I told a coworker two months ago it would be Bush 53% to Kerry 45%. He called me a fool.

I think I will be having a conversation with him tomorrow. And revising my estimate upward for Bush.

Kerry Spot has him up in New Jersey. By four points!

Forget Dukakis. Kerry's looking like Mondale.

Add New Jersey to "The New Battleground," according to KerrySpot

Kerry campiagned for McGovern way back when. Perhaps he hopes to outdo his mentor with an even bigger landslide loss.

As a lifelong Illinois resident, I object to the characterization "Ultra-Democratic Illinois".
Illinois happened to go to Clinton twice and Gore once, but it went for Bush, Reagan twice and even for Ford. Not very long ago every statewide office was held by a Republican. It just happens that the most recent cycle went to the Democrats. That's okay, the Democratic Governor is doing his best to ensure that it will go Republican next time.

I never believed for a minute that John Kerry could ever really win Illinois. Illinois is a red state that just happened to be blue last time.

Illinois? I live here, and ... I'm just really surprised. Didn't we go for Bush 41 in 1988, though? I was nine at the time, so my memory isn't very clear.

Hey, who knows, I might participate in Bring Out Your Dead - I mean, Get Out The Vote :).

/lives in Cook County, AKA Heart of Blueness

While it is still a bit early to print the invitations to the inaugural ball, it isn’t too early to speculate about the Democrats getting a little anti-Nader blowback.

Up until now, keeping Nader off the ballot was viewed as a savvy, if hardball, way to potentially preserve victory in a couple of close states, thereby preventing a replay of Gore’s narrow loss. What happens, though, if Kerry continues to sink? Won’t there be a few voters on the left who will just get discouraged and stay home?

It is possible that by keeping Nader off the ballot, Democrats are denying their base an acceptable “protest vote” for the ineptitude of John F'n Kerry. This will depress turnout among voters who might not vote for Kerry, but would vote for down-ballot democrats. This could give Bush coattails that he didn’t have in 2000.

BTW, I have had trouble finding an authoritative source for where Nader will and won’t be on the ballot. Does anyone have a reference?

Kerry is simply the worst candidate in modern history. There is no--no--reason to vote for him. Only a fantastic hatred of Bush could possibly compel you to say that Kerry is "your man" or the "Presidential material".

I moved from IL to OH last year, and I was happy with the realization that my vote would be better represented here in OH, since Chicago rules IL, or so I thought! It is totally unbelievable to me that IL is back within the margin-of-error, and seemingly so quickly, at that.

What makes this even more incredible is that the IL GOP has recently produced:

* A governor whose top aid is going to federal prison on corruption charges for selling illegal truck driving licences while said governor was Secretary of State for IL

* A senate candidate who withdrew from the race for forcing his ex-wife to go to sex clubs.

* A out of state replacement senate candidate who has called for reparations and makes Tah-RAY-sah Kerry sound level headed.

New York and Jersey took the brunt of the 9-11 attacks so I expected them to be more pro W this time around, but Illinios? The Dems should start thinking about 2008.