Despite the trepidation of some supporters, Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election strategy is probably on track. The increasing unpopularity of the West Side stadium causes many to believe that the mayor should retreat from the hard line he has taken in support of the project. With legal and political obstacles springing up and 56% of New Yorkers polled opposed to the facility, it would seem that there is little chance for a groundbreaking by Election Day, a scant eight months away.

Nonetheless, the mayor maintains, with the tenacity of a bulldog, his support for his stadium proposal, his criticism of its opponents, and his confidence in a successful resolution of the issue.

To us, there are five possibilities as to what is actually happening:

One. The mayor has secret knowledge that all the ducks will line up in a row, and that the stadium will be approved, despite what are apparently formidable obstacles. This is possible, but highly unlikely. The stadium would get a great boost if New York City were awarded the 2012 Olympics, but the London bookies, who are said to know a great deal about these matters, think that possibility is a long shot.

Two. The mayor is aware that the stadium may well be defeated, especially after July, when the International Olympic Committee selects another city for the 2012 Games. However, learning from President Bush, he feels that the best attitude to show in public is strength and resolve, even if the plan does not succeed at first, or if it is rejected. A consensus may later form to put the stadium in another location, or to build it in a different size or shape, or to finance it in some less ingenious way than mortgaging anticipated pilots (payments in lieu of taxes). Both sides will claim victory, but people are most likely to believe that it was the mayor who made it happen.

The one thing the mayor does not want to do – and in this he may be advised by David Garth, who has played a very important role in electing New York City mayors on and off for over 40 years – is to appear weak. John Kerry paid the price for being perceived as a flip-flopper, which describes someone who shilly-shallies or is namby-pamby. Words suggesting waffling lend themselves to internal rhyme. Although Tweedledee and Tweedledum do not rhyme, the comic similarity of those names suggests a trivial difference, which means you can see-saw between the two without being wishy-washy.

Mr. Bush stuck to his guns on Iraq during the darkest hours of terrorist resistance, which is far from over. Although many Americans disagreed with the invasion, especially after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, they intuited that Mr. Bush was a stronger leader than Mr. Kerry, a man with whose varying positions they were in greater agreement, particularly on economic matters.

In the rough calculus of politics, strength is a quality usually valued more highly by voters than intellect. (See Truman vs. Dewey, Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, Nixon vs. McGovern, Reagan vs. Carter, Bush vs. Gore.)

Three. The administration does not think far enough ahead to deal with the reality of a deteriorating situation. Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, point man on the stadium, has pursued the Olympics with the intensity and subtlety of Captain Ahab. If anyone at City Hall is worried, he may not be believed if he expresses concern, or he may dare not speak. Compare this with Richard Clarke and others who repeatedly warned about terrorist attacks on America in 2001 and were ignored.

One theory is: Why switch to Plan B, unless you first run the play with Plan A, and see how far you get? In chess they say, “Never miss a check, it might be mate.” In politics, there is merit in not blinking – you learn who your friends are. You flush out those who appear to oppose jobs in building and operating a stadium, strengthening tourism, creating a major new facility at the center of public transportation, and showing that New York City is on the move after September 11. You separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff, and the advocates of progress from the naysayers. Bring them on.

Four. When push comes to shove, the big guys (the permanent government) will sit down and work things out. The real parties in interest here are the unions, the contractors, the hotel owners, and the elected officials they have supported for years, in anticipation of issues like this arising. We know workers will build anything, anywhere, as long as they are paid. That is not unreasonable; people need work. Some politicians, less justifiably, will support almost anything if they get votes and contributions from it or oppose almost anything if they are fearful of retaliation.

Five. In this controversy, the mayor stands for jobs and progress. The skeptics offer no practical alternative. They are a combination of nimbys, bananas, commercial rivals like Cablevision, and the dumb smart people who never fail to find a reason to oppose weapons for war or construction in peace.

There are, in fact, reasonable doubts about the location, financing, and utility of this project. The stadium is, however, in no way part of a Manhattan conspiracy, as bruited about by those who would divide New Yorkers on the basis of geography, as well as race and class.

The mayoral attitude of self-assurance and strength was manifest in his trumpeting of the Christo exhibition as having brought $254 million in economic benefit to the city. Generous as that figure may be, there certainly was a substantial increase over last February in tourism and business activity, as well as sales to the millions who visited the spectacle. As fine art, the merits of 7,500 orange curtains may be thin, indeed, but as for generating business, as well as excitement for spectators, the exhibit worked. When the orange is recycled to Home Depot, we may appreciate the natural beauty of Central Park even more.

The surprise in Friday’s news was the overheard telephone call about Fernando Ferrer’s campaign strategy. Described at length in the New York Times by Jim Rutenberg, the conversation was relatively innocuous, devoid of profanity, self-incrimination, or conventional dirty tricks. The point of it was a plan to solicit a great deal of out-of-state money in an effort to make the mayoral race a Red State vs. Blue State issue.

The merits of the candidates would be submerged if not ignored in a national effort to show that the Democratic Party is thriving. That would bring millions of dollars into the coffers of Roberto Ramirez and his highly skilled consulting firm, some of which would undoubtedly be spent on the Ferrer campaign.

Actually, considering the abilities and the life achievement of the principal contenders, the “party label” strategy may be a wise choice. The mayor has, in fact, governed as a liberal Democrat. He faces opposition in his own party from those who call him a RINO, or Republican In Name Only, and among intellectuals for his total reliance on politically correct Democrats and apparent aversion to Republicans in his administration and in judicial selections.

At its best, city government is relatively nonideological. As succinctly expressed by Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, candidate of the Republican and American Labor parties, “There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning streets. “The real issues in city elections should be competence, corruption, and the clubhouse (political influence).That is a variant on the great slogan of 1977 when Edward Koch was elected mayor for the first of his three terms: As Mr. Garth wrote, “After eight years of charisma (Lindsay) and four years of the clubhouse (Beame), why not try competence (Koch).”Charisma is not an issue in 2005. We can’t find any.

That is why this campaign is likely to be a replay of Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare of the 1950s, similar to Attorney General Mitchell Palmer’s raids on Bolsheviks after World War I. This year, watch for the Red State scare, in which the power and money of gullible yokels and Hollywood ideologues will be mined to show that no Blue State city can tolerate a Red State mayor, no matter what his real politics are, how he has performed in office, or the qualifications of his putative opponent.

It will be fascinating to see whether the Ramirez strategy works, but whatever the outcome, there will be great demand for the services of political consultants, especially those with significant influence in county organizations. And with the Conflicts of Interest Board withdrawing the rule it proposed that would prevent campaign managers from lobbying, one stop shopping will become the rule in the game of pay-to-play.

Mr. Stern is a former New York City parks commissioner and the director of New York Civic.