Debate agreement shows Bush camp's anxiety on prospects for win

[bigtree]

I don't believe Bush would have agreed to three debates if his camp thought he was safely ahead. This should give us optimism. Did they disbelieve the polls all along? Was the threat to reduce the number of debates a bluff? Or was the Bush camp shaken by the Iraq intelligence report revelations.

I see a crack in their tin armor.

[NJCher]

1. they know the polls are based on faulty assumptions

A classic example is posted by G_j at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x844815

They manipulate the results of the polls through assumptions that can't possibly be correct and have no historical basis in fact. In the above, they assume republicans will get out a significantly higher number of their base.

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that their "think tanks" managed some type of influence with the Gallup poll.


Cher

[napi21]

2. I think this was just std. negotiating stuff.

The first rule of negotiating is never agree immediately! Always make it look like you have demands of your own. I'm also sure the stories about shrub being afraid to have the town hall forum was a big motivator to him accepting all 3 debates, to put those rumors to rest.

[niceypoo]

3. If democrats turn out in droves to vote, kerry wins

thats what it will come down to. There are a lot more democrats that repooplicans.

[displacedtexan]

4. You're absolutely correct, bigtree!

Incumbents have historically (since Nixon) only debated for 1 reason:

1. They're behind in the polls

George W., however, may have another reason: JK will label him a coward if he fails to show up.