In case you are wandering why there is a shakeup (meltdown might be better) in the Kerry campaign, see this from Charlie Cook, who weeks ago said that the race was Kerry’s: "Three weeks ago, most political insiders in both parties gave Sen. John Kerry a slight edge over President Bush. Granted, Kerry’s lead appeared to be only 2 or 3 points, but it showed up consistently in the national polls and was corroborated by public and private polling on the state level that showed Kerry ahead in seven or eight of the 10 most competitive battleground states. Experienced Republican operatives, particularly pollsters, were worried. Their Democratic counterparts were
pinching themselves.
Since then, Kerry appears to have lost a point or two, maybe three, and Bush has picked up a point or two. State polls are showing Bush ahead in five or six of those same 10 battleground states."
Some poll numbers: Florida: Bush 48, Kerry 46. Ohio:, Bush, 49, Kerry 46. Pennsylvania: Bush, 47, Kerry 46.
Wisconsin:, Bush 48, Kerry 47. Also note this interesting piece by Cook that considers the importance of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, that if either Kerry or Bush two out these three states he would win the election. But, even in this reasobale scenario, Cook explains how that’s not really the case for Bush: he still could win with winning only one of the three. Worth reading.
Someone explain to me how Joe Lockhart (and some other Clintonistas) is going to help Kerry out of this hole that he (with the help of his advisors) has dug for himself? More is coming, I am certain.
You’re absolutely right about this. This same thing happened in 1992 with
Bush the elder, in 1996 with Dole and 2000 with Gore.
When it becomes clear to the Party hierarchy that the presidential campaign
is in free fall they force some "Adult Supervision" on the campaign to bring
some order to the chaos. This has two effects. This first is the campaign
becomes hyper-concerned with the micro. I remember George Shultz personally
vetting lists of greeters for surrogate visits during the 1992 campaign.
The second is that it spreads around the blame. Too many cooks may ruin the
porridge, but it’s no one’s fault that it didn’t turn out right.
Perhaps the Dems have some buyers remorse.
Reader:
Excellent analysis. The reference to cooking is great. The last statement,” Perhaps the Dems have some buyers remorse" is where this starts to break down. This comment presumes the Marxist-democrats have a core. They don’t unless one believes that lying can be considered as something to stand for. This election year has separated the fringe from the true democrat. The fringe is winning in the mainstream and they are the Marxist-democrats. Sorry, I cannot besmirch the beautiful word liberal, at least in the classic sense, by attaching it to kooks who are anything but for liberty. The true democrats are voting according to the needs of the country and its biggest need now is resolve in fighting against an enemy that will stop at nothing.
More than anything else, this suggests that "analysts" who decide the election is all but over in the first week of August (ESPECIALLY when they make a call against a sitting President known for taking off in the summer and who still hadn’t begun campaigning in earnest at the time) should be politely (or maybe impolitely) dismissed as nitwits in most instances.