Bush can't win but Kerry can lose.

Watched Imus this morning while getting ready for work when I heard one of his co-anchors say that an expert who's been following the polls and knows how to interpret the stats claims that Bush has lost the election to Kerry but Kerry can still lose. Anyone else catch that?

It was Mike Barnicle from the Globe. he basically said that Bush has reached his polling limit and won't gain anymore, unless an outside source affects the election or Kerry does a major screw up.

An election for an incumbent president is more a referendum on the incumbent than it is about the quality of the challenger. So long as Kerry isn't a horrible option, which he isn't, it comes down to whether or not they want Bush in office another four years. Period.

That's why he can still lose.

Kerry's biggest hurdle was the convention, which I thought was a home run. He's playing it very conservatively, which is sound strategy.

Kerry might actually be smart to play a little coy on the debates -- unlike most challengers, he doesn't really need to debates to win. If he can play like he doesn't need the debates and make the Bush team sweat a little, so much the better.

He has been campaigning very positively, but I think he'll start to sharpen his rhetoric and frame Bush in terms that will make many posters here happy, as we get into late September/October timeframe. I also think we'll see some real damaging revelations aboiut then that will counter any "October Surprise" the Bush campaign can muster.

But I think he needs to hold back.

Why fire all your guns when you are miles away from the target.

He needs to wait until Mid September (after the republicans reveal their strategy at the convention) to call out Bush.

Then he should have weekly themes, calling Bush out on the broken campaign promises, fauly laws, etc.

Week 1: Education

Week 2: Environment

Week 2: Economy

Week 3: Healthcare

Week 4: Taxes (and tax cuts)

Week 5: Jobs and Outsourcing

Week 6: Terrorism

Week 7: War

It would be in addition to his usual fight againtst Bush but by having a theme it allows everyone to be on the same page with the talking points.

I can think of the source of the Plame leak but that's it.

administration's pre-9/11 knowledge. Since we know much of Bush's past history has been expunged from the official record, some new evidence contradicting his fake bio would have a desestating impact on his credibility.

Infrmation, timed properly, can have huge impact on the undecideds.

Kerry ain't no block of wood, and Edwards ain't no mealy-mouthed DINO.

I'm hoping for a turnout that leaves the Bush camp in a shambles, to a point that even Jenna's grand-daughter couldn't get elected as a dog-catcher in an unopposed race.

The point is well taken. usually they say the election is so-and-so's to lose, and oddly enough the guy loses! It is an attempt to shift the lasers to the "frontrunner" and take him down- maybe just for the sake of the contest.

At least someone has to face the reality of Kerry's lead sometime somehow.

Fortunately, Kerry is stronger than any perceptions by anyone. He is not just a contest winner, a frontrunner, a contender. he is the only man running with true and exemplary presidential stature. He IS the president more than the pathetic Bush is.

Anyone might make mistakes. His foes will make some up if necessary, but to think our candidate cannot overcome such repeated frauds is to sell him short for who he is. That means WE have not gotten the Kerry message yet.

Hey, for once we are actually being led. Maybe it is a novel experience of late. I know some see this or that flaw or error as doom personified but for once I, the perpetual amateur, see nothing tactical to carp at from the armchair- which is as it should be.

...but you need a subscription to read it. I don't have one. I'd love to read the article, which says the election is Kerry's to lose now.

Via ABC's The Note:

But remember the poisonous job approval, re-elect, and wrong track numbers that hang around the president's neck to this day and then consider the very smart, mustest-of-read essay by Charlie Cook, in which the Zen Master surveys the troubling (and consistently so … ) poll numbers of the incumbent and renders this spot on verdict: LINK

(Now is the time to subscribe to National Journal's outstanding website if you don't already, because you need to read the whole thing.)

"President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points."

"This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the existing equation — one that for now favors a challenger over an incumbent."