Kerry's To Lose? Okay.
Jonathan Chait has an article up at The New Republic (I think you have to be a subscriber to view it) in which he argues that the election is "the race is now John Kerry's to lose."
Two main reasons. "First, pollsters have long believed that undecided voters tend to break against incumbents who are well-defined in the public mind." And undecided voters dissapprove of W by serious margins.
"Second, available evidence suggests that Democratic turnout will exceed what the polls predict."
This may surprise my handful of loyal readers but I'm okay with that. From my point of view a Kerry victory brings some welcome changes.
First, the Left will have to take some responsibility for the War Against Jihad instead of just bitching from the sidelines. When the terror alert level goes up during a Kerry administration the Left can't blame it on Ashcroft and the evil Republicans trying to scare people. When the FBI and Justice Dept continue to bust Muslims conspiracies in the U.S. they can't blame it on Bush's "obsession" with Islam. When our military still bombs targets in Iraq, they can't fume and scream about Rumsfeld. When Amnesty International demands that the U.S. release all the detainees in Guantanamo and the Kerry administration doesn't, the Left will be forced to either admit that the demand is unrealistic or blame Kerry for violating 'human rights'. Likewise, some of the U.S. Muslims who think that the Bush administration is "after" them will see that a Kerry administration puruses the same policies.
Second, the Left will have to take some responsibilty for our Mid-East policy. Kerry gives every sign of being just as pro-Israel as Bush. Some fringe players on the Left will not be able to reconcile that and they will descend into the netherworld of permanent Israel-haters. Others will see that Kerry is supporting the long standing U.S. position and reevaluate their criticism of Israel.
Third, the Left will have to acknowledge our differences with Europe. It's clear that even with a Kerry victory France and Germany aren't going to do dick to help us in Iraq and will probably resist any increased support for Afghanistan, where, despite peons to multilateral cooperation, we do must of the work with most of the troops. Again, the Left will have to reconicile themselves to the reality that no matter who is in the White House, Jaques and Gerhard won't help out.
I'm not native. I realize that Michael Moore will never admit he was wrong about anything. But he's a clown and a war-profiteer. I'm talking about reasonable Leftists, not Jeanne Garafalo. But it will be a refreshing irony to see protesters outside the White House hold signs that read "KKKerry" and "Baby-killer in Vietnam, Baby-killer in Palestine." Remember that the democrats aren't voting for Kerry some much as against Bush.
By June of next year they will start to see the flaws and limitations of their man. Some will shrug and bite their tongues. Others will protest against him just as they do against Bush when Kerry doesn't sign the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court treaty.
Last, Republicans and my fellow anti-jihad bloggers will see that Kerry does not in fact lie down for the terrorists or pull out of Iraq. That the people may change but America's interests do not.
UPDATE: It seems that I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this and agreeing with Sullivan is rare for me these days. Still it's nice to know I'm not alone. He quotes RObert Kagan and Max Boot on the same subject. But he provides no links to back up those quotes. Yo, Andrew, it's the internet baby, HTML and all that. Wake up and smell the hyperlinks.