John Kerry's campaign is in big trouble, and he knows it. At least his campaign people have to know it, and I think they're telling him. No, it's not the Swift Vets ad, though that will dog him for awhile. And it's not even his vacillations on Iraq. It's simple election math. Why nobody has figured this out before is a mystery to me.

So, what exactly is the problem? Look at the latest polls as of 8/7/04: Time has it 48-43 Kerry, IBD/TIPP has it 45-42 Kerry, AP/IPSOS has it 48-45 Kerry, and Rasmussen has it 47-47. So, it looks good right? Kerry is up in all the polls. For one, except for Time, he is within the margin of error in all polls, which means a dead heat, but that explanation would be partisan spin.

A look at history will give the answer. Quick, who was the last democratic presidential candidate to get 50% of the vote? Nope, wrong. (You thought Clinton, eh?) It was Jimmy Carter, with a whopping 50.08%. Before that, the last democratic president to get 50% was Johnson at 61.05%. So, in the last 40 years, only 1 democratic presidential candidate has cracked the 50% barrier, and to use a baseball analogy, he "just cleared the fence". By the way, the last "JFK" got 49.72% to Nixon's 49.55% in 1960.

Nixon won 43-42 in 1968 (Wallace got 13.5%), then won 60-37 in 1972. Carter won 50-48 in 1976. Then in 1980, Reagan won 51-41 (John Anderson got 6%) and won 58-40 in 1984. Bush Sr. won 53-45 in 1988 before losing 43-37-18(Perot) to Clinton in 1992. Clinton did come close to 50% in 1996 winning just over 49% to Dole's 40%. In 2000, Bush got 47.87% while Gore got 48.38% So, what does this all mean?

I am hardly a political scientist, and I'm not writing a dissertation, but the conclusion should be obvious. Kerry can't get 50% of the vote, and right now, he is polling as high as he can. He cannot poll higher and he has three months until the election and cannot afford to lose any support. Talk about pressure.

Kerry can take solace in that democratic candidates have won with less than 50%, and he will probably get close to Gore's 48%. But, when have Republicans done the best? They have done best when foreign policy is front and center in the campaign. Remember the joke, "They said if I voted for Goldwater, we'd be in a war in Vietnam? Well, I voted for Goldwater, and we ended up in a war in Vietnam."? Remember the ad with the girl and the daisy? I don't believe that Johnson was running on an ambitious foreign policy platform.

We'll look at 1968 a little later. 1972 was an aberration as McGovern was such a bad choice, vehemently anti-war, and socially very liberal. 1976 was post Vietnam and post Watergate, and America wanted to focus on things domestic. In 1980, the hostage crisis was front and center. By 1984, Mondale was a sacrificial lamb, but the cold war, SDI, and interventions against communism were key issues. In 1988, we were finishing up the cold war, and Dukakis was a poor candidate. By 1992, the cold war was over, congress was debating how to spend the "peace dividend", and there was Perot. Clinton benefitted from this, as even the Gulf War was "over". By 1996, even though we'd had attacks on the WTC in 1993, Somalia, and other terrorist attacks, our attention was focused on the economy, Perot ran again and still got 8%. In 2000, we had not fully realized the threat out there, the economy was in slowdown, and the country was suffering lingering Clinton fatigue, resulting in a very close election.

In every election since 1960, when foreign policy mattered, Republicans have won. (I wonder what the liberals today would have said about Kennedy's "missile gap" and the effects of that. Russia began rapid expansion and put missiles in Cuba. Oops.) Only when issues are closer to home do democrats have a chance. And this year, what is issue number one? Iraq and the War on Terror.

This takes us back to 1968 which is the closest we can get to a similar election. However, there is no third party candidate. Then, as now, we are divided on a war and are in the midst of social change. But this war is entirely different.

Another factor working against Kerry is congress. In 2000, Bush won 228 congressional districts to Gore's 207. In 2002, the Republicans gained seats in an off year, and currently control 229 seats in Congress, 51 senatorial seats, and 26 governorships. There is actually a slight Republican majority, and it works against Kerry. This map should shed some light. There doesn't appear to be that large a shift in the electorate to affect massive congressional change. So, if a majority of districts are voting Republican for congress, what would compel them to split their ticket?

If Kerry can't get 50%, does that mean Bush will? That one is to hard to tell. Without a third party candidate, where will disaffected Republicans go? How many democratic voters are going to vote like Zel Miller and Ed Koch? Is anti-Bush sentiment enough to push Kerry over the top?

Right now, Kerry should be enjoying a significant lead, polling somewhere in the mid 50's. His last shot was last month in Boston, and he got nothing out of it. His last chance is at the debates.

I predicted some time ago that the election would be 53-46. I still hold to that. Kerry can't get 50%, and he knows it. He's in big trouble, and he knows it too. America hasn't given a democrat 50% in almost 30 years, and it isn't going to happen now. If he doesn't have it now, he never will.

When I started teaching several years ago, I learned a very important lesson. How you respond to someone's claim is extremely insightful to the veracity of said claim.

I learned that when I responded forcefully and defensively, my principal had reason for concern. When I looked surprised, or laughed about it, the incident was handled with less "concern". That isn't to say that she was dismissive of parental questions, it's just that I learned perception of "guilt" or "innocence" is often a matter my reaction.

I will recount one episode for the sake of example. A few years back, at a parent conference with a student who was terribly under-performing, I made a comment that of course we (teachers) knew what we'd be doing the next day, the next week, the next month, etc. I couldn't give specific pages and question numbers for every day out to June, but I didn't come to class every day and just wing it. The father somehow took it to mean that we could give his son the assignments well ahead of everyone, and he could then "get ahead" on his work.

(Of course, this is nonsense, because the student would not have the understanding or the context of the future material without concurrent classroom instruction. If he could, teachers would be superflous.)

So, a few days pass, and the principal calls me into her office and wants to know why I won't give the student upcoming assignmants when I promised to. I stopped for a moment, and calmly recounted the conference. She agreed that is was an unfair request, especially since, of course, plans and assignments change. She spoke to the parent by phone, and the whole event brushed over in a day.

A similar event took place my first year, I reacted diiferently, which basically led to a parent/teacher/principal conference. How I reacted initially made all the differnce. What has this got to do with Kerry?

When Farenheit 9/11 came out, what was the president's response? Nothing, not a word of condemnation, nor even a critique. It was totally ignored. By not responding, Bush refused to give any credence to the claims, and let the movie furor play itself out. Of course to the true believers, F9/11 played great. But the president allowed most level-headed Americans to see it for what it truly was: hate-filled propaganda.

Jump ahead to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ad. What was the Kerry campaign's response? They immediately sent letters to stations threatening to sue if they play the ad. By responding in such a manner, they lend credibility to the ad and the claims. They played right into the trap. Kerry makes his whole campaign based on his Vietnam service, and the moment someone, veterans no less, challenges him on it, he blows up. I predicted this here. (point 9)

Now they're even attacking the Club For Growth. Big mistake guys. It looks like you're trying to hide something. One could argue, "well that's the campaign people", but then isn't Kerry responsible for them? This is just amateurish on Kerry's part.

Even though Bush has refuted the Swift Vets ad, he is under no obligation to do much more. How can the democratas complain when MoveOn.org and all the liberal 527's are picking up the advertising slack during August when Kerry is saving his federal money?

I wrote that Kerry's service record troubles me. This just adds to that concern.

Last year, I was asked by a student who I thought would win the election. I said that if the election revolves around domestic issues, specifically the economy, Kerry would win. If the election revolves around foreign policy, the war on terror, Bush would win. There are several reasons for this, primarily that the closer the proximity the issues to the voter, the more they favor the challenger. If people are temporarily uncomfortable, if they are unsure about tomorrow, the less dangerous the prospect of change.

This worked to Bill Clinton's favor in 1992. Looking back at the election results, Bush Sr. got 37.7%, Clinton got 43.3%, and Perot got 19% (of which I was a part). Similar to 1992, in this election, conservatives are upset with President Bush. With the exception of tax cuts, he has increase federal spending vigorously, been less than assertive on issues like abortion, and has not fought for his judicial appointments against vicious partisan attacks led by Daschle, et al. In 1992, many of us bolted and voted for Perot, and some voted for Clinton. This will not hold today, as we are a nation at war.

Today, the case for change is far more difficult. Had the democrats nominated Lieberman, they'd already be picking his cabinet positions. Many voters, myself included, would seriously consider voting for Lieberman, and not just because a Jewish president would make me proud and really anger the terrorists. He understands we are at war, and that only total, unqualified victory is the only possible outcome. He has been at the forefront of regime change in Iraq since the mid 90's, and has stood by the war in spite of everything, including his own party.

The challenger has one weapon which the incumbent doesn't. The challenger can shape the debate. Had Kerry focused on the economy, he could have been accused of ignoring the war. Most Americans understand the need to continue the war, and he can acknowledge this and make clear he will. Also by doing this, he would be able to frame the debate, and in doing so, would have tactical advantage. He could have promoted a more ambitious economic plan and forced the president to play "me too". But he has turned his campaign into a referendum on Bush's foreign policy and his leading the war. On that, he will fail.

Forget the Dean/Moore/Gore kool-aid drinking, tin-foil hat wearing crowd. They comprise maybe 30% of the electorate and don't represent national consensus.

Kerry has instead chosen to focus on foreign policy. He has specifically said that his Vietnam service make him imminently qualified to lead the nation, and in his acceptance speech, said he will apply the lessons he learned in Vietnam. This gives him one of two options. We can either dramatically increase the troop levels, i.e. General Westmoreland's request, or we can draw down and withdraw. He has ruled out dramatic troop increases, yet has not supported rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

He hasn't presented a definitive plan to do either, or fight the war, other than "restoring our alliances". A recent CNN article shows that "Fear shapes voters' views". As long as we are at war, people will fear for their safety. And one thing is certain, voters know Bush will continue to fight the war. Kerry has chosen to take Bush on in his one area of strength, and he hasn't done a very good job of it.

Most importantly, the war on terrorism is the one area where Bush enjoys a huge advantage over Kerry. This is Kerry's huge mistake, running on the one issue he can't win on. He can't run as a hawk, and he can't run as a dove. This will not inspire voters, assuage their fears, or compel them to change presidents.

Though not having served in the military, it is still possible for me to have doubts about Kerry's military service. I commend his courage, and I commend his service. But then again, I commend everyone who serves. I did even before it suddenly became fashionable again. I distinctly remember having a visceral discussion, if one could call it that, in a politcal science class in 1987 at Sonoma State. I believe I was called fascist, nazi, etc. Funny how things never change.

Now, what gives me great pause about Kerry? I couldn't quite figure it out until I was going through my bookshelf and came across Steven Ambrose's "Band of Brothers". Kerry has made much ado about his own "band". But it wasn't the book but the mini-series that reminded me. In the documentary part of the series, many survivors are interviewed and one had this comment near the end. Recounting a story about a conversation with his grandson, "My grandson asked, 'Grandpa, are you a hero?' No, I said, but I served in company of heroes."

Then I got to thinking about a friend of my father's who was a Marine helocopter pilot in Vietnam. In fact, check out what they did here. What is remarkable is that although we all met on a fishing trip, and have had many trips since, very lilttle conversation revolves around his combat experiences. In fact, when my father has queried, he has been rather evasive. But, we did learn that he had two tours of duty, several hundred combat sorties, was shot down a few times, and lost many friends, one of whom was his best friend and co-pilot.

I remember George HW Bush almost never spoke of his combat record, and he certainly was a true hero. Bob Dole spoke little of his service record, and he too, was certainly a hero. Yet, John Kerry can't give you the time of day without mentioning his Vietnam service. He spent a large part of his acceptance speech highlighting his Vietnam service. He has made it a focal point of his campaign. When he rfefelcts on his service, it always revolves around him. He bought a movie camera and filmed not just his crew, but re-enacted battle scenes.

One thing I always hear veterans speak of is their buddies who didn't come home. They always talk, almost exclusively, about what others did. I don't believe I've ever heard Kerry talk of those he served with who never came home. When he has a story about another crew member, it is how he (Kerry of course) saved the man's life.

There is something missing about Kerry's service record. I imagine those swift boat crews were extremely tight knit. I don't doubt that they all served honorably. But there are alot of questions, about Kerry's medals, purple hearts, etc. We may never know the truth. Yes, Kerry went to Vietnam when others sought deferrments, and yes, he commanded a sift boat, and yes, he saw combat. Many of his fellow veterans, those who served with him, have not just condemned his anti-war activities, but quetioned his combat record.

No other veteran running for president has had any controversy surrounding his service record. Eisenhower is certainly unique, but Kennedy, Johnson, Goldwater, Nixon, McGovern, Ford, Carter, Bush 1, and Dole were all veterans, and none of them had their service records generate even the faintest of deabte. But Kerry's is unique. Why? It troubles me.

I don't know whether anyone has thought of this, but apparently, there are some very disturbing aspects to Kerry's supposed secret plan. According to this story:

The four-term Massachusetts senator suggests he has back-channel assurances that foreign leaders would do more if he were president.

Stop the presses. He has "back-channel assurances" from foreign leaders. First, as a Senator, he has no authority to negotiate with foreign leaders. This directly impacts the ability of the current administration to negotiate with our "allies".

And, if he is withholding vital information from the administration, then he is purposefully undercutting our ability to wage war, all for his poltiical gain.

And then there's this from Senator Levin:

I'm not going to tell you which foreign leaders, because I'd be breaking the confidence of foreign leaders that I've met," said Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Last spring, Kerry said foreign leaders preferred him to Bush, though he also refused to identify any.

Levin wavered on the question of whether any foreign leader promised to get more involved in Iraq if Kerry wins. "It seems to be that's the basic implication," he said at first.

But has any leader made a commitment?

No, he replied.

"I'm not in position nor should I attempt to negotiate with a foreign government," Levin said.

So he has met with foreign leaders, who it seems are willing to help, but only if Kerry wins. But he's not "negotiating", only getting implications.

I believe an investigation is in order. Who are the leaders that Kerry, Levin, et al., have been speaking with? What have they been discussing? Why have they not made this information, which could aid our efforts in Iraq, public? Has this been a purposeful attempt to undercut US policy, by encouraging our "allies" to withhold support in an attempt to influence an election?

Imagine if this were done by Republican senators.

On April 18th from USA Today:

He also said that "if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos" discouraging the United Nations and other countries from helping, "that's what we have to do."

And on June 23 from SF Chronicle:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, scorn. Kerry has even indicated he might send in more troops to stabilize Iraq.

And now from todays WaPo:

In interviews on television talk shows, the Democratic presidential nominee said that he saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq

More troops. Less troops. Secret plan. Here's the real "secret" agenda.

Kerry previously has discussed his desire to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq but declined to attach any timetable to that goal. He spoke more extensively about Iraq after his acceptance speech, suggesting he has an exit strategy.

He is more focused on us leaving than winning. His "war only when we have to", "respond when attacked", and now "exit strategy" talk have to be energizing our enemies. They can clearly read what he's saying. This guy cannot be elected president.

1) You've made many claims about the economy. You've claimed that a million African-American voters were disenfranchised. Where do you get your numbers from?

2) According to IRS numbers, 2/3 of all income tax revenue comes from the top 10%. How much more should they pay?

3) You're completely against any privatization of social security. Currently, the ratio of contributors to dependents is 3 to 1. As the baby boomer generation retires, adding nearly 75 million more social security recipients, and the ratio goes from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, how do you plan to pay for social security? And, is it fair to ask younger workers to shoulder so much of that burden or should they be allowed to save for their retirement too?

4) You've been critical of those whose religious views affect their political votes. Yet, both the abolition and civil rights movements were led by religious people and politicians, such as Lincoln, who used their religion to guide their political actions. Were they wrong?

5) You've are very critical of the Patriot Act. Please tell us specifically what you don't like about it, where it has been abused, and why you voted for it?

6) You've said you're going wage this war with the lessons you learned in Vietnam. Exactly what were those lessons? And if this enemy is different from any we've ever fought, how will those lessons apply?

7) A little scenario: Already, UN inspections and multilateral pressure on Iran have failed. As president, you receive solid but not perfect intelligence, from multiple reliable sources, that Iran is very, very close to nuclear deployment. You demand full accounting from Iran, but they refuse. Our allies want more time for inspections and will not back military action. Do you go it alone?

8) You say you want to be judged by your record. You spent 20 years in the Senate, yet have made little mention of it in your speech or on the campaign trail. Why?

9) You're running on a very conservative campaign agneda, pro-gun, pro-faith, and avoiding issues like abortion, which puts you at odds with the majority of your party, and your voting record. Why?

10) January 20, 2005, you're sworn into office, we're still at war. What do we do next? Where do we go from here?

After finishing four days in Baast'n, the Democrats are hoping that 1) half of America actually believes it, and 2) the other half actually doesn't. In other words, they have to convince the majority of Americans who aren't liberal, that they aren't either, and they have to hope that the vast majority of their party that is liberal, understands the game.

Let's see what we got from them:

Religion, faith, family, values, military heroes, patriotism, one America, a strong America.

Let's see what we didn't get:

Radical feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, anti-war riots, protests, etc. In fact, speakers were under strict orders not to bash the president. How un-democratic!!

This is quite a charade they have going. The results of the CBS Poll of DNC delegates shows them far to the left of their own party members, and farther to the left of the majority of Americans.

For example:
93% of their delegates opposed the war
89% of their delegates would repeal most, if not all, of the tax cuts
17% support some form of pre-emptive attack against hostile nations
twice as many delegates as democratic voters believe in abortion in all cases
19% of the delegates support the death penalty

So, a party whose base is to the left of a majority of its members, and very far to the left of the majority of Americans, supports a candidate running hard to the right. What do they know about Kerry? Are they so anti-Bush that anyone with a D after their name is acceptable, or is this a big charade that they understand has to be played. I think it is clear, they know they have to play along until November, and hope that America doesn't see through their veneer.

Robert Kagan has the best analysis of Kerry's speech. Since the Civil War, with the exception of WW2 and the Afghanistan War, every other US military action has been one we chose to fight, not had to fight. Yet, that was the centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy agenda. We will only fight wars of necessity, not wars of choice. He is longing for a tradition that never was, and should enver be.

Given everything about his past and his record, the one aberration was the vote to authorize the Iraq war. There can be only one reason for this, politics. We saw this when he voted against the funding when he was losing to Dean in the primaries.

We're a nation at war. Kerry doesn't want to be a war president. Team Bush has to be foaming at the mouth. That's why I predict 53-46.