> <quote>
> "1.) incumbent presidents rarely get defeated. the ones that have in
> recent memory were defeated through the
> application of new campaign technologies or tactics that were not
> quickly adopted by their opponents and a
> favorable political environment.
I suppose that, by "a favorable political environment," he means *un*favorable to the incumbent. This comes close to (if not coinciding with) a tautology: "the incumbent loses if the political environment is such that he loses." We shall see if the present environment is unfavorable enough for Bush. I am wondering what will happen when the Pentagon turns Iraq over to the Iraqis in July. If the present fun and games keep up, it will probably look very bad for Bush -- assuming they actually do relinquish control, which seems questionable. Either way, it's a mess. But serious enough to lose him the election? Employment seems to be picking up, right on schedule.
> one without the other doesn't seem to work.
That saves him from uttering a tautology. Kerry is trying to use Dean's internet fund raising technology, but I suppose the money he raises will go into the old tech: more attack CMs attacking the Bush attack CMs which attack the Kerry attack CMs which attack ... Ye gods, I'm glad I don't have time to watch TV. By September, this is going to get ridiculous.
> while everyone is focused on the negative tv ads, republicans have set
> out to train 52,000 volunteers in the techniques used in georgia in
> the 17 battleground states. they are very close to
> achieving that goal.
That is indeed a critical factor. I wonder, though -- do all the voters these campaigns get out actually vote the way they're supposed to? I guess the demographics and everything are researched well enough that they "stay bought."
Then again, we may be getting to the point that elections will be decided on the basis of which side's crack hackers can get into the voting system software and screw it up more effectively. Talk about "new technology"!
> those of you who live in florida, missouri, arizona, pennsylvania will
> get to know john kerry quite intimately (if you brave to turn on your
> tv!),
Being in PA, I plan to watch PBS (zzzzzzz....) and C-SPAN exclusively. (Well, "6 Feet Under" too, if it comes back before November).
> plus, if bush can tempt kerry into responding to his attack ads, then
> they cuts into kerry's resources for the fall.
Brothers and sisters, let us all fall on our knees and pray as fervently as we are able that the Kerry people will come up with some sort of TV ad campaign that is more imaginative than the usual bar-room brawl. (Actually, I think that Ralph's best chance is that the voters will get so disgusted with the Bush-Kerry brawl and go to the only candidate who can't afford to advertise on TV.)
> then you have kerry himself:
That we do. That we do. (Unless the D. Party follows my advice and opens up the convention, dumps him, and goes for a better candidate. But who?)
> the fact that both seem eager to engage in negative campaigning should
> have the effect of minimizing the electorate. swing voters,
> infrequent voters, and new voters are all likely to be turned off by
> the negativity of the campaign, especially since it will be relied
> upon by both sides. kerry seems to be gambling that he can turn out
> more supporters than can
> bush, which seems like quite a gamble to me!
Well, remember the old Mayor Daley's tombstone vote that put the first JFK over? One advantage of the 6-feet-under voters is that they aren't turned off by negative campaigns.
> 2.) kerry has proven historically to be an uneven campaigner. to beat
> an incumbent president, you have to build and sustain momentum for
> some period of time. i can't see kerry himself being able to do that.
Not living in Mass., I haven't seen him in action as a campaigner. So far this year, I haven't been impressed with his prowess on the stump. I wouldn't say he was uneven -- rather, evenly rather mediocre. Edwards was much more eloquent, and gave the impression that he really wanted the office he was campaigning for.
> obviously, you can do this same kind of analysis on bush and come up
> with a few factors that don't work in his (bush's) favor (loss of two
> million jobs, growing uneasiness over iraq, inability for the
> administration to stay on message or to control the debate -- quick,
> what was the message of the day last wednesday? -- et al). but bush's
> hurdles are a lot lower, and easier to overcome..."
In other words, it's Shrub's election to lose -- definitely true. But OTOH, I wouldn't put it past him to lose. Every time I see a mug shot of him in the papers (can't stand watching him on the tube), I wonder, "How can people *stand* him?" But that's what I thought about Reagan.
It's conceivabled that he could lose control of the debate (if we can dignify the way campaigns are run these days by that term) to the extent that even a bumbling Kerry campaign could stumble to victory. We shall see. Actually, I'm surprised to see that most polls have Kerry as even with Bush as they do at this point, but it's early days yet, as our British cousins say.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile