Doesn't 'Today' reflect exactly where we were on 'Sept 23' Stephen? Why should anyone think the days in between are within the margin of error until further notice?

To me, the most significant issue here is where are the candidates advertising and stumping. Right now Kerry is retreating from what were considered swing states and the POTUS seems to be pushing on the blue areas of the map.

BTW, if California really is a 15% lead with roughly 1/7th of the nation's population, doesn't that mean the rest of the country is polling in Bush's favor by two points more than the national poll would suggest? The effect is not really the same when Bush leads Montana by 22%. Just for kicks...

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Steve ...

I won't be watching; John Kerry is insufferable.

"Kerry, when he's at his best, is also at his most unlikable. That won't go over as well with the broader American public as it has in the past with Massachusetts voters."

Exactly right. I've been trying to think of a way to articulate that for a good week; nice going (you miserable drunken sot).

If you look back at candidate debates in Massachusetts, particularly in the senate races, the biggest "moments" are always when the Democratic candidate (either Kerry or Kennedy) tosses out a very nasty rejoinder that's tied to a lump of Democratic Party conventional wisdom that gets a giantic cheer out of the audience (Kennedy in particular just devestated Mitt Romney with this tactic in '94).

That's smart politics in Massachusetts, but not in too many other places. I suspect Kerry, like Kennedy, is by now almost entirely tone-deaf to that fact.

I think this debate will play out one of two ways:

1. Kerry comes out in full attack-dog mode, and Bush just sits back and takes him apart with some well timed debate judo.

2. Kerry tones down the rhetoric and goes for a modulated preformance, and Bush complies giving us a bland debate where not much happens. (like most of the Bush/Gore debates)

The second one actually favors Kerry, since it would put him and Bush on equal footing and rob Bush of much of the impetus to attack Kerry's record and flip-flops.

Really the only way Kerry wins this debate is if he can somehow goad Bush into making a personal attack on him while maintaining neutral himself, but I really can't see that happening.

I predict a minor Bush victory, with all of us shouting at the TV as Bush passes up a couple opportunities to go for the juggular.

Did anybody catch Bill Weld on H&C last night. There were clips of his senate debate with Kerry and lo and behold, Kerry was orange in one of the clips. I was amazed that nobody commented on it.

Also, Weld felt that Kerry won the debate.

I didn't see it, but I can tell Weld that he didn't lose because of the debate, he lost the senate seat because liberals may want income redistribution at the national level, but they want to keep their own money at home on the local level.

A very far out lefty filled me in on that years ago. That's why even the leftwing nutcases in Massachusetts often elect Republican governors, but want liberals in the senate.

I'm betting that Kerry finally decides to give up on being likeable and just bore in on trying to get Bush's goat and calling Bush a liar.

MSM tomorrow will be in lock step about "the Kerry comeback."

Have to disagree with you in re Rasm. and the "final exhaustion" of Bush's bounce.

Rasm has been up and down since the convention, w/ Bush's leads standing at 1-2 points for several days then going up to three or 4 for a day or two then going back down.

For what you claim to be true Bush's lead would have evaporated about 3 weeks ago, if indeed he ever had one in Rasmussen.

BTW, you believe Rasm, but I think they're being much to cautious, and seriously ignoring what I believe, as do Gallup and several other polls that have Bush up 8-10 points, has been a marked shift to the Repubs since 2000.

Why if this race is even has the Kerry campaign and their stooges in the MSM been acting the way they have, ie like they're losing big-time?

Why is Kerry cutting and running from "battleground states" like Mizzou?

Why are many state polls, including Rasmussen's, showing Bush very close in supposedly safe Dem states like NJ and well ahead in supposed "battleground states"

This is not a close election, and Kerry needs to go for broke tonight to make it close.

I also disagree with you, Stephen.

When Kerry pulled all commercials in Arizona, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and diverted resources to previously "safe" states like Iowa and Wisconsin, he inadvertently tipped his hand. The Kerry/Edwards campaign's internal polls must show even worse results than being 6-8 points down.

Look for Kerry to throw roundhouses tonight to try to salvage his campaign. Some might land and he will still be in the game. If not, it's over. And I cringe when people say such things, but this time it is true.

Kerry could become Ronald Reagan tonight. My bet is he becomes Bob Dole.

I'm watching the debate tonight with about 100 students and other faculty as part of DebateWatch 2004. We're having small-group discussions after the debate and will be trying to stay focused on what issues were discussed, did the students pick up any new info, etc. I'm afraid I'm going to be biting my tongue a lot tonight (as discussion moderator, it will be my job to moderate not spout, much as I might like to do the latter!) I am quite interested to see what my students' reactions are to the debates and to the candidates. Only a small number of them are actually following the election news and excitement.

so it's back to less than two points. which is wierd because i read this site all the time and I remember everyone declaring the race over like twice a day for the last couple weeks, citing polls that showed a shocking 8-13 point bush lead. and when I argued the validity of those polls I remembe being called delusional, left wing nutjob, etc, etc. And yet, today, I haven't heard anyone admit they were way off base. what gives guys?

If Kerry is only down by a couple of points, can you please point to a single Red State that polls show him competitive in? Heck, there's about a half-dozen Blue states that he's in serious trouble (IA, WI, NM, MN, PA, OR, WA, NJ...), and his entire strategy is to eke out an EC win. Winners don't play that way. The man is seriously burned toast.

The Fallows article is worth reading, but I'd take it with a metric ton of salt, given that Fallows believes 1) Kerry is wonderful to listen to and 2) Bush's inarticulateness is a pose. As far as I know, Fallows is the only person to arrive at those conclusions.

Stephen, I'm not going to watch the debate, but as for your drunkblogging it, I am so there. I'll be imbibing Tupper's Hop Pocket Ale as I read your quips.

" I'm afraid I'm going to be biting my tongue a lot tonight (as discussion moderator, it will be my job to moderate not spout, much as I might like to do the latter!)"

So you are a responsible educator and classroom facilitator who doesn't use your podium to inflict your political views on your students? How refreshing!

Does anyone think that the one day Bush gain in Steve's chart might be due to Bush's interview with O'Reily? I only saw a portion of it, but it looked like he did a good job and I saw some positive commentary on it.

Love 'em or hate 'em, Fox News does reach a lot of people.

Instapundit pointed out that besides wanting Kerry to win, they want a close race, for this reason, they will spin the debate as being good for Kerry regardless. For this reason, they might also have shaved a few points off Bush's lead in the polls to make things look close going into the debate. Fudging polls is a lot easier than fudging memos on the Draft or the Texas National Guard.