My bet, Wisconsin. He mentioned Wisconsin twice in the debate.

Bush won Virginia by 8 points. I give the dems a hat tip for broadening their electoral goals. A swing state, probably not.

I laughed at your comment about Wisconsin being safe. With the demographic evolution of the Midwest, I am surprised we still have a shot. Iowa was a gift to Gore, and I never expected to carry it this time around. Wisconsin is a push, and could go either way. Minnesota is pretty safe. Not a slam dunk, but Gore only carried MN by 2.5 points, and Kerry is polling in the 4-6% range. Not bad for a state that has been turning pink.

For the same reason, Florida and Ohio are in the mix for Kerry. Assuming Kerry holds Minnesota, he only needs one of the two to claim the electoral college.

We all can analyze all we want, but 'The Doctor' keeps reminding me, "stats are for losers", and the only poll that counts is on election day!

Flash
Centrisity

You have been awarded the coveted Instalanch award. Would that such an honor be bestowed upon me, I'd sacrifice a chicken.

Well, this starts to answer the question I asked Prof. Reynolds...

Tell me again why Wisconsin should've been a safe state for Kerry?? Maybe you should re-check the 2000 popular election results for that state.

Are you regularly so insightful about politics? The fact that Instapundit agrees with you re: WI confirms his (lack of) knowledge as well.

It has seemed to me for some time that the Kerry campaign has behaved as though its internal polling data is generally worse than the mainstream polls... especially in terms of keeping their base energized.

Off the subject of polls, I had a (rare) thought today:

Kerry says the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
But he says he is the guy who can win it.
Therefore he is LITERALLY asking someone to be 'the last man to die for a mistake.'

Seems like this would make a great Bush/Cheney ad, alternating his words from '71 (phony accent and all) and from the debate. How can someone lead a battle he doesn't (supposedly, this week) believe in?

Jim E.,

"Tell me again why Wisconsin should've been a safe state for Kerry??"

Because, like MN, it has tended to vote Democratic, and has some of the same constituencies, with some of the same mutual divisions, as Minnesota; big liberal urban cores versus equally-big moderate-to-conservative rural/suburban/exurban areas. Like MN, it has been decreasingly safe for several elections for the Dems.

" Maybe you should re-check the 2000 popular election results for that state."

Um, yeah. There's no WAY I'd have done that before writing, right? I wrote what I did for a reason; like MN, WI has been for most of my adult life a fairly left-leaning state. Not QUITE as bad as MN, but certainly a generally-safe bet for Democrats. It's changing.

"Are you regularly so insightful about politics?"

Are you regularly as condescending without understanding the context you're talking about?

Winning Wisconsin, and especially MN, *will* be symbolically huge for the GOP.

I'm having trouble understanding how Centrisity thinks that Minnesota's 10 electoral votes plus either Florida's 27 or Ohio's 20 puts Kerry over the top. Looking at LA Times' electoral map, if you give Kerry every state he's leading currently, plus anything close, like Oregon and Washington, he still comes up short, even with the addition of Minnesota and Florida. Is he thinking Kerry will take Nevada, where Bush is ahead by 4? Or Iowa, Louisiana, or Missouri, where Bush leads by 5, 6, and 8? Bush leads Tennessee by 7, Florida by 5, the Virginias by 6. No, it looks like Kerry will have to take Minnesota, Ohio, and Florida, plus every state he's currently leading or trailing by less than 3 points, to win the election. That seems pretty unlikely, without a seismic political shift.

I wouldn't get to upset at Jim. The democrats are going to start coming down from their high and come to the realization that the majority of the country knows that even though their candidate may be able to look presidential for 90 minutes, he'll never think like a president.

I live in Iowa, and have been active in politics at all levels. Three of the largest concentrations of voters are Des Moines, wholly owned and operated by AFSCME, the public employees union; Ames and Iowa City, both university towns where Howard Dean is considered too mild. Iowa is NOT conservative; it is reactionary-- John Edwards' "two Americas" speech is considered "cutting edge" around here. If Kerry is trailing here, and in socialist Minnesota (my wife's home state), he's toast.

Flash,

Your electoral math is wrong. If Kerry takes MN but loses WI and IA, a win in OH would not be sufficient to give Kerry an electoral college victory. If Kerry won MN and FL but lost WI and IA, it would be a very close call. Kerry would have exactly 270 which means he would have to hold on to all of the other Gore states including NM and PA (which are currently tied) and ME (where Bush leads in one of the two congresssional districts). Kerry would also have to hold OR and MI where he holds very slight leads. If Kerry were to lose the Bush-leaning congresssional district in ME, then even MN and FL would not be enough. The EC would be a 269-269 tie which means Kerry would lose in the US House of Representatives.
P.S. Two new polls (post-debate) of FL were just released. Both polls show Bush leading in FL by 4 to 5%. The polls are SUSA and Rasmussen.

I have to agree. If Kerry can't show well in Iowa and Minnesota, he's toast. And don't look now, but he's slipping in my home state of Michigan, we of the high unemployment rate and lost manufacturing jobs, and the foxy governor that's campaigning (unsuccessfully) for Kerry. The problem with the Kerry campaign is that their candidate is John Kerry, and when he shows his face they lose votes. Throw Michigan in with Iows and Minnesota, if Kerry isn't dominating there, he's toast.

it's always possible that he's pulling out in the hopes that if he doesn't "show his face" his numbers will go UP.

My in-laws are from Steel Country in NE Ohio. They are all democrats and not one of them is voting for Kerry. One is voting for Nader (unless I can convince her to go for Bush) and the rest are voting for the President. Kerry must be toast in Ohio if these Gore voters are bailing out. I'm not sure it is even in play.

I mailed me Florida ballot today - feels SO GOOD!

Glad to hear that Kerry is leaving my state of Virginia.

I guess Governor Mark Warner will have to wait another 4 years for VA to go Blue. It has been 40 years and I hope it is another 40 years before it goes blue.

Anyone who lives in VA will tell you that Bush will win the state. A lot of pollsters live too close to the D.C. outskirts of Virginia (Mclean, Arlington, Alexandria) which are decidedly democratic... but when you get out to Loudoun county (the fastest growing county in the country, there is little doubt where VA will swing to.

Help me out here...

sKerry says Bush is an idiot for not having a multilateral approach in Iraq, but he's an idiot for having a multilateral, not bilateral approach to North Korea where Madeline Not-so-bright and Jimmy (the geek) Carter gave the nKs the materials for nuclear power plants????

Call me a crazy olde AF retiree, but this don't make no sense?

Oh, btw....

At last count, there are over 34 nations announced in support financially or with troops on the ground in Iraq.

That doesn't count the countries who don't want their support publicized but are supporting as well.

Please help keep Cash and sKerry out of my wallet.

I've lived in Minnesota most of my life and the fact we are a swing state is NOT good news for the Kerry camp. We've been trending right for the last few years electing both a Republican Governor and a Republican Senator.

At this point in the game, the Kerry camp should be focusing on the key swing states. Instead they need to worry about states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and New Jersey) Gore carried in 2000. And some states he carried with a comfortable margin.

The Kerry camp got a much needed break on Thursday, but unfortunately as good as he looked...the message was the same!

Times they are a changing, Red Hawk. Your socialist neighbor to the north (MN) is going GOP. The last Democrat elected Gov. was I believe 1986. Occasionally a populist like Wellstone or Ventura makes a splash, but new deal democrats stopped working quite a while ago.

Correction...I meant New Mexico, not Nevada.

"Tell me again why Wisconsin should've been a safe state for Kerry?? Maybe you should re-check the 2000 popular election results for that state."

Because it HAS to be. Kerry HAS to carry all the Gore states plus pick up one or two Bush states to win. If he is fighting this war in his back-yard instead of Bush's he loses.

Right now there are more Gore votes on the table to be picked up by Bush than Bush votes on the table to be picked up by Kerry. Just to make it worse Bush starts with an 8 point head start after reapportionment. Basically Kerry HAS to win Ohio or Florida. There just aren't enough votes elsewhere he is likely to win anymore. The polls in both those states currently favor Bush.

Bush on the other hand with WI pretty firmly in hand (up by double digits in most polls) can find a lot more paths to victory. Kerry HAS to win either OH or FL... Bush could still win without OH by poaching just one other currently tied state, even lowly IA. Bush could even win without Florida if he picks up two or three of the Gore swing states that are currently tied (or just one if it happens to be PA).

The shift in national polling after the debate will help. It will probably help Kerry keep the wolf from his door in PA, MN, OR and should tighten the race in OH and FL. But he's still stuck with only one way to win while Bush has several ways to do so.

Mitch,
My point was that Gore barely won WI four years ago -- by only about 5,000 votes. That's why it's considered a battleground state. It's the prototypical battleground state. It was close then, it's expected to be close this year. No one, aside from you and Glenn Reynolds, would think otherwise. I fail to see why WI should somehow be a "safe" state -- as you put it -- for Kerry. Of course, you later make my point for me and concede that Dem support in WI has been receding recently. Duh. That's why it's a battleground state.

Then you reverse course and again say WI should be safe for Kerry, only this time with the added qualifier "generally". Are you always such a nuanced flip-flopper? Too bad you, like our president, is unable to admit error. Sheesh! Call WI an obvious and unsurprising battleground state and move on.

As a resident of Wisconsin and a life long political junkie I can say that WI was never a safe bet for the Dems. Wis voters have always been independent but are leaning to a Republican state.
Consider in the last two election cycles the state assembly and senate have seen a huge increase for the Republicans.
The state elected a DEM governor two years ago, but his approval ratings are below 50% The inside track also is showing one Dem Conrgressman (Ron Kind) is in trouble this year. Plus Russ Feingold only won his last election with only about 50.5% of the vote.
The problem with national politicians is they look at Madison (capitol) and Dane County and believe the rest of the state is like the people that reside there. Madison is the liberal capitol of the midwest, but the rest of the state is rural or conservitive blue collar.
If Kerry does win Wis it will be by a smaller margin than Gore did. Bush should take the state by a 3-4% margin.
This state will be a solid red in four yeas.

Good riddance, to that Yankee Trash!

Yes, VivaBush, I know Minnesota has been trending right. But I remember '84, when Mondale only carried MN and DC, Iowa was right behind. As far as WI and MN being safe Dem states, two words: Wellstone and Feingold. Sounds like Bernie Sanders/Howard Dean loony left to me.

These polls mean nothing. Bush ahead by 8 last week....basically even this week. Doesn't matter. Same thing happened in 2000, and that election was razor close.

Kerry is gonna win this thing unless he totally steps in it. Two reasons. First is the fact that 2000 WAS so close. Can anyone REALLY honestly thing that large numbers of Gore voters are all of a sudden gonna switch to Bush this time around? Ain't gonna happen. I don’t think I have met anyone that voted for Gore in 2000 and thinks Bush has done such a good job that they are gonna vote for him this time. However, I have met a lot of Bush voters are planning on jumping ship. His re-elect numbers are STILL below 50%. Reminds me of the Carter/Reagan election in 1980...Carter lead in the polls till just before election...then got creamed. But even when he was ahead by a pretty large margin over Ronnie, his re-elect numbers were bad.

Second is the huge number of new voters this year. States are reporting record registrations...and in most cases the dems are far out registering the republicans. High turnouts almost always help the democrats...and this year is shaping up to be a very high turnout. I can't imagine someone going to the trouble to stand in line to register and then not vote.

Election year 2000 was a disaster for Bush in Ohio, even though he carried the state. The big problem was southwest Ohio and the 'Get Out the Vote' campaign in that location.

Election year 2004...fear not. I helped with GWB's rally two weeks ago in Cincinnati. We did not know he was coming until Tuesday of the week prior and tickets were to begin distribution on Thursday for the rally on the following Monday.

We initially set out with an attendance goal of 25,000 - 30,000. By Friday evening we ran out of tickets and Sunday afternoon distributed 43,000.

Mondays attendance was 60,000+. The largest ever for Ohio and (reported) for any Republican rally. OHIO IS FOR BUSH.

The thing we can't understand, however, is the fact that after a recent Democratic effort to register voters in one county, there turned out to be more registered voters than people living in the county. Any thoughts?

"As far as WI and MN being safe Dem states, two words: Wellstone and Feingold."

Um, Wellstone's dead and a Republican won his seat. Feingold barely won his last election. Don't you people understand the definition of "battleground"? I guess not.

"I know Minnesota has been trending right. But I remember '84, when Mondale only carried MN and DC."
Why stop in 1984 (when CA was solidly Republican)? Why not bring up the 1950s and all those southern states that the stupid Dems have since managed to lose since then? After all, it's just as relevant. (As in, not very.)

Mike Coats:

Wow. All the Gore voters you know aren't switching but you know lots of Bush voters who are. Man, what an insightful analysis. You've really got your finger on the pulse of this one, baby! With that kind of razor sharp political savvy, you really ought to be working for the Kerry campaign...

Watch it, dogman. You can expect the fine host at this cite to reprimand the "condescending" tone of your post. He doesn't appreciate that at all. No sirree! (Especially when you make a clear-as-day, valid point.) You've been warned...

Mike Coats...they had record numbers register to vote in 2000...the key is getting them to actually vote!

This is going to be a very different election. If national security isn't a voters #1 issue, it's close behind. Kerry hasn't sold himself yet and only has 28 days left to do so. Look inside the polls. Bush still leads Kerry by a wide margin in areas like "who's the stronger leader", "who do you trust on national defense" and even "who do you trust to manage economy!" Those have not budged much in the last couple of months.

It's called common sense Dogman...try it sometime...:) You REALLY think there are a lot of Gore voters from 2000 that are switch and vote for Bush this time around?

I give the republicans credit though. They turned a guy who ducked out of his time to fight for his country for a war he publically supported into a courageous John Wayne "Strong Leader" and painted the guy that volunteered for combat in a war he did not support into a someone without courage or moral conviction. Hell of a spin machine working there.

I am trying very hard to come up with 3 good reasons to vore for Cash & Kerry.

1. He fought in Viet-Nam...hmmm...so have 10 million other Americans, and that hardly qualifies you to be president. Also I read "Unfit for Command" which tells you names of living vets who vouch what a coward and phony Kerry was.

2. Kerry has a better plan for winning in Iraq.
OK....what is it? Calling a summit? WIll that include French, Germans & Russians who were all profiting in the BILLIONS of $$ from the now found out to be corrupt oil for food program? Is this the same Senator who has the single worst record for voting against weapons systems? Like sen. Zell said, Kerry wants our brave soldiers to fight with spitballs?

3. Kerry will create more jobs? In the entire history of world, no country has ever prospered by increasing taxes. Let's examins sen. Kerrys recod on taxes....300 votes for tax increases, 100 votes against tax reductions. Tax increase penalizes the most productive who create wealth and hands the dollars to government who is a giant parasite. After Bush's taxcuts were enacted, the economy has already created 1.5 Million jobs. 911 alone caused loss of a Million jobs in a span of a few months.

4. Kerry will eliminate outsourcing of jobs. This is indeed the worst insult to intelligent people.
Let's say a software company is forced to hire computer programmers in USA and has to pay them $100k per year. But a company in Canada can outsource the same work to India for less than quarter of the cost. Can the American company then compete with the Canadian counterpart? You must be kidding. OK..lets go to the next step and stop all imports. So now we have to pay 5 times more for every item. Can you imagine what that will do to the consumers and our standard of living? India tried that for 30 years and banned all auto imports. Result was locally made cars which few caould afford, quality was awful and there was a 3 year waiting list to buy one. No thanks.

I think Mike Coats mentioned something about not "standing in line to register" and then "not voting"...as if anyone stands in line to register anymore. Don't you know that much of the registration is not new voters but registering voters who have moved and that a large percentage of the rest are registered at their door by Democratic ward walkers who can lead their horses to water but can't make them drink...er vote!

Blacks are especially unethusiastic about Kerry as are Hispanics...two mainstays of the Democratic party. At least Gore was Clinton's loyal lapdog and Clinton was the nation's first "black President" or so I'm told. Union members would've been more supportive (they are mainly giving lip service now) if Kerry had picked Gephardt instead of the pretty boy. The race may be close though I think Bush is going to win in a landslide barring unforeseen developments in Iraq and his (Bush) complete collapse in the last two debates.

Bush will steal Wisconsin, probably Minnesota, and either Pennyslvania or even New Jersey. if he wins any two of those 4 then Kerry cannot possibly win the election. If he wins all four then Kerry will be lucky to win 10 states. Viva Bush!

Four reasons why GOP has good shot in MN-
1)I've lived in MN since 1986. The old Humphrey DFL party has disintigrated into left wing luanacy. If Ventura could beat "Skip" Humphrey there isn't much there there.
2)Most Dems I know have a bad feeling about SKerry. Dem voter turnout will be low. GOP is energized.
3)Polls in MN are conducted by Star Tribune a traditional Dem mouth piece. They tend to favor Dems by 5-7 points. If President is within -4 points in polls he's winning.
4)Star Tribune is carrying very little of the race on the front page. Not much heart for supporting SKerry.

Take a look back at Rockwood (10:11pm) ...

"The thing we can't understand, however, is the fact that after a recent Democratic effort to register voters in one county, there turned out to be more registered voters than people living in the county. Any thoughts?"

Is this not troubling anyone? It sure as hell troubles me. On Sunday Drudge Radio, he mentioned 2 or 3 other counties where the registration numbers were greater than the census figures. A couple of weeks ago the snow-bird double voting issue hit the news cycle for a few days. All of these irregularities could add up to massive registration fraud especially since registration numbers are up nationwide. 28 days to discover whether or not this is an epidemic or not.

It's time for the "Jammies Brigade" to expose another corrupt institution (voter registration) since the Elite Media won't.

On the Ground in Minnesota... we are no Longer a bastion of Liberal Lunacy. Bush has more than a 50/50 chance. Pawlenty the Republican Govenor is extremely popular and is expending Political Capitol for Bush. The 2002 Election turnout was another big one and was split evenly between the Parties and Republicans won. We have control of the State house now and a shot at the State Senate. The State fair in Election Years the parties sell buttons for canidates... The Republicans figured with the important election and polls showing a dead heat here to advantage Bush they would sell 30,000 buttons. Surprise they sold 110,000.

Turning Minnesota Red for this presidential Election started over 2 years ago in preperation with GOTV setups and the like. You can not even imagine what the impact will be here. I have never in my life seen this Much energy from Republicans in my state.

Jim E:

"Help! I'm being oppressed!" Look, Jim, that wasn't a "reprimand", it was pointing out that, like too many of your compatriots, you coat your "points" with a sneer.

Mike C -- the old 'I haven't met anyone who voted for Gore who will be voting for Bush' meme has been jamming blog comment threads with testimony to the contrary for months.
Let me introduce you to a few:
My Vietnam vet cab driver who has never voted Republican in his life... until now.
My elderly neighbor who skipped last election because he didn't like either guy, now a big fan of President Bush.
Bloggers Roger L. Simon, Michael Totten and dozens of others, and their extremely large followings.
I voted Nader, and I'm voting Bush. I thought that would draw big laughs on VodkaPundit, only to be followed by many others in the same boat.
You apparently unaware of the millions of 'soccer moms' now turned 'security moms' and Kerry's comparatively showing among women.

Mike C: I voted for Gore and now I am voting for Bush. We are called 9-11 Democrats. We represent 6% of the American population. And we are highly motivated to vote now.

I suppose you could also call us "Security Moms." We do exist. And in massive numbers that you will only see on November 2nd.

If Kerry had not turned against the liberation of Iraq with the concurrent facing down of the Zarqawi Triangle and publicly critized jerks like Michael Moore...then he would have had a chance with people like me. But even then it would have had to have been another candidate...because Kerry crossed the line 33 years ago when he testified against American troops.

Don't nominate such a controversial in-your-face pro-communist, Massachusetts candidate next time. Go for moderates like Clinton supposedly was (but wouldn't be post-911). Karl Rove was in Heaven when the Iowa Dems voted for Kerry as "electable." Biden was electable. Bayh was electable.

Another thing: After the 2002 Midterm Election debacle, the Democrats immediately got angry with themselves for not having been more outspoken against our fighting the war on terrorists (the kind of war where we actively seek out bad guys in their own countries and kill them). They figured, idiotically, that the American people had lost respect for the Democrats because they were cowtowing to Bush and decided to move further to the left! But the American people, especially Minnesotans, had voted against Democrats because the Democrats had already veered left by such actions as demanding that the Iraq War Resolution be only about Iraq and not about the "greater Middle East". The Dems needed to have moved further to the right after the 2002 elections.

As a Democrat, I am now hoping for a massive meltdown of the Democratic Party after they lose bigtime on November 2nd. I want to see 55 Republican Senators and Bush at the next State of the Union...so the Democratic Party starts finally treating the Far Left the way they deserve to be treated like the Republicans would treat Nazi skin heads.

I'm a moderate Democrat who at one point saw Bush as the lesser of two evils, back when I thought there was a chance the Democrats could nominate a candidate who wasn't a total joke on the war.

Once Dean, and then Kerry, became the frontrunners and then the candidates, it was all over.

I'm ashamed of my party. If they don't return to the roots of Harry Truman and JFK - and I thought Clinton was a nod in that direction, although not much of one - I don't know that I'll return.

Hey, this is a fun game...

As a life-long Republican, I happily voted for Bush over that arrogant Gore. When 9/11 came, Bush made me even prouder to be an American. It was as if God himself was reincarnated to lead our fine land.

But then, Bush lied to the country about Iraq. He became a divider, not a uniter as he promised. He scorned the worldwide goodwill the U.S. got after 911. And then I found out the guy isn't even a regular churchgoer. (No joke.)

That's why, for the first time ever, I'm going to vote for a Dem. Yes, friends, this lifelong Republican is going to vote for Kerry. Why? Because I've become ashamed of my big-spending Republican Party.

Mitch,
You think I said something about being "oppressed"? You read your comment section with the same clear understanding that you interpret state-by-state presidential politics!

Jim,

It was a Monty Python reference. And you don't have to agree with my appreciation of state politics, but having lived 10 miles from Wisconsin for the past 19 years, I think my perspective is not exactly out of this world.

And given your little explanation for your "conversion" (which I don't believe for a moment), you'd best tread lightly on things like "keen understanding". On Iraq and the President's record, it seems, you exhibit little.

"your 'conversion' (which I don't believe for a moment)"

OK, you're a touch quicker than I originally gave you credit for. The man can recognize sarcasm!

But it's ridiculous to think that I'll cede my point about WI (or my "point," as you conscendingly put it) based on where you live. You're factually wrong, I'm right. WI was a battleground in 2000, it's a battleground in 2004. End of story.

Never said it wasn't a battleground.

Just said it was one that Kerry expected to win. And *has* to win.

And, er, you know it. For you are indeed a superior intellectual.

I notice the GOP and front groups are stepping up the ads against sKerry in that last 3-4 days here in Minnesota and Bush is coming back to Minnesota this Saturday.

Must have local Demo-Bolshevics off balance and sKerry will have to pour more money and time into Minnesota just to try to keep it.

I notice in the central posh college districts of St. Paul and Minneapolis that Kerry signs abound. Once you are in the inner ring suburbs and heading out, they disappear totally or it is all Bush.

After this election, we hope the DFL only has some power left in the central cities and then the blame game will begin in their party...hopefully the Bolshevic contingent will be excised like a boil (Oppermann and company) and the party of Truman/Scoop Jackson re-emerges..

...or they just meltdown...period...which I do not want to see...like an opposition that is rational...

Time will tell and hope Bush recovers from the "rope-a-dope" he pulled in the last debate.

Mitch,
OK, maybe I'm missing another Monty Python reference here. You wrote: "Kerry is going to send those resources to ... Wisconsin, [a state] that should have been safe in this election."

So in your world, saying that WI should have been a "safe" state for Kerry is the same thing as saying it's a battleground? Are you serious? What a joke!

Are you incapable of admitting a simple mistake on your part? Get over yourself.