Centerfield

These poll numbers aren't surprising and are very accurate historically. Kerry will be up in the polls again after he picks a running mate and the DNC. Bush will be up after his own convention. Barring a terrorist attack or sex scandal, it will all balance out and we will be back to 50-50 on election day and talking about Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and possiby Michigan and or Minnesota.

Plus, Kerry's been on a (well-deserved) vacation. No airtime equals drop in polls. This is too early to mean anything.

Maybe it doesn't mean anything. I'm hoping a poll might tell us how people have digested the Clarke tempest.

I am reluctant to simply dismiss it, though. Bush has ticked up in the midst of his adminstration being under attack and experiencing a full week of primarily negative mainstream press coverage.

It may not be telling us who's going to win in November, but it might be telling us that the public doesn't plan to crucify Bush for how his admin viewed terrorism prior to 9/11. If so, this strikes me as the populace having much more horse sense than the controversy-addicted media.

From an independent to centrist standpoint I think there could be a feeling amongst the electorate that Kerry is... well.... liberal. Without Howard Dean to compare him with, it has become harder for him to appear mainstream, especially with the barrage of ads that are being pumped out by the Bush machine in the battleground states.

I think the hate and unity on the Democrat side is enough to make this a 50-50 race, but the Bush team has done what they set out to do: identify the Senator as a Boston liberal elitist. It is going to take a whole lot of money, a centrist running mate, and some pretty bold policy inititiatives for Kerry to look like anything but another Michael Dukakis.

The Condi testimony ends the Clark debate... the average American barely has paid attention to the 9/11 commission, and the one's who have, already know who they are voting for.

Anyone want to start a VP selection pool? Just for giggles? I dibs Gephardt!

I think another thing impacting people's perceptions of Kerry is the negativity of his approach. For weeks now, with the exception of his vacation, he's been hitting the Bush team hard. I don't think they've quite realized that the American people won't elect candidate X on the basis that candidate Y is a bad guy -- they're looking for a positive, optimistic vision.

The real trick for any candidate, is how to balance your criticisms of the opponent with a compelling positive vision. It's hard to do -- but they all have to do it.

I would observe, too, that the importance of going negative -- hitting hard -- is central to the thinking of most activist liberals on sites like DailyKos or Atrios. They act like the whole campaign, really, is presenting to the American people what a disaster the Bush team is. Many are blissfully unaware of how inadequate that is as a strategy.

I have dibs on Bill Richardson -- the guy who's going to end up getting it.

I'd love it if they did something more radical, though.

I'll take McCain. The only choice that gives Kerry a legitimate shot unless Iraq lapses into civil war in the next
6 months.

Tully, Gephardt? Talk about expired shelf-life. If Kerry thinks he's going to up his chances by choosing a like-minded old-fart liberal, he REALLY has no chance. Which is not to say Kerry won't pick him, of course.

Such a choice has the same unimaginative echoes as the candidacy of Bob "because it's my turn" Dole.

I think that the shift to hyper-partisanship in the past week initiated by Clarke's book release and testimony is going to hurt Kerry more than Bush with swing voters. I believe that the average swing voter thinks that it is perfectly legitimate to bash Bush about Iraq generally and whether it was a diversion from the war on terror specifically, but I think that the same average voter is disgusted at attempts to score political points by blaming Bush for not preventing 9/11. Good people in both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried to do the best job they could under the circumstances. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that those efforts were not enough. 9/11 is not a good political issue for Kerry.

I just stubled accross this site and added it to my list of RSS feeds. I'm happy to see some moderate political discussion; I'm sick of this partisan crap. I'd like to request that you add an RSS feed that includes entire posts instead of summaries. I can give you the Movable Type template that would do this if you're interested.

I think Todd P nails it.

It's generally easier for negative campaigning to work on voters who've not made their mind yet on an issue, and on 9/11, most voters already have strong views on that event. Unless there is something REALLY NEW added to the equation, it's easy to have things backfire. I don't think Clarke's main contention that the Bush administration didn't focus enough on terrorism is earth-shattering.

I think Kerry made an error wandering in to that fray (eg. asking Bush to prosecute Clarke), and he would have been better off staying on the higher ground.

Took a quick look at the poll breakdowns. In the battleground states where Bush has been running ads, he went from 5 or 6 points behind Kerry to 20 points up. In two weeks. But it's early yet.

Of course, the only poll that counts is the one we take on Election Day, the on you're supposed to be registered for.