September 16, 2004


Kerry over? Not. (Mark Shields, September 14, 2004, CNN)

Take a deep breath.

Ignore the polls. Voters care whether their jobs will be there, whether there will be good jobs for their children, whether they will be able to afford health care.

Their votes are not influenced by polls. If they were, candidates George McGovern and Barry Goldwater, who both trailed by two-to-one throughout the fall, would not have won two out of five votes each on Election Day.

There's the comparison the Kerry camp was looking for.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 16, 2004 4:34 PM

"Oh, thank Gaia, I feel much better now! John Kerry won't do as badly as George McGovern. Hope is on the way!"

Posted by: Mike Morley at September 16, 2004 4:43 PM

And Shields thinks he's helping! As the alien said of the Earthlings in the movie "Spaced Invaders" - "These people are too stupid to live."

Posted by: luciferous at September 16, 2004 4:50 PM

Wait. I thought the election was Kerry's to lose just a few weeks ago?

The Monday morning quarterbacking is being set by leftmedia already to discredit Bush's victory on numerous counts: 1. Kerry's campaign was so horribly inept Bush should have won by an even GREATER margin (than whatever he wins by). 2. Kerry never "energized the base" so lots of folks didn't even bother to get out to vote. 3. The polls eroded so much and so early, undecideds didn't want to vote for the obvious loser.

Posted by: John Resnick at September 16, 2004 5:31 PM

I think Mr. Shields is onto something here. Forget about what the polls say. Kerry is going to win 40% of the vote.

Posted by: brian at September 16, 2004 5:36 PM

If that's not the most inane column I've ever read, I don't know what is.

It would be an interesting study to see if a candidate who has had this many "you can still win if you'll only" columns written at him has ever won.

Posted by: Timothy at September 16, 2004 5:52 PM

Poor Mark Shields, he knoweth not what the heck he says. Are there any exceptions to the growing journalistic rule of left bias? Long time no see. The media seemed pretty rude to Scott McClellan on C-Span's coverage of memos, etc. last night. It seems the more apparent it becomes, the more the blogs get it and discuss it, the more they dig their heels in. Strange indeed, devoid of plain old logic.

Posted by: D. L. Meadows at September 16, 2004 6:07 PM

After reading that line, I hope Shelds' editor make him walk a straight line before letting him drive home.

Posted by: MarkD at September 16, 2004 8:09 PM

Love it. Instead of winning 33% of the votes, they won 40% of the votes. That and 1.75 might get you a coffee at Starbucks if they are having a special. They still lost 60% of the votes.

Posted by: dick at September 16, 2004 9:05 PM

    What is Mark Shields smoking, and where can I get some?

    1) Goldwater and McGovern were way behind in the polls, and lost in landslides; 2) Mondale polled behind Reagan all but two days of the campaign, and lost 49 states; 3) Kerry is way behind Bush in all the polls; Conclusion: Kerry can win!

    This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  It isn't just illogical, it's anti-logical.

Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at September 19, 2004 1:35 AM
« PLEASE, HAMMER, DON'T HURT 'EM (via Kevin Whited): | Main | SHE'LL BE BACK. WILL YOU?: »