Reply #14: "John L. Kerry" [View All]

[KansDem]

Speaking of six-feet-under, John Kerry was as dead as the proverbial doornail in 2003 after he lost his frontrunner status, faded even in his own backyard, and fired his campaign manager. Yet John F. Kerry has become John L. Kerry, with the "L" standing for Lazarus. Short of a religious miracle, how did he do it? Another L word: LUCK. Yes, he's experienced, understands the nuances of politics, has a great life story, and all the rest. So do other candidates. But Kerry's timing was impeccable. He rose as Dean fell, just as Democrats were looking for a substitute for their near-nominee, just as a Vietnam veteran – honest, unprompted, and unscripted – emerged into the klieg lights to tell spellbound Iowans how a young John Kerry heroically risked his own life to save his fellow soldier's in the nightmare that was 'Nam. EVERY CANDIDATE ELECTED PRESIDENT IS UNACCOUNTABLY LUCKY; HOW ELSE COULD HE BE PLUCKED OUT OF 281 MILLION PEOPLE TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE LOTTERY?

The early polls already matching John Kerry against George Bush in November show Kerry winning, and the Crystal Ball guesses that the Democrat's margin will grow in the coming weeks. Almost everything is going right for Kerry. Almost everything is going wrong for Bush. Surely the thought has occurred to Bush late at night in the unnatural quiet of the White House: Will I have an annus horribilis just like Dad did in 1992? And it is surely possible if American jobs keep disappearing, if Iraq keeps looking like Vietnam without the jungle, and if the deficit keeps growing. And yet… early polls are worth very little. Michael Dukakis led George Bush Sr. by 17 percentage points as late as August 1988, yet Bush el pere scored a near landslide 54 percent to 46 percent win against a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. THE ENTIRE 2004 ELECTION MAY BOIL DOWN TO ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: WILL THIS YEAR BE A REPRISE OF 1988 OR 1992? Nine months away, polls are useless, and it could go either way. The Crystal Ball will bet that one of those years – both with decisive conclusions in November – will be more predictive of 2004 than the cliffhanger year of 2000.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2004020401

Still doesn't explain much, though...