A reader makes a good point about that Times story I posted (7:54AM):
My favorite part of that NYT story is the caveat “Experts caution that the race is highly fluid”. For months, whenever one of the “events” which was supposed to boost Kerry’s campaign failed to increase his support (naming Fallout Boy (aka Edwards) his VP, the Dem convention, this or that “big important policy speech”) the explanaiton from the ubiquitous experts was that the race was stagnant because the elctorate was stagnant and would not be persuaded, we are a 50-50 nation, there really aren’t that many swing voters available to be moved etc…, in other words, the race was anything but fluid. Now that Bush has opened up a solid lead, we are supposed ot believe that is because the electorate is “highly fluid”. You don’t think they are influenced by who needs to believe the race is fluid, do you?