No mentum

Congratulations to the Red Sox for making a series of it. Forcing a seventh game after being down 0-3 is unprecedented. If they beat the Yankees, it'll be a classic comeback, and if they lose, it'll be yet more proof of the Curse of the Bambino.

But please let's not talk about "momentum." Winning yesterday's game has no more effect on today's game than winning tomorrow's game does.

Politics is similar. Not that long ago, Kerry was ahead in the polls and some stated the election was his to lose. Following the RNC, Bush regained the lead--pundits said he now had momentum. Then, like the Red Sox, Bush went 0-3 in the debates, and Kerry caught up--some predicted he would soon surge ahead since he'd recaptured the Big Mo. Now he seems to have lost steam, for whatever reason. But hey, we've got a few weeks left...

Let's have a moratorium on the word "momentum." Unless referring to mass times velocity.

Pajamaguy responds: But isn't there something to the momentum in politics? Isn't that the same as jumping the "bandwagon" by what Mickey Kaus is calling the "landside faction"?

LAGuy responds: If there were a bandwagon, the voters sure must get tired jumping on and off it. I don't deny there are certain psychological effects in politics, since people vote based on what they're thinking (I know plenty of people who vote for sure losers so the winner doesn't get any ideas); but by the count listed above, in about two months the lead has shifted back and forth four times, and "momentum" is not a very impressive explanation. It's like sportscasters at a football game saying one team has momentum until the other team scores and then they have momentum--it's just a meaningless term to describe something that's happened after the fact.