Another sign that this labor day weekend is not one of the Kerry’s campaign’s better weekends.

Nader getting or not getting on the ballot in California or New York may not really matter all that much. But his getting on the ballot in any battleground state where polls show 5% or less differential does mean potential trouble for Kerry… even if the total Nader vote is a little as 2%.

Posted by: steve at September 4, 2004 09:39 PM

You are right Steve. Kerry has just taken a left hook, a body shot, an uppercut, and a right cross. The poor bastard now does deserve his first purple heart. As I’ve read elsewhere, he should wear a large letter L on the front of his shirt, as opposed to George’s big W!!

Posted by: dickmr at September 5, 2004 12:40 AM

Wait a week, Kerry will be back up there and then once the debates are over, he’ll be ten points ahead.

Posted by: ericl at September 5, 2004 08:33 AM

ericl - re: you comment about the debates

You may well be correct, but here’s how I see it.

The “debates” as they’ve come to be known are really glorified, dueling press conferences. If you look back over their history, the impact of the debates has not been so much on who actually “won” (acc. debating standards) as it has been on how each candidate was seen by the views: calm, handsome, erudite, charming, on his game, obnoxious, made a fool out of himself, seemed tense, had that “eyes in the headlights” look, too made-up, not enough make up, etc.

Pick your candidate and fill in the blank. Good indicators of how these two men will do is their past practice and exposure to date. Regardless of his difficulty at times with words, on the whole President Bush has done well in his press conferences. Sometimes he’s better than others, true, but lowered expectations have never seemed to have hurt him. People know Bush, have seen him up close these past 3+ years and accept him as he is.

Senator Kerry, on the other hand, gives very scripted events, rallies or speeches. He has ducked press conferences and only appeared - rarely - on safe TV venues where the questions are softball, if that. His failure - and I use that word deliberately - to face the media in an open press conference this past month has had a corroding effect on his candidacy.

A good deal will depend on what questions will be asked and who will ask them. Each candidate more than likely will prepare for answers on the obvious issues (war, terrorism, the economy) as well as every off the wall type of question that could be thrown at him.

There’s always the chance that one could make a terrible gaffe - the sort of thing that the media lives for. As I see it, that’s the only unanswered question; and both candidates have been known to go off message from time to time. In the last analysis, it all will depend on how the media plays it - AND whether the public is still paying any attention to what they say (witness this last week’s debacle by the AP).

So, in summary, I wouldn’t hold my breath for the debates to change minds one way or the other. By the time they occur, most people will be pretty much entrenched anyway. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Jim at September 5, 2004 01:19 PM

correction: “….on how each candidate was seen by the viewers….” (not “views”)

I need another cup of coffee!

Posted by: Jim at September 5, 2004 01:24 PM

There’s no much Ralphie can do regardless, at this point.

But idnit Fun how the R’s are so gleeful? Explains why they funded him in the first place.

Posted by: Don at September 5, 2004 01:45 PM

Come on Don… grow up!

There has been some very solid and mature discussions by many in this blog on the recent turn in events. I’ve yet to see any serious discussion coming from the other side about Kerry’s game plan or strengths that might be indicators of his ability to turn things around other than some serious outside catalysts from the GWOT, Iraq or the economy. Mocking the Repbulicans and calling them names does not suffice as rational responses.

Sophomoric comments such as yours do not help people feel any better about your candidate. Your elitist attitudes shows way too often in assuming that the other side is full of morons. (And while I’m at it… that goes equally for the consevatives who resort to outlandish name calling and accusations in response to the counter points offered by the other side.)

I and many other conservatives respected and applauded the DNC’s well orchestrated convention, its strengths and apparent subsequent gains in the polls. If the “Rs” are “gleeful” it is because of the apparent success of their candidate and party to hit the right buttons and themes when it was their turn. The numbers indicate that their strategy worked a little better than the Dems. Kerry’s midnight rally probably hurt him more than helped… almost all pundits viewed the move to go on the offensive so soon after the RNC as risky and equally hit Kerry on his emotional response. While I can understand how personal he may be taking the charges against what was a powerful highlight in his career, he can not come out and show it in the manner he and his cohorts have shown to date. The significant reversal in polls support this too.

Posted by: steve at September 5, 2004 04:22 PM