Thing is, right before the election is only really going to be an advantage for Bush for a few days of coverage, but then the election will be about whatever the media pushes it for (or what the candidates can make it about)...
If the terror war is going so good, people will want to worry about the healthcare and social security and Kerry's got the edge on those issues...
This election isn't really about two candidates or their parties or where they stand, it's basically about whether the issue is terror or domestic policy.
If the most important thing for Americans is going to be the war on terror, then Bush should win handily. If what's happening in their lives more directly (healthcare, education, etc...) is at the top of their list, then Kerry has the better shot.
The subject of the election (terror or domestic policy) is going to determine who wins.
When Barak Obama and Bill Clinton gave speeches at the convention, Kerry's numbers started to go up as they talked about issues pertaining to everyday Americans, etc. Kerry was ready to receive his traditional convention bounce. Then he changed the subject to his Vietnam service (and Edwards saying the Al-Qaida should be very afraid of the Democratic ticket). He lost the conventional Democratic convention bounce because it reminded people of the war on terror.
Any manifestation of the war subject (Vietnam, Russia's troubles, Iraq, Al-Qaida, etc...) is basically going to remind people of this so-called "War on Terror" and going to send Bush's numbers up.
Any manifestation of domestic policy will likely help John Kerry ('cept maybe gay marriage, which both candidates just kinda want to avoid).
Before the Democratic Convention in July Dick Morris, former Bill Clinton advisor, credited for Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 and Vicente Fox's election to the Mexican Presidency (PAN party) after 70 years of rule by the same party (PRI party), Dick Morris wrote a column about how this campaign would be about two issues:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24132.htm
here is an excerpt, although I'd suggest reading the whole thing, pretty fascinating concept:
This election will hinge on what Americans want in a president. It's not so much a contest between two candidates, ideologies or even parties as it is a clash between two different issues or priorities for the voters.
In this respect, it parallels the 1945 election in the United Kingdom, when voters had a choice of Winston Churchill to lead the nation in war or Labor's Clement Atlee to lead it in peace. With Germany defeated but Japan still holding out, the war was still a real concern, but voters opted for Labor's social-welfare focus.
If terror is dominating the headlines in November, Bush will probably win. If not, he'll likely lose. Events, more than campaigning, are likely to determine the outcome.
This strategic conundrum poses difficult questions for both campaigns.
Bush has to hope for neither too much success nor too much failure in his efforts to eradicate terror, pacify Iraq and curb the ambitions of North Korea and Iran. Too much success would erode the importance of these issues and let domestic questions come to the fore, to Kerry's advantage. Too much failure would besmirch his ratings on fighting terror and could cripple his key advantage, as April's outbreak of violence in Iraq hobbled him in the spring.
Kerry has to hope Bush will succeed so well in fighting terrorism that it disappears as an issue. Only if voters feel genuinely safe will they be willing to reject the man who brought them safety and take a chance on a man they don't entirely trust on the issue.
take it from the man who got Big Willie back into the White House in '96.
The only way Bin Laden will be a big boost to Bush for the election is if Iran becomes an issue or if some new face (like Zarqawi or that guy in Iraq was a few weeks ago) can be put on face of terror.
