I'm beginning to understand. I feel so stupid.

[rogerashton]

I have been troubled. Who would vote for * who didn't vote for him in 2000? Where are those numbers coming from in the polls?

The Economist -- generally a reliable news source although quite right-wing -- says, from an increased turnout by evangelicals.

"The most obvious reason is that the turnout in 2000 looks like an aberration. Born-agains were disillusioned with politics in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They were so shocked that Bill Clinton had got away with his adultery and lying that they turned against the political world en masse. And they were annoyed by the revelation, just a few days before the election, that Mr Bush had been convicted of drunk driving in 1976, not just because of the charge (though many regard drink as a demon) but because he had tried to cover up his behaviour.

"The born-agains are in a different mood today: far more politically engaged and far more enthusiastic about Mr Bush."

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3242553

Now, it's not so clear that 2000 was an aberration. In fact it looks a bit like the Economist bought Republican talking points. The New Republic suggests that the numbers don't support the missing-evangelicals theory.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Q6j23MqTmtuwY6CwJYfcAh%3D%3D

On the other hand, the fact that * is in the race at all may mean that the Economist is right. But true or false, the important thing is that, pretty clearly, the Pubs believe it is true. And on the basis of that belief, their strategies make some sense. Why not move to the center? Because a move to the center would give them 2000 again -- and, remember, they lost in 2000.

The reports today said that the two parties had different "theories of the election" -- the Republicans believing that the election would be decided by the bases and the Democrats believing that there is an undecided margin "in play." But no, the Republican theory is just the opposite: that their religious-right constituency could very well stay home again, and leave them so far behind that they couldn't steal it, this time. They can't go for the center. Kerry can, and that's what he has been trying to do.

In game theory terms, this lends itself to a two-by-two analysis:

Well, OK, so the DU version of HTML doesn't do tables.

The upshot is that both players in this "game" have what are called "dominant strategies." No matter what Kerry does, Bush has to secure his base -- and his best chance is if he does that and Kerry also does. But Kerry doesn't have to secure his base, and whatever Bush does, Kerry's better strategy is to go for the undecideds and the center.

[lil-petunia]

1. The economist has brilliant moments, and some great editorials

then, they have brain spasms, which causes them to rely on whatever story they can borrow from other sources.

Particularly with respect to issues American, they are either great or pathetic.

I recall some stories about my nape of the woods, Midwest, and them totally misreading the truth behind the headlines. understandable, since they suffer from a similar language and are separated from us by a small pond.

Still, I like their stuff. Worth every penny for a subscription - I mean really, compare it to Thyme or NewsWeak or Us and You Whirled Retort. The Econ. expects people to actually read the articles.

without moving their lips.

[rogerashton]

2. I agree -- I subscribe --

but I can't fathom why they think American republicans stand for free markets.