I wrote this on Tuesday as a response to readingDavid Brooks in the Timesand from an optimistic pro-Kerry e-mail from a friend.

I think if the economy is the main issue, Kerry has a very good chance of winning, and Nader's effect will be negligible.

I think if the war is the main issue, Kerry has a very good chance of losing, and Nader's effect will be enormous. First, because Kerry is by temperament, not as anti-war as a lot of people think he is. Second, because if he is too liberal about the war, Kerry is going to lose a certain percent of mid-Western voters, and he can't afford to do that in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana. However, if Kerry is too conservative about the war, a certain number of Kerry votes in the Northwest (Oregon and Washington State), and maybe even in places like Iowa and Vermont and New Mexico, are going to wind up going to Nader, and could wind up throwing those perhaps Democrat states to Bush. And that will be your election. I

Both the New York Post and David Brooks in today's Times mentioned the ability of terrorist bombs to throw the election. Brooks characterized the decision to hold an election after the bombing as "crazy". Sorry to be paranoid, but those fellows are both taking their marching orders from Karl Rove. They have been asked to soften the ground.

If Kerry is ahead in October, and there is any sort of violent incident, no matter how slight, look for the Republicans to try to postpone the election until they feel climactic conditions are favorable. Look for them to say it is no big thing, even though we have had plenty of elections during wartime before. The reason why it will seem like no big thing is that we will have six months of conservative columnists lying to us, telling us its no big thing.