The line on Kerry in some circles is that he is a "great closer," who never really gets into it until his back is against the wall. This is, it is said, how he won the Senate race against Bill Weld in 1996 and how he came from behind to win the Iowa caucuses and, ultimately, the Democratic primaries. I assume for the sake of this discussion that the line is true. A couple of points.
First, if that is Kerry's modus operandi, what an extraordinarily risky strategy! It is one thing to do it in a senate race in a democratically-dominated, mostly liberal, state; or, to do it in a democratic primary that is dominated by party activists. To come from this far behind in a presidential election will require a major mistake by the opponent (or perhaps a slime-fest, for more on that read on), and that is not very likely. I doubt that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign. They expected Kerry to be in the lead at this point, even if by a small margin. As I have written about before, Kerry greatest weakness is his arrogance, which seethes throughout his campaign.
Second, Bush is also a great closer. He came from behind in his 1994 Governor's race, he has come from behind this year and he led a come-from-behind victory by congressional Republicans in the 2002 mid-term elections. The arrogance of the Kerry camp (indeed of the entire democratic and leftist establishment) is most obvious in how they continually underestimate Bush. This belief that Bush is an idiot is so ingrained that it will be difficult to re-tool the campaign around the idea that Bush is a tough and formidable opponent. That is clear in the reaction to the convention--i.e. blame it on mean Republican tricks.
