Reply #8: I don't believe it is possible for Kerry to be ahead nationally but behind [View All]

[yellowcanine]

in the battleground states - unless he is way ahead in places like California or New York - and that should be partially offset by large Bush margins in Texas and other states in the South - unless Bush is not very far ahead in the South and in that case there may be some good news here. That aside, what I really think is happening is that some of the polling in the battleground states came when anti Kerry ads were being aired and before a lot of the Clarke testimony had a chance to register. Furthermore, Kerry is essentially statistically tied with Bush in the battleground states - which means he could actually be ahead in most or even all of them. The truth is that Democrats, not Republicans, have the electoral advantage in a close election - because Democrats almost certainly will win California, Illinois and nearly all of the Northeast. Bush won in 2000 only because of a fluke in Florida (and then he still needed some shenannigans). Without the fluke of a butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County the shenannigans (disenfranchisement of alleged felons + SCOTUS) wouldn't have been enough or wouldn't have occurred. Furthermore, as a result of 2000 plus soft Bush support in the military (Iraq) and senior citizen (prescription drug fiasco) communities I believe Kerry will win Florida this time. The Clarke testimony combined with continuing bad news from Iraq will continue to erode Bush support, particularly in the battleground states. It is not Clarke's testimony about the pre-911 actions of Bush that are going to hurt the most-it is his testimony that Bush went after Iraq at the expense of the larger war on terror. This has yet to gel fully.