The polls are very conflicting for states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin and along with Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, and possibly Virginia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and even Arizona, too close to call until Election Day for either side. The good news for Kerry is that he seems to have gained in Colorado and New Hampshire. The bad news is that Bush has the momentum and will get a roughly 5% bump after the convention that will probably largely disappear by the debates if Kerry can stay disciplined and hammer away on jobs, the economy, Social Security and health care.

Bush made a big error in his interview with Matt Lauer this week that I don't think the Kerry campaign has capitalized upon adequately. "I don't think it can be won" was potentially one of those blow-your-re-election bid kind of verbal gaffes that should really be re-played in every ad Kerry/Edwards runs for the next couple of months. I think the Bush team has done an adequate job of damage control since the interview and it will probably be old news in a week, though, since Kerry's campaign hasn't been nearly as smart or aggressive as the Bush team in recent weeks after the Bush political team looked sluggish and behind in the early summer/late spring.
The rumors of shakeups in the Kerry camp are true, I hope. I think they need to get tougher, more strategic, and more aggressive in pressing the Bush agenda and record, particularly on domestic policy -- Bush's Social Security reform "big idea" is horrible and won't play with seniors. Kerry also needs to come up with his own "big idea" above and beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission on the topic of homeland defense, while continuing to hammer away at Bush's reluctance to accept and adopt the criticism and proposals of that Commission. All the polls show Americans think Kerry's ideas and positions are better, particularly on domestic policy. Given his current weakness on issues of character and a remaining credibility gap, Kerry needs to win that battle of ideas even more and communicate his superior policies in a simple way that connects with voters. I think he missed his chance to do that in the Vietnam-focused Democratic Convention.

Give the Bush campaign credit. They've effectively answered back and done a hatchet job on Kerry's Vietnam campaign of a month ago. They've effectively changed the tone of the debate -- all of Kerry's speeches are now on substantive policy and not so much on his biography and character. Although it means Kerry has lost time and money on that failed character campaign, it probably benefits him in the long term.

The polls consistently show Americans like President Bush personally and believe in his character. It's his policies they disagree with -- hence the clever rhetorical gambit during the whole GOP convention: "you may sometimes disagree with him, but you know where he stands and what kind of President he is." Kerry has proven unable and will remain unable to connect American's discomfort with the way they were sold the war in Iraq with Bush's character, particularly because Kerry has almost taken the Iraq war off the table for voters by trying to be as tough as the President. Kerry currently doesn't have the position to criticize the President's conduct in the genesis of that war and made a monumental error in saying that he still would have voted for the war even knowing that there were no WMDs. His strategists should be fired just for that -- I think they were listening too much to the centrist/Clintonite strategists whose mantra has been "stay even on Iraq, win on domestic policy, don't become another McGovern." The problem with that strategy is that Americans still remain unable to distinguish the war on Iraq from the war on terror as a whole, and more importantly, don't associate Bush's failure to establish peace and order in Iraq with his failures to protect the homeland. Other analysts have also pointed out that Kerry missed a chance to quell the sniping at his biography in connecting Vietnam to Iraq -- if he stated that he would have opposed Iraq knowing we were lied to about WMD but would have kicked some major ass if the UN inspectors found even a hint of mustard gas, it would have put his moral opposition to the conduct of the Vietnam War (and the Iraq war, by connection) in a much better light and made him a man of conviction rather than a flip-flopper who voted against appropriations as a matter of political convenience during the primaries. That explanation -- that he was increasingly aware of the Bush administration's false claims about WMD -- would have also provided moral and political cover for his colossal error in voting against the appropriations bill. Kerry wasn't thinking back then -- it would have made more sense to vote against authorizing the war and for the appopriations bill in retrospect.

So both campaigns have bumbled a bit and failed to establish lasting momentum. I think the Bush campaign may be getting its legs and may be able to keep some of its current momentum. Kerry remains somewhat undefined in the minds of American voters and the lies of the Swift Boat veterans have done a lot of the work that successful campaigns need to do in defining the opponent first (and negatively) so as to cement the doubts already in people's minds about the challenger. That will have lasting damage for Kerry's credibility the rest of the way, despite the fact that no respectable commentator thinks there's any merit to the accusations.

Bush has historically unelectably bad numbers in several areas: right track/wrong track, job approval, deserves to be re-elected, new direction, etc. The problem for Kerry is not just that he's yet to pass the litmus test for electability as a viable alternative for many people. The problem is also that Kerry has been unable to turn America's anxiety and fear about terror, the economy, and the war against Bush in any significant way. In some ways, 9/11 has made this election somewhat paradoxical compared to electoral history: generally, one maxim of politics is that anxiety and unease work against an incumbent and the more people are uncomfortable with the status quo, the more they are willing to make an election a referendum about the incumbent.

However, what's happened in today's climate (and for the last three years) is that Bush makes us uneasy but we're still profoundly uneasy about the safety of our world and have trepidation about changing leadership. Clearly, we're uncertain whether Bush is part of the reason for our insecurity or as dedicated and tough a guardian as he claims to be. Yet we're not fully conscious of that cognititive dissonance and unwilling to criticize Bush for all his struggle. Fear still works for Bush and will be the primary reason he is probably going to be re-elected. Kerry has failed to make us afraid of Bush and his abilities (or lack thereof) or afraid about the world under Bush and our prosperity and safety in it.

It's a measure perhaps of the political skill of the Bush campaign or a reflection of this altered state of national politics that we've been so focused on our doubts about Kerry and the world around us rather than holding a referendum about our doubts about Bush's continuing ability to manage that world. The conventional logic that incumbent elections are generally referenda might not hold true in this election. Rather, it might actually end up being a referendum on our insecurities about the nation and the world and our willingness to risk change amidst such uncertainty. The more we doubt John Kerry, the more those larger, more global doubts govern our voting behavior and support. Kerry should take a page from the man he tried to emulate during the primaries, Kennedy, and present a campaign of moral courage that challenges Americans to take on the tough challenges and fight to make things better so they can feel happier and more secure with their lives and their country. Kennedy was a complicated person with deep character flaws, but no one ever accused him of a lack of moral conviction as they have with Kerry. It'll be hard, psychologically and even emotionally, for many Americans to give Bush the pink slip. So Kerry needs to really work to establish "the vision thing" that has eluded him so far and turn the Bush administration's explicit nationalist language of good-and-evil and morality into a broader moral crusade for the welfare of Americans everywhere, whether troops fighting for American power abroad or the jobless and elderly at home. He might even want to extend the "war" metaphor to a war on poverty and a war on corruption (both corporate and political) in order to really make this connection concrete in people's minds and highlight the glaring omissions in the Bush message. Showing some aggressive morality and authentic principle to compete with the Bush administration's aggressive aura of moral election would go a long way to answering people's doubts about Kerry's character and fitness to serve and erase the "flip-flop" label that will haunt him for the election. I'm not suggesting good old-fashioned populism (which didn't work so badly in reviving Gore's campaign in 2000) per se, but Kerry has played it a little too safe to preserve his tie. He needs to push the ball a bit more and make it clear that the way to win the battle over values and freedom is to extend that moral strength and the clarity born of honesty and commitment to both our foreign and domestic policy. America wins when it's strong and everyone has a role in promoting a better economy and life for themselves and their families in the face of those who would destroy our way of life. It's not enough to just destroy them -- we have a moral responsibility to rebuild our own way of life and make it greater than ever the way the survivors of 9/11 did. The Kerry campaign should feel free to quote any of these lines in a stump speech, because Americans are looking for that kind of talk from him.

Kerry has failed to make a persuasive case that the Bush administration has not acted effectively to keep us safe and continues to be remiss in its duty to protect the homeland, instead investing its resources in a misguided war that fails to address the lingering problem of Al Qaeda. The Kerry campaign has also failed to capitalize on the lingering insecurity of Americans about their jobs and economic productivity -- there have been terrible economic numbers the last couple of months and most people aren't really aware of that. Bush is vulnerable here as well -- even though people's perceptions of the economy improving have been better over the summer, they remain convinced that the country is going in the wrong direction -- usually, that indicator is primarily determined by people's general sense about their economic fortunes. The wrong track indicator might also point to underlying vulnerabilities on homeland security and even institutional ethics that the Kerry campaign hasn't explored.

The respective bases of both parties will be important, no doubt. Reports say that the Religious Right is pursuing unprecedented efforts to register and get out the evangelical vote. Gay marriage, not abortion, is the primary social issue of this election. I think it'll be a wash for Bush, though -- he'll lose the support of gay Republicans (hi, RJ), which is not to be underestimated, even as he picks up some of the social conservatives who are motivated to vote by their hatred and fear. The left's anti-war base will be naturally motivated to vote out Bush and won't need much urging -- particularly since the Nader buzz is very low this year and Nader isn't on the ballot in some of the key states that would matter in this election (unfortunately, Florida is one state where he has been certified). Minority votes will be key in turning out the base as well: Cubans in Florida will be the most interesting demographic of any in this election, since they'll be especially torn this year. From what I've read, it seems that the black vote is fairly mobilized against Bush as well -- Kerry could really drive this point home in talking about the tragic loss of lives in Iraq, since many of those fallen soliders have been black and Hispanic (just as many of his fallen comrades in Vietnam were minorities as well). Kerry should also hammer away on these recent numbers about poverty and the failures of welfare reform and "faith-based initiatives" to help the lower class.

If Kerry wins the election, it will probably be because of the gender gap. He should have John and Elizabeth Edwards devote a considerable amount of time to talking to women in personal terms about education and kids under the Bush administration. Edwards has spent too much time being the attack dog on foreign policy, where his credibility is the weakest, and not enough time playing his "2 Americas" speech to workers and unions or pulling at the heartstrings of mothers and suburbanites about education and health care a la Clinton. The continuing failure to fund No Child Left Behind and the lack of budgetary commitment to education in general amidst huge defense spending should be a priority for the Kerry campaign. This is another place they could really use some Big Ideas -- Clinton picked up big points here in 1992 vs Bush the Elder and his ideas weren't all that big or new. If Bush were smart, he'd have his wife talk about education for the rest of the campaign and make sure this isn't an issue Kerry can have an advantage on.

Kerry's supposedly closer than Gore was in polls of men, although Bush is still the king of white men (NASCAR dads). One way for him to toughen up his image that would work for domestic policy is to pull a Clinton and propose funding for more cops and firefighters on the streets to combat crime and be first-responders in case of an attack. That'd be another example of a little idea that plays big, which Clinton was the master of. It would be especially effective because he could then point to another aspect of his biography that hasn't been talked about much, his career as a prosecutor.

It will be hard for Kerry to deliver all these points on a national stage since there isn't much time left, but the debates are one opportunity to offer at least some vision and direction. I can only hope that he and Edwards can make the case effectively in small towns throughout the Midwest and have a better vision and message than the Bush campaign does. I don't think the Bush message is particularly elegant, but their campaign has been remarkably dedicated and disciplined to adhering to a simple message. I don't think Bush's "society of opportunity" vision message for domestic policy centered on investment will be as effective as the "war on terror" theme. Bush's new "big ideas" for domestic policy are old conservative stand-bys such as partial privatization of Social Security and health care. Whatever Reaganite bump they got from "giving power to the people" already came with tax cuts and people aren't going to buy into the idea of buying a stake into the social safety net, particularly seniors, the working class, and the under-insured or uninsured. These aren't winning ideas and present multiple opportunities for Kerry to exploit in the debates, but they will highlight Bush's strengths in communicating bold overall ideas vs. policy wonkery from Kerry. I don't think that the metaphor or proposals will resonate all that much, however, since they don't address Americans' underlying anxieties about the economy, health care, and retirement. In fact, "the opportunity/investment society" might scare some folks who can see past the label and realize that privatization would only increase the precarious, uncertain futures for their families. Kerry has a huge opportunity to present a more compelling moral vision for the role of government in uncertain times -- the conservative free market ethic isn't as compelling a story today, what with huge deficits, the largest government in history, and little to show for it domestically. Kerry has to talk about a smarter, more moral, more efficient, and more courageous government that protects more people (from terrorists but also from poverty, illness, poor schools, job insecurity, etc.)

If he makes that case, Kerry will win the election and change the course of the debate in American politics. That's a big IF, though.

No one involved in the Kerry campaign will ever read this, but consider it some free advice if you ever do. If you want to pay me millions for my ideas, that's cool too.

Everyone hate away.

That is all.

"afraid of Bush and his abilities" ...

That should have read "Bush and his priorities," but you get the idea.

That is all.

Wow.

A REALLY long and boring rant about politics that is both uninteresting and libelous.

Congrats...

The phrase I was thinking of for Bush's big idea was "ownership society." Sorry. I've been out too late.

But yeah, that big vision isn't such a great one. It's no Great Society or City on a Hill. Bush was lucky to get elected in 2000 because he was in an election where neither candidate had "the vision thing" his father dismissed. Bush sort of came across a vision after 9/11 and it changed the tone of his entire Presidency. It appears that now Karl Rove, Matt Dowd, and the rest feel that he needs another BIG vision along with the war on terror to address the increasing importance of domestic policy and ensure his re-election.

"The ownership society" explicitly invites class war, and in this economy, more people are likely to be and identify with the plight of workers who are being downsized or are unemployed or lack health coverage than with the owners that Bush's tax cuts have made richer. Kerry should make this point and tie in corporate corruption (people will already think Haliburton without it having to be said) and corporate welfare to make people realize how poorly conceived the term "ownership society" really is. Kerry should ask the question ... "Mr. President, under your administration, who owns our society and who owns our government? How many of are so lucky to qualify as owners and how many of the rest of us are footing the bill for your policies? Under my Presidency, you'll have an administration that has the courage to REALLY give the ownership back to the people and out of the hands of corporations like Enron who don't show the responsibility of ownership to their stockholders and employees. My administration will make corporations who pollute the environment responsibile for their effect upon society and just like in my days as a prosecutor, I won't overlook companies that cook the books to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. I'll have a responsible government that looks out for and takes responsibility for the jobs of workers, small business and the middle class, those that are the backbone of our economy and are fighting for their financial security and their share in return for their hard work. My administration will work hard every day to be responsible, honest and accountable to the best interests of the American people, all the American people. I'm challenging Americans to have the moral courage to continue to BUILD America and make it stronger by making sure they have good jobs, affordable health care, excellent schools, and the safety to live their lives knowing they are protected from terror. We need all Americans to help build that kind of nation and make America greater than any enemy who would try and knock us down. It's the responsibility of destiny and greatness (blah blah blah more West Wing-type dialogue)."

He'd win the debates and I'd be ecstatic. Kerry should acknowledge that Bush did a great job comforting the nation through tragedy but that he's not the right man to take us forward, heal the nation, and make it the world leader again. He should highlight the doubts we have about the responsibility and maturity of the Bush administration by emphasizing the responsibility of a Kerry administration and the responsibility of Americans for investing in their leadership.

Sure, the "society of responsibility" isn't quite the elegant words I'm looking for (maybe it could be "rebuilder society" if politics has become Home Makeover), but Kerry needs to turn that concept of the "Owner" on its head somehow in a way that challenges Americans to do better and have moral courage, that makes them feel like heroes lead by a hero. I'll give props to anyone who can think of a cute phrase that captures that. Otherwise, Americans will revert to wanting to be protected by Bush as their guardian from their fears. And Kerry needs to articulate that competing vision in a way that doesn't smack of big government "Massachusetts liberal" or higher taxes (Bush's biggest and most untrue attack that Kerry must refute) a la Dukakis. Reagan settled the tax debate for American politics for a good long time. You tax, you lose. That doesn't mean that Americans wanted the upper-bracket tax cuts -- in fact, the polls show they don't mind reversing those at all, especially if the middle class gets added tax relief. Kerry needs to make it clear he'll shrink spending and the deficit while re-prioritizing in order to invest in the economy and health care. He needs to show moral conviction that the government can and should do more to help Americans who are struggling and that the wealthy have as much responsibility as anyone else who is suffereing uncertainty, that their privilege and free pass is over.

Yeah, and other stuff too.

That is all.

Awww ... I was just teasing you, RJ. I knew you'd be sour. I was just saying hi to you is all.

This is better political commentary than you'll read anywhere on this site, that's for sure.

Why are you a Bush supporter, RJ? I'm assuming you're certainly not wealthy or anything (or is that libelous too). Is it your social views? Just curious.

And I'm not starting a blog because I don't have time to write crap like this very often. Hence my comment-on-one-thing-every-two-weeks sporadic presence on this site, which I don't want to be a REAL member of particularly.

That is all.

Booey- I think it is excellent analysis, and quite fair.

I have no doubt that the Bush team chose the 'ownership society' as a safe way to take sides on the philosophy of personal responsibility without naming it. The high percentage of home ownership has never been higher than it is right now, and home owners are efficacious voters. It's a nice constituency to own.

I maintain my stance that the Kerry campaign's VietNam gambit was a poor choice. I don't like the usual liberal calling cards, such as universal health care and jobs protectionism, but these items play well, and I'm baffled as to why they weren't hammered at the DNC and on then consistently on the trail. Kerry truly squandered the national stage while he had it to himself.

Good stuff!

Thanks for the info RJ, very interesting and pertinent.

BAB, a lot of very interesting and insightful thoughts, and very well presented - we appreciate the effort and care.

I'd say the RNC was quite successful and Bush again showed that he is really focused on one thing - the War on Terror - and ultimately that is why he will win, barring any number of things that could happen in this very volatile world.

His speech was rote and pretty dull until he got to the 9/11-War on Terror part and then he came alive and really connected. He is a much better speaker than he is given credit for as long as he doesn't have to think on his feet.

August job numbers are supposed to be up - as long as the economy doesn't get noticeably worse, I believe the country will side with the person who is most fixated on defending it, and Kerry has not shown he has an equal "fixation," the essence of which is "taking the fight to the enemy," along the lines of "kill the fuckers before they kill us."

With his Vietnam record successfully clouded by the Swifties, the focus returns to Kerry's political record and that record is a hodgepodge without much rhyme or reason, and certainly without any kind of identifiable theme.

As long as Bush can keep Iraq identified with the greater War on Terror, he will be given a pass for the very messy aftermath of the invasion itself. And that is a legitimate question: is iraq part of the greater War on Terror? Obviously those who oppose Bush say no, point to the "neo-con agenda," the lack of WMD, the disconnect between iraq and al Qaeda, and these are all legitimate points of contention. But Bush also did a good job of reminding us that Saddam was warned by the Security Council unanimously, told to comply with a decade's worth of defied demands from the UN, and given a last chance under penalty of military action. He did not comply - a coalition of 40 nations took military action.

As I have argued before, the "real" reality is that after the overthrow of the Taliban, in order to reinforce our seriousness of purpose, to convince all who would dismiss our resolve, assume business as usual, and fail to understand that violent Islamist exceptionalism is an unacceptable worldview, we had to take further aggressive action in the greater Middle East and the situation in Iraq was amenable to such action. We had to go in there and throw our weight around, blow shit up, and overthrow something, which we have now done.

Problems have ensued and the aftermath of the blowing shit up phase has not been handled particularly well, this is indisputable, but the bottom line is Saddam is out, the world knows we are no longer fucking around, there will be a roughly democratic government in Iraq one way or the other, and the behavior and attitudes of other nations in the region have been altered in myriad salutary ways, seen and unseen. Surely our relationships with Libya and Pakistan have changed dramatically for the good, and it has been made clear throughout the region that the spewing of anti-Western hatred from the mosques and madrassas is no longer acceptable.

A reasonable case can be made that it would have made more sense to blow shit up and kick the fuckers to the curb in Iran, Syria, North Korea, even Saudia Arabia, but everyone who lives on this actual planet knows that not one of these countries presented feasible targets for any number of reasons. You do what you can, where and when you can, and it is my hope that the invasion of Iraq removes the need for direct military action against these other nations.

The region had to be transformed, and the process has been very tangibly begun - this is not nothing and effort and steadfastness count. This is why Bush will win in November.

Olsen and Mike: thanks for the nice comments. I only write for any length when I'm up all night and can't spell, but I'm glad the rare effort was appreciated.

I too think Bush will win on the national security differential, but mainly because the economy's not so bad that voters will turn on Bush. The recovery's just good enough, even though it isn't all that good and even though the recovery is slowing down somewhat. So in that sense, the economy's the main driving force in Bush's viability as an incumbent.

Bush is a markedly better speaker than in 2000. He's far more comfortable in his skin, his posture is more relaxed, his speechwriters clearly understand his style and tone better. When you see the clips of his 2000 speech, his posture is rigid, he speeks out of tight, pursed lips, his face is tense and has too much make-up, his words are forced. Now he's actually a good public speaker -- not eloquent or florid in the Clinton/Cuomo sense by any means, but effective nonetheless. I think his delivery was better than Kerry's, actually, although Kerry's speech attempted far more (as it had to). Part of the reason Kerry didn't get a bounce was he rushed his speech, it was too cluttered, and he had a sweaty chin. Bush seemed tanned, relaxed, and confident in who he is as an incumbent.

Only one quibble with your thoughtful comment, Olsen. The "be the alpha-male gorilla and knock down some trees to scare the other gorillas" theory of the Iraq war is problematic because the people we know we need to defeat, Al Qaeda, are the pre-eminent example of the threat today, outside any state that responds to rational displays of force. Governments during the Cold War and even today back down. Terrorists don't have the same accountability to the public in order to maintain legitimacy that a state does and act in service of ideology and fervent belief. The argument can be made that state-sponsored terrorism can be deterred (and the war in Afghanistan was both necessary and productive in that respect), but most of that has been secretive anyway and nations like Libya are still home to radical clerics and populations that are increasingly hateful of American foreign policy. We've clearly lost "the battle for hearts and minds" for generations to come and that danger is why this election is so important, regardless of whom you think would handle that danger better. Thanks for the good discussion so far.

RJ, I'd like your serious reaction too since you're always one of the token political geek/wonks like I am. Sorry about the cheap shot joke.

That is all.

BAB, it isn't so much al Qaeda we are looking to "influence" but the tens of millions of potential sympathizers throughout the region and the world. Al Qaeda was have to capture and/or kill, they are beyond influencing.

I don't think the hearts and minds situation is nearly as black and white, nor as rigid as you present it, and it works on more than one level. Right now I am satisfied if the word is out that we are not to be fucked with without grave consequence, and this part of Bush's crazed gorilla cowboy badass image is to the good.

I ended up making a post our of this here