Replies

Great job on these -- thank you! And quick, too!!

I notice that, if one adds the "slight" groups to each side, the electoral count is dead even, 183 to 183, with 12 tossups.

Things may seem a little bleak now, but really only one side has been running for several months, so I hope we will see the pendulum swing back towards the President before too long.

IMHO, the success the US has had thus far in preventing any major terrorist incidents on our soil is what allows the Dems the chance to make this election about jobs, overseas outsourcing, and the economy.

God forbid that any terror-related events happen, but it is only the sense of security we now enjoy that allows this to be a contest at all. If the War on Terror were to dominate public debate, I think the President could win in a landslide.

[On Tim Russert's cable show this weekend (not Meet the Press), he hosted David Broder and two other journalists. Even these folk, when discussing the outsourcing of jobs to India, admitted that none of the Dems had any idea of how to reverse the trend.]

Regarding the states, I fear Michigan is lost -- as a midwesterner, I hear a lot about the growth of Radical Islam in that state. I fear there will be many new voters there, sympathetic to the cause of terror. I hear Saginaw and Detroit mentioned as having growing numbers in that category.

If the anti-US Islamists turn out to vote in our presidential election (isn't that an odd and ironic twist), which I strongly suspect did not occur in 2000, that could be more than the good folks in the rest of the state can overcome. Any comments, Michigan folk?

On the oher hand, I am optimistic about Pennsylvania. If the turnout in the most urban areas can be kept low (a blizzard in Philadelphia, maybe?), I think that state can be picked up. Any comments from Pennsylvanians?

Of course, this is all based on a Bush-Kerry (or Edwards) election. If the Dems broker the nomination to Hillary, it would become the most polarizing presidential election I can recall.