntz conduct a focus group during the Dem convention of Bush voters and 4 of 20 said they would now vote for Kerry? No wonder he's concerned....

I find it hard to believe that Luntz hasn't figured out how Bush can beat Kerry. It's simple, really... Americans still refuse to believe that The Iraq Project is a lost cause. Their dissatisfaction with Bush on the subject of the War™ primarily revolves around an expectation that America should be "winning" there when the bad news keeps getting steadily worse.

All the Bush campaign has to do is come out with a narrative that plays to this effectively: a narrative that says, "Iraq has gone so wrong because the international community has not lived up to its obligations, and now America must step up the fight without the help they were promised. Don't vote for John Kerry, because he would only sell America out completely to the foreign appeasers of militant Islamist terrorism."

It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't even have to make sense. All it has to do is put American voters into a mind that The Iraq Project can be salvaged by escalating the unilaterality of the war effort. Americans will buy it, and they will vote in large enough numbers that the Bush campaign may not even have to rely on the Diebold Correction Factor in Florida to stay in power.

More likely, Luntz understand this very well, and there was just no way he was going to spell it out in simple language like that in public in front of people he has never met and doesn't know, just because they chatted him up.

For the record, the Gadflyer's Latin needs work. That should be "_in_ vino veritas", not "en".

Someone blogged something a few weeks ago (on Kos maybe, though I honestly don't remember) about a focus group somewhere (Philly maybe - sorry, early scenility), in which Luntz asked if there were people who thought Kerry should win, but planned to vote for Bush. Afterward, he apparently said "me too."

-"It doesn't even have to make sense."

In the spirit of not making sense, here's the Presidential response to the charge that his policies make it easier for turrist recruiters to find fresh angry bodies:

"It is a ridiculous notion to assert that, because the United States is on the offense, more people want to hurt us," he told reporters in the White House Rose Garden. "We're on the offense because people do want to hurt us."

duuhh, I don't think that statement even passes the logic test.

Sidenote: If Luntz becomes an alcoholic self-loather (not that there's anything wrong with that) maybe he'll at least have the sense not to bother voting for Captain Safety and Wisdom.

It's a state by state election. The WH will focus on FL, OH and MN where they have Republican governors. Vaguely specific (and oxymoronic) terrorist warnings about disruption of the election along with very specific security guidelines will be given to all statehouses by Ridge and Ashcroft. Bush, Taft and Pawlenty will compete in overzealously imposing Ashcroft's guidelines in urban areas where Democratic voters are concentrated. Afterwards, questions will be raised about whether or not these threats were real and if the overzealous security measures suppressed the Democratic vote. Just try proving it was all a ploy. What can Kerry do about it? Not much. Subtract 5% from Kerry's poll numbers in FL, OH and MN if you want to have a better idea of the likely outcome.

Judging by the terrorist alerts on three or four year old information (does anyone care to calculate the cost to NY, DC, and Newark of keeping all the public safety personnel at this level of alert--12 hour shifts, no leaves, etc.--between now and November?), Bush's accusation of Kerry being a terrorist appeaser, and the greater than usual cable news distortions just yesterday, I'd say desperation has already set in big time. If it's the war, will US forces go after Sadr again (as they seemed to yesterday), will there be a show trial of Saddam in September of October, how many Iraqis will we kill in order to show the war is a "success"?

Charles

Reduced to hoping dopey Frank (and a drunk Frank, at that)knows what's up. Hooboy, turn out the lights, the party is over.

My son is a bartender at the Avalon, so I'm taking personal credit for this scoop.

Reduced to looking for the fact that Luntz repeated when he was drunk what his focus group told him when both he and they were sober, Patrick? Looks like the party MAY be over.

But, Howard: that was 4 out of 20 voters who said they'd voted for Bush in 2000 but were already undecided this time. Not quite the same thing as saying that 1/5 of Bush's voters had decided to switch to Kerry after hearing the Speech. As for the size of the bounce: Gallup and American Research group say it was nonexistent; Newsweek and the ABC/Post poll say it was a pretty impressive 8%; Zogby says it was big. I remain convinced that this election will be decided by the TV debates, and not till then. (One interesting side note: Newsweek and ABC both also say that Edwards would beat Cheney right now by 16-19 points if the VP election were held separately.)

Problem is, perception is reality. I was listening to CNN Radio this morning; the lead story was that Kerry did not get a bounce from the convention - and they pushed it pretty hard. Now, I have seen a lot of poll data, much of it contradictory - but it is at least 50/50 as to whether or not Kerry improved or got a bounce. Yet, as I said, CNN is pushing the "no bounce" meme. If that kind of thing continues Kerry may have an insurmountable uphill battle.

Cranky

Problem is, perception is reality. I was listening to CNN Radio this morning; the lead story was that Kerry did not get a bounce from the convention - and they pushed it pretty hard. Now, I have seen a lot of poll data, much of it contradictory - but it is at least 50/50 as to whether or not Kerry improved or got a bounce. Yet, as I said, CNN is pushing the "no bounce" meme. If that kind of thing continues Kerry may have an insurmountable uphill battle.

Cranky

If the party really is over, why are the Iowa Electronic Markets pricing Kerry at $0.468 and Bush at $0.529 as of this morning?

> Yet, as I said, CNN is pushing the "no bounce" meme. If that kind of thing continues Kerry may have an insurmountable uphill battle.

Yeah. It is funny (not to say surprising) that no media outlet is pushing the "amazingly poor showing for an incumbent president" meme/theme/narrative/whatever. Clearly, Bush can still win. And it's not hard to predict that he'll take any win as a mandate and become absolutely insufferable in his second term (I know, but it'll get worse).

He is running the most negative campaign I can think of for an incumbent president. If he wants to tout his first term as a success, he might wonder why less than half of Americans agree with him. I agree with Luntz that his winning strategy is going to require trashing Kerry, because he will get no more than 40% of the vote from people who seriously think he is a successful president. But I wish I could draw optimism from Luntz's pessimism.

The flip-flop thing is sticking to Kerry. Despite Bush's numerous reversals, it doesn't stick, maybe just because of the lack of coverage. (Bush makes his blatant "trifecta" lie but very few call him on it compared to the fine-tooth comb applied to Gore's statements during the 2000 campaign.) The "Kerry's rich" and "Edwards is an icky trial lawyer" attacks have not been nearly as successful. But the sheer preponderance of attacks can make Kerry look like damaged goods in time for the election.

To my mind, the interesting narrative is that Bush, a sitting president, is still working hard to look better than a relatively unknown senator who has been the target of tens of millions of dollars of negative advertising.

Reading today's TomDispatch and the linked stories, I think the deciding factor in the election may be the collapse of the military position in Iraq. Note that third-party contractors who transport supplies are being quickly eliminated and even in the areas supposedly controlled by the "Iraqi government" there seems to be a shift system: part of the day to the "government," part to the opposition. That can't last long.

Canadian commentator Eric Margolis, writing for the Toronto Sun, never, ever a liberal paper, has compared the president to George Custer. If that analysis (or "meme" according to taste) takes hold, how will the base react?

smooth s9

Sadly this will work on a large number of busies looking desparately for a reason to vote for him.

All the Bush campaign has to do is come out with a narrative that plays to this effectively: a narrative that says, "Iraq has gone so wrong because the international community has not lived up to its obligations, and now America must step up the fight without the help they were promised. Don't vote for John Kerry, because he would only sell America out completely to the foreign appeasers of militant Islamist terrorism."

Re:CNN's current falsehoods, under the guise of journalism, see Krugman today. I wish that the Kerry-Edwards campaign would tell the representatives of all of the media covering the campaign that, unless they start filing, reporting, playing accurate stories NOW, after Kerry and Edwaqrds win, they and their media corporations will not be at all welcome in the Kerry administration--and make it stick!

Charles

For whatever it's worth, the results of the Gallup poll are very, very strange -- they showed Bush actually gaining a bit after the convention at the same time that they showed Kerry improving his margin relative to Bush on every single political and personal issue: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

I can see why there are some suspicions about that particular poll.

bruce, thanks for the info on the luntz polling.

As for the CNN poll, it was likely voters, which may be subject to problematic interpretations (and may not; all of the CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls have been likely voters); i definitely agree that the internals and the horse race don't really align.

And Bruce, i've thought for a while that the most relevant comparison on presidential elections of our times was 1980: despite widespread derision for Carter, despite the fact that Reagan has been a GOP favorite since 1964 and was riding the crest of the conservative rise to power, the election still didn't break for Reagan until the debate (and let us not digress too far into the stolen briefing book).

Kerry isn't Reagan, hasn't been a favorite of the party since 1988, and isn't riding a liberal rise to power, so the analogy isn't exact, of course, but the fact that even with all these advantages, Reagan didn't break in front until that last week is, i think, not a bad example of how this may well play out....

The GOP should be more afraid of a Bush win. The whole house of cards they have constructed is going to fall sometime in the next 18 months. If Kerry is in office, the Congressional Republicans might escape the public wrath. Bush would not.

In fact, as a long-term strategy, the GOP would probably do best to lose both the presidency and the Congress.

Charles,

Why not go all the way? Wouldn't the best long-term strategy for the GOP be to dissolve itself?

"Reduced to hoping dopey Frank (and a drunk Frank, at that)knows what's up. Hooboy, turn out the lights, the party is over."

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on August 3, 2004 06:40 AM

Wow, that's pretty bad, even for you, Patrick.

"Kerry isn't Reagan, hasn't been a favorite of the party since 1988, and isn't riding a liberal rise to power, so the analogy isn't exact.."

No kidding! All we're lacking is 13% inflation, zero real GDP growth, and 20% interest rates. Not to mention our diplomats held hostage in Iran, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Soviets in Afghanistan.

Yes, Patrick, we all know this (well, broadly speaking; i don't believe that interest rates were 20% during the election season, although i could be misremembering), which is why the fact that Reagan didn't break decisively in front of the election until the last week, after the debates, despite every possible reason for piling up a big early lead and a big win, is a likely analogy. Sheesh, was that so hard to get? I didn't think i was that cryptic

"Not to mention our diplomats held hostage in Iran, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Soviets in Afghanistan."

Yeah, compared to that the current situation in Irak, Afghanistan and Israel / Palestine is a real pleasure to live through. Nothing for the electorate to worry about. Nothing at all... as long as noone forgets to wear their mandatory pink glasses.

"Sheesh, was that so hard to get? I didn't think i was that cryptic"

No, you were simply ridiculous. There is nothing about 2004 that is analogous to 1980.

The misery index was nearly 20 back then, it's 8 or 9 now. There is no objective reason to vote against Bush--not that there aren't plenty of people who will do so for emotional reasons--but there were PLENTY to go against Carter.

Charles said:

The GOP should be more afraid of a Bush win. The whole house of cards they have constructed is going to fall sometime in the next 18 months.

I ask, yes, but will constitutional government (if Bush is still in power) go with it?

Charles said:

The GOP should be more afraid of a Bush win. The whole house of cards they have constructed is going to fall sometime in the next 18 months.

I ask, yes, but will constitutional government (if Bush is still in power) go with it?

me> Sadly this will work on a large number of [Bushies] looking desparately for a reason to vote for him.

It will work on a lot of Democrats. The manufactured consensus in the Democratic Party is that The Iraq Project can be salvaged. Look at how efficiently they have purged anyone who publicly questions that particular clause in the Party dogma.

The problem for the D's is translating the dogma into propaganda for the rank and file to take to the voters. How do you craft effective propaganda to promote the idea of salvaging The Iraq Project™ by putting John Kerry in an Uncle Sam suit and having him say "We Want YOU!" to the U.N. Security Council?

That's already a near impossible task. It will be even more difficult when they also have to counter the noize from the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer about how the U.N. is full of terrorist sympathizers and appeasers.

You watch. Come September, Iyad Allawi will have Saddam Hussein in the dock and on trial, the insurgents will be killing "collaborators" by the dozen every week, and the cable news channel media script will all be about how the international community won't step up with the force commitments that Allawi wants to help pacify the countryside. And there will be John Kerry trying to tell Democrats that outside help will only come if they elect him President, while George Bush will be telling them America can win without outside help.

me> Sadly this will work on a large number of [Bushies] looking desparately for a reason to vote for him.

It will work on a lot of Democrats. The manufactured consensus in the Democratic Party is that The Iraq Project can be salvaged. Look at how efficiently they have purged anyone who publicly questions that particular clause in the Party dogma.

The problem for the D's is translating the dogma into propaganda for the rank and file to take to the voters. How do you craft effective propaganda to promote the idea of salvaging The Iraq Project™ by putting John Kerry in an Uncle Sam suit and having him say "We Want YOU!" to the U.N. Security Council?

That's already a near impossible task. It will be even more difficult when they also have to counter the noize from the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer about how the U.N. is full of terrorist sympathizers and appeasers.

You watch. Come September, Iyad Allawi will have Saddam Hussein in the dock and on trial, the insurgents will be killing "collaborators" by the dozen every week, and the cable news channel media script will all be about how the international community won't step up with the force commitments that Allawi wants to help pacify the countryside. And there will be John Kerry trying to tell Democrats that outside help will only come if they elect him President, while George Bush will be telling them America can win without outside help.

Charles said:

The GOP should be more afraid of a Bush win. The whole house of cards they have constructed is going to fall sometime in the next 18 months.

I ask, yes, but will constitutional government (if Bush is still in power) go with it?

Geez, Patrick, I guess i really was too cryptic.

Given every natural advantage in the world, a weak incumbent, economic problems, loss of US prestige, riding the crest of a popular movement, great affection in his base, Ronald Reagan still didn't move clearly into the lead in the election until the final week, after the debate.

In other words, to try and simplify this for you, unseating an incumbent is very hard work under the easiest of circumstances for a challenger.

Now, as a separate matter, there are loads of objective reasons to vote against Bush, starting with the fact that he has been a failure as president, but even so, should kerry win, it will be close, and it won't be clear until the very end, and Luntz may well be right on the basis for bush's defeat should it happen.

P.S. The Fed Funds rate never reached 20% during 1980; the prime rate, for a brief moment, reached 20% in April, then fell back, and didn't again exceed 20% until after the election (as i thought i remembered).

Dunno why I'm bothering, but:

"No kidding! All we're lacking is 13% inflation, zero real GDP growth, and 20% interest rates. Not to mention our diplomats held hostage in Iran, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and Soviets in Afghanistan."

We don't need Soviets in Afghanistan - we've got ourselves there. Along with warlords, a resurgent Taliban, and 75% of the world's opium harvest. Just say yes to drugs - vote Bush!

Our diplomats aren't being held hostage in Iran, but lots of our allies are being held hostage in "liberated" Iraq, where our 900 soldiers dead, $200 billion spent, and our military running on fumes, has bought us the remaining possible alternatives of Saddam-lite, Islamic dictatorship, or failed state, right in the middle of the Middle East.

Inflation's tamed, and interest rates are low, but that was true throughout the Clinton years, too, so nobody cares. However, they do care about whether they're working, and whether it's a good job. And by that measure, things still really suck. In 1980, if 'the economy' was doing well, that still translated into well-being for average Americans. Now, 'the economy' booms, but all the benefits flow to the top.

"There is no objective reason to vote against Bush". If you're one of the haves or the have-mores, this is certainly true. But if you're worried about where your job will be next year, or whether you'll have health coverage, or if you know someone serving in Iraq, you've got plenty of objective reason to vote against Bush. You want fries with that?

If there's "no objective reason to vote against Bush", then there are certainly a lot of people voting against him on subjective grounds who didn't vote against Reagan on subjective grounds in 1984. (In reality, they're voting against Bush on quite objective grounds, as summarized by RT -- specifically, the fact that the economy isn't doing so hot right now, and that this administration has bungled the Iraq war with embarrassing obviousness and disastrous consequences for the overall war against terrorism.)

From today's New York Times
snip
“In fact, the Democrats' gathering in Boston appears to have helped Mr. Kerry pull even with the president for the first time among veterans who are registered voters, a CBS News poll issued yesterday suggests. After the convention, 48 percent of them favored Mr. Kerry, and 47 percent Mr. Bush. In June, Mr. Kerry trailed Mr. Bush among veterans by 15 percentage points, and by mid-July he had narrowed the gap to six.”
snip

There are 25 million veteran households and they make up 15% of the households in Fla. Could this be what Lutz is seeing.

Why does Patrick hate America so?

To Howard: that part of the Gallup poll I was citing wasn't of "likely voters" (like you, I don't trust the analyses of these), but of registered voters. Although that doesn't change the fact that Gallup's results, as summarized on that "USA Today" poll page, were singularly weird and self-contradictory.

And I will agree that this election is analogous to 1980 in one major respect: I think it will be swung by the way the challenger performs in the TV debates, because a lot of voters are still not certain whether or not to go for him despite the fact that they dislike the incumbent.

From today's New York Times
snip
“In fact, the Democrats' gathering in Boston appears to have helped Mr. Kerry pull even with the president for the first time among veterans who are registered voters, a CBS News poll issued yesterday suggests. After the convention, 48 percent of them favored Mr. Kerry, and 47 percent Mr. Bush. In June, Mr. Kerry trailed Mr. Bush among veterans by 15 percentage points, and by mid-July he had narrowed the gap to six.”
snip

There are 25 million veteran households and they make up 15% of the households in Fla. Could this be what Lutz is seeing.

Why does Patrick hate America so?

From today's New York Times
snip
“In fact, the Democrats' gathering in Boston appears to have helped Mr. Kerry pull even with the president for the first time among veterans who are registered voters, a CBS News poll issued yesterday suggests. After the convention, 48 percent of them favored Mr. Kerry, and 47 percent Mr. Bush. In June, Mr. Kerry trailed Mr. Bush among veterans by 15 percentage points, and by mid-July he had narrowed the gap to six.”
snip

There are 25 million veteran households and they make up 15% of the households in Fla. Could this be what Lutz is seeing.

Why does Patrick hate America so?

Funny thing, about the bounce- Reuters reported right after the democratic convention that there had been a bounce, and Kerry had increased his lead to 48/43 from 47/45 before the convention. It seems to me that there is a lot of funny business going on around the poll numbers lately- not necessarily with the numbers themselves, but with the way they are being spun. It would seem to me that some editors are keeping their pro Bush bias for some strange reason. War is better for news and newspaper sales, after all.

It's interesting to compare this week's news to coverage of Gore's 2000 convention bounce.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/

This headline was "Poll: Convention 'bounce' pulls Gore even with Bush"

It was a much bigger bounce than Kerry's, but it only brought him up to even. The same article notes that Mondale had a 1984 bounce that brought him within 2 points of Reagan.

Maybe the bounces simply tend to restore candidates to an even footing (not enough data to say). Kerry had a small lead or was tying before the convention. Did anyone really expect it to turn into a reliable lead based on speeches alone? The other bounces aren't really comparable.

I'm honestly not trying to spin this. I think the election is entirely up for grabs at this point. As much as I would prefer Kerry to win, I think he has one disadvantage in a close race, which is that any surprise seems more likely to hurt him than help him. Bush has been innoculated against so much bad news that it is hard to imagine anything other than evidence of high crimes that will seriously shift public perception of him.

"In other words, to try and simplify this for you, unseating an incumbent is very hard work under the easiest of circumstances for a challenger."

From which you conclude that Kerry will be able to unseat Bush? That's a masterpiece of illogic. About as good as your insistence that Clinton had confused Scalia with Bork after you'd read in his book that he thought Scalia was confirmed AFTER Bork was defeated.

"And I will agree that this election is analogous to 1980 in one major respect: I think it will be swung by the way the challenger performs in the TV debates..."

In which case you might as well as abandon all hope right now. Kerry is an even worse stiff than Gore.

The year for the analogy is 1972, btw.

Frank Luntz wears a wig -- a real hair helmet. Think about someone getting up in the morning and gluing on their wig.

Obviously, he's a depressive, self-loathing nut case

Oh Patrick, poor Patrick, you literally can't even get it right when you were in the right. I see that you have advanced to understanding that it was Bork and Scalia that we were talking about (the last time you tried this line, you somehow got Justice Kennedy into the mix, so i want to compliment you on smoothly returning to reality without acknowledging your error in the first place!), but you are still misrepresenting everything else. I asked you to demonstrate the confusion of chronology between bork and scalia; you provided a quote that didn't demonstrate it; i told you the quote didn't demonstrate it and asked you for more; you got all snotty about how i should just go to a bookstore myself; i stopped in a bookstore (skipping lunch) on a trip through the denver airport and read the account; and i agreed that you had it correct and clinton wrong.

Your multiple versions of this very straightforward reality that can be demonstrated in these very archives from only several weeks ago are akin to your usual quality of representation of reality. I'd suggest you give it a break, since you embarass yourself every time.

Meanwhile, we try again: that you are in denial about bush's manifest failures and the objective basis for voting him out doesn't mean the american public is. Simply read Bush's approval numbers and you can see why there's a very relevant comparison to Carter's position; then think about how Reagan had even more going for him than Kerry does in terms of tailwind; and then think about how even so Reagan didn't pull ahead until after the debate (helped, of course, by a stolen briefing book); and then, if this isn't too much thought for you, you can understand why Bruce and I think that debates will be telling, and that if Kerry wins, he will only break for sure at the very end.

As for debates, a lot depends: if, for instance, there is no fact-checking and Bush is allowed to misrepresent at will, it certainly makes it easier for him to look good in a debate, but this time, i suspect, the american public is a little more concious of the fact that we're not electing a guy to eat pizza with....

"The year for the analogy is 1972, btw."

Gee, that's odd: at this point in the 1972 campaign Nixon had a 33-point lead over McGovern (which eventually dropped by 10 points). And, lest we forget, after those TV debates Gore the Stiff (whose bad TV performance actually came instead from cornball stunts like his loud comic-book sighs and marching up to confront Bush face-to-face, which Kerry doesn't do) actually beat Bush in the popular vote... In short, you're getting just a wee bit hysterical, Patrick. One might almost think you were actually trying to convince YOURSELF that a Bush win is a sure thing.

One additional note: there's a historical precedent. In his 1996 Senate race, Kerry only ran even with Gov. Weld UNTIL the TV debates -- during which he made mincemeat out of Weld and immediately moved into an 8-point lead. We'll see whether or not history repeats itself.

" I see that you have advanced to understanding that it was Bork and Scalia that we were talking about (the last time you tried this line, you somehow got Justice Kennedy into the mix..."

Poor, poor howard. "Kennedy got into the mix" by being the guy who eventually got the seat Bork didn't. Clinton stated--in the book you claimed to have checked--that that was Scalia. There was no confusion on Clinton's part about Bork being Scalia (or Scalia being Bork, whichever way you would like to pretend). The confusion was over Scalia and Kennedy.

As I say, not rocket science.

Bruce, Bush IS a sure winner. Unless something happens to tank the economy (and it would probably have to have already happened, as we're only 3 months away from the election).

And Bush is going to cream Kerry by making him choose which position he's going to take on a host of issues, in the debates. Kerry is a dead man walking.

Patrick, for the very last time - i'm really not going to bother with correcting you any further on this matter - this all began when you accused Clinton of getting Bork and Scalia wrong. That was your initial point, and you can look it up. It's sadly typical of your quality of argument that you now want to change your own initial claim.

And i still haven't claimed to read the book (why is it so hard for you to represent this with any degree of accuracy? do we see a consistent pattern? inquiring minds want to know!). I looked at the page cite that you gave me, because it was too frickin' much for you to type one more sentence that would have cinched your point in the first place, as i asked you to do (i even said "trust but verify").

Sheesh, how childish your fixation on this is, and how inaccurate your representation....

It's sort of like the childish notion that John Kerry is on both sides of many issues, as distinct from mr. consistency, george bush....

Yes. Richard Cohen pointed out last night quite nicely in the Washington Post how frequently Bush has flip-flopped on really major issues --including fundamental security-strategy ones. And both of them are playing dodge-'em to an equal degree on Iran (which is clearly our next upcoming crisis). The one point on which Kerry is more evasive than Bush is Iraq -- but then, the policies Bush is still clinging to in Iraq continue not to work very well, and are doing nothing for him in the polls (where Kerry has a consistent lead of about 58-42 over Bush on the Iraq issue now). If Kerry says he'll keep troops in Iraq, he won't be any worse off than Bush; if he comes out in favor of withdrawing some or all of them, he may actually improve in the polls.

In short, Pat, you are indeed straining to engage in absurd wishful thinking. Admittedly DeLong's attempts to imply that Kerry is a near-cinch are also premature at this point -- what he has is a modest lead -- but he's a lot closer to reality than you are. (By the way, the way Kerry creamed Weld in the 1996 Senate debates was to point out -- with great enthusiasm -- how much flip-flopping Weld was doing on the major issues.)

Correction: Bush and Kerry are running about even in approval on Iraq in the polls right now -- it's Bush's own rating on Iraq that's consistently about 58-42 negative. In short, voters don't like the fact that Kerry won't say clearly what he'll do about Iraq -- but they DO think they know clearly what Bush has done and will do about Iraq, and they don't like it. Which does bolster my conclusion above: unless Kerry does stupidly try to waffle on TV, he's in a no-lose situation. If he emulates Bush's position on keeping troops in, they'll break even on that issue; if he says he'll pull some or even all the troops out quickly, he's likely to improve his position relative to Bush.