Strategy.

[MGKrebs]

Perhaps y'all can help me work something out.

Premise: Anybody who pays attention to politics has made up their mind by now. The only ones left are 'undecideds'. Because undecideds basically don't pay attention to politics, they will not make their choice based on policies. They are essentially waiting until the last minute to give the candidates every opportunity to make a major blunder, and then they will vote for the other guy.

Possible conclusions (assuming the premise has some validity):

1. Least aggressive- The candidate who makes the least blunders wins. This would indicate a very safe, middle of the road strategy. Very controlled, very programmed, on message all the time. Is this a good strategy? What if both candidates do this? And also, perhaps it should say "perceived blunder" because how the press covers the candidates plays a large part in this.

2. More aggressive- with the goal being to force the opponent into a blunder. This is possibly very much what the SBVT deal is about. The SBVets themselves may believe what they say, but the media is using it as a tool to force Kerry to react. They want the drama of a meltdown or blowup. Can Kerry turn it around? Would the press try to force Bush into a blunder? What conditions make that possible or not possible?

3. Most aggressive- To use a baseball analogy; Not many will vote for a candidate who just 'bunts'. It takes a home run or at least a string of solid base hits to win. This would indicate a more agressive strategy. (I perceive this as the Dean campaign. He was swingin', but he ended up striking out. And don't start with me about the umpire!) But this is risky. You could strike out.

Any other strategies?