Skip navigation.

Six reasons Kerry will lose

Another great article from my NRO hero, Victor Davis Hanson, outlining his six reasons why Kerry is slowly losing any ground he may have gained during the debates - and will ultimately lose this election:

    There is a good chance that no matter what Kerry says or does in the final two weeks of this election — barring some major catastrophe in Iraq, a presidential gaffe, or massive voting irregularity — he will lose. And he may well take much of the Democrats' remaining control of government down with him. After all, Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry — and that is all we need to know. But besides the obvious concerns of national security and Kerry's own failure in any honest fashion to offer a coherent and principled alternative course of action to defeat the terrorists, there are more subtle, insidious factors at play that will, I think, preclude his election.

Read the rest of Hanson's article here.

If you are unfamiliar with VDH, I recommend his book Between War and Peace, which is a collection of over 30 of his essays and online articles.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

That was a very interesting article. I'll have to ponder it before I respond to it. Some of it seems legit while some of it seems like trying to pass of one's opinions as fact.

One of the six reasons talks about the role Michael Moore has played and is playing in the current race. And that is a reason why Kerry is going to lose; some feel Mr. Moore is a nuisance, while others feel he is a breath of fresh air. Michael inspiring slackers to become active in the election process is apparently costing Kerry the election.

In the meanwhile, how about a partisan-biased piece from the left side to balance things out. It's called: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

HTML Version

PDF Version

I can't recall who said it, but someone said that after all that is said and done, NEITHER of the candidates will be fit for command. Which is seemingly the case.

How sad it is that candidates can't win on their own merit and accomplishments, but rather have to resort to proving that their opponent is more inferior with attack ads and misleading ads of their opponent's views. I'm speaking about both campaigns because they both do it and the news media ain't helping us with it either.

K.C. Ushijima, the Provo-King

An attack article disguised as election analysis

I found it very amusing. Thanks for pointing it out Porgo!

From an election analysis viewpoint, I agree with the author (to one degree or another) on all six of his points. These are indeed six perceived weaknesses of the the Kerry campaign.

The way the points were presented however, was simple, straight-forward partisan hackery. Basically, Mr. Hanson has cleverly discovered that he can get away with saying every nasty thing he can imagine about Kerry/Edwards/Heinz if he disguises it as as campaign analysis. Very amusing. I enjoyed it thoroughly.


well, you get what you pay for with NRO. of course its partisan - but its all just a matter of who you believe, and on how the "facts" are presented.


While there are a couple good points made in this list (which, painfully, I just read through in its entirety) I don't see any problem with 95% of it. Most of it is just partisan bickering from an author/s who obviously disagrees with the outcome of Bush decisions. I tend to agree more than disagree. Most are more or less just a matter of opinion of whether or not they are bad.

But the really sad point here is the deterioration of political dialog in this country, and the use of words such as "nasty" and "hate" against someone who is simply pointing out a difference in opinion. It happens from both major political parties. Calling someone a "partisan hack" for stating his or her opinion in an obviously leaning periodical (left or right) does nothing but degrade the conversation (not attacking you KC, just making a point here) and usually ends up in pointless blogger bravado and name calling.

This kind of defensive posturing and these attack words have now become a crutch to people unwilling to really examine what is being said, and to open their minds to a different perspective – whether or not you change your mind. Whether or not you change your opinion doesn’t matter, and it’s not the point. What matters is how “debate” has deteriorated in this country. These days, it’s more about shouting down your opponent, “winning” an argument, and talking without listening.

Just my observation.