And the winner is going to be?

[Democratic Hawk]

There are three possible outcomes:

1) If the election is primarily driven by "secuirty issues" then Bush will be re-elected

2) If the election is primarily driven by economic and "domestic issues" then Senator Kerry should be elected.

3) If the election is primarily driven by the broader issue of "is America moving in the right direction?" polls consistently show that the majority of Americans feel that America is moving in the "wrong direction" - this surely relates to foreign policy and domestic policy - then Senator Kerry has a fightign chance. Americans may lack confidence in President Bush on this score, but Senator Kerry must prove to the American people that he is the guy who can lead America in the "right direction".

Dave

[MODU]

Right now, Kerry has a lot more work ahead of him to win the election than Bush does.  The fact that the polls are tied or showing Bush ahead is a clear sign of doubt regarding Kerry.  America, after all the money the Kerry campaign has spent so far, still doesn't know who the Senator really is.  If he cannot define himself, nor settle on what side of the issues he wants to be on before the debates, his chances of winning the election drops dramatically, and would require a major screw-up on the Bush side in order to give Kerry a chance.

Right now, I would say Bush is twice as likely to win the election than Kerry.

[Shira]

There are three possible outcomes:

1) If the election is primarily driven by "secuirty issues" then Bush will be re-elected

Based on the false perception that “Bush is good on security”

[MODU]

There are three possible outcomes:

1) If the election is primarily driven by "secuirty issues" then Bush will be re-elected

Based on the false perception that “Bush is good on security”

Between Kerry and Bush, Bush is good on security.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Perhaps you find the Kerry proposal to CUT the intelligence budget AFTER the first attack on the Twin Towers to be a shinning example of his being "good on security."?  

LOL.

[Shira]

Between Kerry and Bush, Bush is good on security.

What are the tools you have to decide on this issue and to come with this assertion.

[MODU]

Between Kerry and Bush, Bush is good on security.

What are the tools you have to decide on this issue and to come with this assertion.

Bush's response to terrorism in his 3.5 years as President compared to Kerry's decades of non-response in the Senate.  The difference is as clear as day.  

[ATFFL]

There are three possible outcomes:

1) If the election is primarily driven by "secuirty issues" then Bush will be re-elected

2) If the election is primarily driven by economic and "domestic issues" then Senator Kerry should be elected.

3) If the election is primarily driven by the broader issue of "is America moving in the right direction?" polls consistently show that the majority of Americans feel that America is moving in the "wrong direction" - this surely relates to foreign policy and domestic policy - then Senator Kerry has a fightign chance. Americans may lack confidence in President Bush on this score, but Senator Kerry must prove to the American people that he is the guy who can lead America in the "right direction".

Dave

1- Agree, Bush has the clearly better plan to fight terroism.  Much better to be the predator and not the prey.

Remember, the only way to win a game of cat and mouse is to not be the mouse.  Don't believe those lying cartoons.

2- This might be true if Kerry gets an actual plan going.  It is not always true, but the Dems do tend to win on economic issues, if they can get the vote out.

3- Lets look at history.  CLinton in '96, the last time we had an incumbant running.  His right track wrong track numbers were great, right?  WRONG!  Cinton was in the 30s most of the year.  

http://gadflyer.com/pollminer/?PollMinerID=7

RIght track.wrong track is a poor indicator.  It almost never gets above 50%.

[Nym90]

There are three possible outcomes:

1) If the election is primarily driven by "secuirty issues" then Bush will be re-elected

2) If the election is primarily driven by economic and "domestic issues" then Senator Kerry should be elected.

3) If the election is primarily driven by the broader issue of "is America moving in the right direction?" polls consistently show that the majority of Americans feel that America is moving in the "wrong direction" - this surely relates to foreign policy and domestic policy - then Senator Kerry has a fightign chance. Americans may lack confidence in President Bush on this score, but Senator Kerry must prove to the American people that he is the guy who can lead America in the "right direction".

Dave

1- Agree, Bush has the clearly better plan to fight terroism.  Much better to be the predator and not the prey.

Remember, the only way to win a game of cat and mouse is to not be the mouse.  Don't believe those lying cartoons.

2- This might be true if Kerry gets an actual plan going.  It is not always true, but the Dems do tend to win on economic issues, if they can get the vote out.

3- Lets look at history.  CLinton in '96, the last time we had an incumbant running.  His right track wrong track numbers were great, right?  WRONG!  Cinton was in the 30s most of the year.  

http://gadflyer.com/pollminer/?PollMinerID=7

RIght track.wrong track is a poor indicator.  It almost never gets above 50%.

Kerry does have a plan, but yes, he needs to do a better job of explaining it.

I agree that Bush will win if the primary focus is security, and Kerry will win if the primary focus is domestic issues.

As for right track/wrong track, yes, it's a poor indicator. Obviously just because someone thinks we are on the wrong track doesn't necessarily mean that they blame the President, nor do people necessarily give him credit if they feel we are on the right track.

As you said, most people thought things were on the wrong track in 1996, yet many of those obviously still voted for Clinton, and likewise, in 2000, most thought things were on the right track, yet many of those still voted for Bush.