Remember that August was a month when Kerry could not spend money

The Repubs scheduled their convention a month later than Dems and gave them an extra month to raise money and run those SBVT ads. That was a decision that hurt Democrats and put John Kerry at a disadvantage. We should remember that why August was not a good month for Dems and the Repubs took full advantage of it...

But why could they not spend money? Is it due to some sort of campaign finance law?

they actually could have spent money but it would have come out of the $75 million of federal funds and that woulh have left them with less in Sept and October to spend? Any more details by anyone?

donations once the campaign is over. Being that the DNC was one month before the RNC that means the Kerry campaign has to stretch their money for one month longer than the Bush campaign.

toyed with the idea of not accepting the Democratic candidacy and waiting for a delayed time to do it, in order to try to level the playing field. Again, that was a rumour.

However, the incumbent's party always has its convention last - I believe it's just a tradition, but it's always done that way.

Normally, the incumbent's convention is held in early to mid-August. But because of the Olympics, the Bush campaign decided to hold its convention in late August rather than doing it immediately after the Democrats had theirs, allowing them to capitalize on 9/11 and to make the best of the five week gap in spending.

funds, not his unlimited primary funds.

Once a candidate is officially nominated, he can no longer spend the money he raised in the primary, but can only use the $75 million in federal money that each candidate gets for the general election. Thus, since July 29, anything money Kerry spent had to come from his $75 million pot, while Bush remained free to use his primary funds until September 2.

The Bush folks intended to use its unlimited spending power in the five weeks between conventions to throw everything it had at Kerry in hopes of provoking him into spending down his $75 million in order to respond, while Bush's pot remained untouched.

Kerry didn't rise to the bait and, thus, is still in good shape financially and, despite the doomsayers, is also in good shape in the polls, notwithstanding the barrage Bush leveled at him.

Thanks mbali..

Kerry is still within the margin of error in most reasonable survey data from right smack dab in the middle of the RNC! I'd say that is not too shabby, indeed.

not being able to spend much money in August, not being the incumbent, having to fight the media bias and favoritism they have for Bu$h, and the constant barrage of attack ads, Kerry is actually doing quiet well. This is why Bu$hCo is scared shitless of him. They know they can't win, so they will have to steal the election again.

Though they are always hammering on Kerry's supposed advatage on 527s (I think that is the tax number).

I didn't hear a single pundit mention this.
Not once.

He should have spent millions defending himself against the Swift Hoaxers. The fact that he didn't is proof that he's just like Mike Dukakis. I know this is true, because I read it here daily.

like bullshit over the land? He underestimated the gullibility or the "culpability" of the media. It was almost like someone that came on the TV and said the earth is flat and the media carried the story and discredited everyone that disgreed with the idea...and never questioned or scrutinized the person that spread the flat earth idea to begin with...

I strongly believe that if Kerry had slammed the Swift Boat Veterans when they first came at him, we'd still be right where we are now - or likely in worse shape. Here's why.

1. The press would have still run with the story and then run it into the ground, just as they did. But they would have blamed their coverage on Kerry himself since, after all, they'd bellow, "Don't blame US! It wasn't a story until Kerry dignified their accusations with a response. HE took an obscure accusation and turned it into a major story."

2. Little was known about the Swift Boat Veterans when they first came out. If Kerry had attacked them in that environment, they would have played martyr - look at mean old Kerry questioning the motives of his fellow veterans! - and the public would have had no context within which to place their accusations.

3. If Kerry had gone after them back then, Bush would have immediately disowned them and would have then just sat back, far above the fray, and gone about his business unscathed and unconcerned while his opponent rolled around in the gutter with the Swift Boat Mud Wrestlers.

Your argument is well thought out and makes perfect sense. But you're still wrong. You know why? Because every attack made against Kerry must be defended against vigorously. It doesn't matter if the defense would work or not; it doesn't matter if the defense would actually make the situation worse. What matters is that he defends himself, against each and every charge the second there is even a hint of one. To do anything else is to be just like Mike Dukakis.. I know this is true because I read it here every day.

and the republican party lets say..10 million dollars thru various ways-all legal of course- now i look and see it`s a 50-50 race. so am i going to give away mllions more? george has spent tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and has nothing to show for it, now does he?

should have spent like hell. We need to go negative and hammer away at one or two basic messages.

Also, I don't believe the Time poll just yet, I'll wait for other polls to back it up.

Further the Kerry campaign said if Bush was below 55% after the convention, it was disasterous for them.

what the law say?

message and we need to stick to it. The campaign can't legally coordinate with any 527 groups, but the R's don't play by the rules.

it did put him at a disadvantage and by not using the money to refute the ads, he looked weak (from what we are constantly hearing) which he obviously is not!

We weren't on a level playing field last month. This month will even out more. I have no doubt.

Would it cost Kerry money to hold a press conference and ask just why Bush & Chenny fought so hard against a 911 commission, or why is was that Bush would not testify under oath, and had to have his buddy there with him?

Did it cost Micheal Moore money to call Bush a AWOL deserter? Did it cost John McCain money to rail at Roves nasty tactic's?

At the time Bush was on the defensive and was behind in most of the polls. If Kerry had responded in such a way as you suggest, it would have been perceived as from a defensive position. In hindsight, you my be right.

Kerry should take a tip from Roves style and throw shit like that out there, and then, before anyone can respond to it, lay out another harsh truth, then before they can respond, another one, then another!

The 24/7 press is, and was, begging for something to report, so give them something! It doesn't cost a damn thing to tell the harsh truth to a story starved press!

:)