The Gubenatorial Maps are great. If Democrats can get their pipe dream, we'll have plently of Democrats for 2008, or 2012 if we do win against Bush (which I don't see as likely). It would be great if we won in Wyoming, and Dave Freudenthal is a good candidate, but if we did win there, it would mean that any state could realistically elect a candidate from either party.

As for Florida, this race is clearly tightening. Right now, I'd say Bush is leading, but McBride could narrow the gap.

"if we do win against Bush (which I don't see as likely)."

Mr. Liberal-

I am saying this as a fairly conservative Democrat who sometimes votes for Republicans. At this point I am confident in saying that Bush will lose in 2004. Write it down and book it. You need to be more optimistic.

Hey! Bush has gained ground in the polls then! The last CRAP poll had him trailing McBride 46-49 ;)

"I am saying this as a fairly conservative Democrat"

If you consider yourself conservative, I'm scared what you think a liberal is!

RWG, I think that the 49-46 poll was done only in South Florida. I'm not sure about that, though. If you're right, then Bush has gained ground.

The real question is whether or not McBride is gaining ground after the first debate? He did poorly during the first debate so I would expect his numbers to stay put or go down. If he's still gainning ground then I don't know what this would indicate. Maybe an Anti-Bush momentum or people not tuning in to the debate? Who knows!

I gave up trying to judge debates after 2000. Maybe people will go for McBride's less slick aproach. They went for shrub's, which I'll never get.

They forgot Ohio. Trust me. Tim Hagan may be more liberal htan the state sa a whole, but he's not Bob TaftQuack, and right now, especially if you're paying for college (Taft's mismanagement of the education budget is so bad it would be funny if my tutition weren't a couple grand higher), that's a huge advantage. And while they prefer moderates, the state elected Howard Metzenbaum, for God sakes, so Hagan's liberalism might not help, but it doesn't hurt as much as you would think. This is a big sleeper race.

Yeah, Kobe, I probably ought to be more optimistic. However, I don't see Bush's approval ratings heading south anytime soon. However, a recent batch of Congressional polls have the Democrats leading from a range of 3-7 points.

AVADem, I wouldn't count out Ohio yet, but it's pretty unlikely. If the Democrats do well on election night, Hagan's got a good shot.

I think George Bush has about a 65% chance of reelection in 2004. Odds are that there will be an economic recovery sometime during 2003 and that will temper his biggest perceived weakness, IMO. I also don't presently see a Democratic candidate with enough wide-ranging appeal to win, assuming a decent economy. Demographics are trending towards the Democrats, but they'll still be competitive enough, along with the power of incumbency to allow a Bush win in 2004. After that, though, I think the Democrats will win about 2 out of every 3 Presidential elections until we see the next major dynamic change in US politics.

"If you consider yourself conservative, I'm scared what you think a liberal is!"

Just because I'm very partisan doesn't mean I'm a liberal, at all. In terms of issues, I quite often side with Republicans, and I vote for Republicans about 25% of the time. Yes I'm a conservative Democrat, and I'm a partisan one at the same time.

"If you consider yourself conservative, I'm scared what you think a liberal is!"

Just because I'm very partisan doesn't mean I'm a liberal, at all. In terms of issues, I quite often side with Republicans, and I vote for Republicans about 25% of the time. Yes I'm a conservative Democrat, and I'm a partisan one at the same time.

Good news from Massachusetts:
Boston Globe Poll:
O'Brien-42
Romney-36
Stein-4
Howell-4
Undecided-14

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-elect/2002/sep/29/092909894.html

This is good news for O'Brien-she's now led Romney twice in the last two polls. If she can hold her momentum, she will win.

"Odds are that there will be an economic recovery sometime during 2003 and that will temper his biggest perceived weakness, IMO"

ROC-Indy, I believe that's precisely the same analysis that was being offered at this point in 1990. That recession, you recall, ended during 1991...but the employment weakness lingered well into the campaign, killing Bush I's re-election chances (and he, unlike his dim son, had won a substantial 54% victory, giving him a far stronger basis for '92 optimism). This downturn, unlike that one, has already lasted 1 1/2 years and shows signs of deteriorating, if anything (many knowledgeable people are even fearful of a Japan scenario). I think you're being wildly over-optimistic to think a near-term recovery will eliminate the economic issue.

Since we're offering guesses, mine are: a double-dip recession, taking us through most of next year, so the best case is a '92-like jobless recovery in '04 -- and the worst is horrific indeed; Howard Dean or John Kerry winning the Dem nomination, earning the scorn of media pundits who'll say the Dems should have gone conservative, with Lieberman or Edwards and have no chance with their nominee; a Reagan '80-like campaign, where the supposedly too liberal Dem candidate thrives on the hapless GOP maladministration and rides to a stunning victory, which asseerts the new Democratic majority in bold colors.

Today's Des Moines Register has Vilsack leading Gross by 18 points, 51-33 in the Iowa Governor's race. This is the same poll that showed Harkin up by 20. Those numbers do seem high, but if they're even close to being accurate, the Dems may be able to knock of 1 or 2 (or 3?) of those vulnerable Iowa Republican House incumbents.

The NRA has endorsed Siegalman in the Alabama Governors race :)

The most likely pickup is Thomas against Leach, since Thomas has far more $$$$ at her disposal than Leach who won't take PAC money and is in a more Democratic district than before.

A close second is Ann Hutchinson vs Jim Nussle. Nussle takes PAC money and because he is budget chair he gets $$$$ in droves, but Hutchinson has an excellent record in local government (Bettendorf Iowa)and the district has a increased Democratic bent.

Boswell should hold his seat and the West Iowa district will without doubt go Republican, but the other three are in play. If the Dems do well in Iowa, they should pick up minimum one and very possibly two seats in this critical state.

NRA policy is to endorse the incumbent if there are no differences between the candidates with regards to their views on second amendment rights. They are also expected to endorse Gov. Barnes in Georgia.

All I can say is that with DEAN, KERRY, and EDWARDS, the DEMS have a great chance of running a strong candidate. Not the slim pickings like lastime. This time we'll get a real racehorse.

Kerry's got the CASH (Wife's worth 300MIL, if he wants it.) Edwards is the second comming of Bill "Big Dog" Clinton, and DEAN (even if he doesn't win the primary, will push a PROGRESSIVE Democratic agenda into the forefront, which will benifit whomever the DEMS choose).

The VP choices for the DEMS this time are phenomonal as well. And if the protests are any indication, the far left is MOTIVATED and ENGAGED! Horray!

One additional comment -- on DEAN and KERRY.

DEAN has CHARISMA, and KERRY has more of it than Bush. EDWARDS has CHARISMA too. Also, the Nation has become more progressive than it was when Bush was elected. ....

Some thoughts to... ponder.

MC-

"Kerry's got the CASH (Wife's worth 300MIL, if he wants it.)"

I believe its $600 million. But even that much money isn't going to get anyone from Massachusetts elected President in 2004 IMO.

You are right though that the Dems have an excellent bench class for VP in 2004.

I think Edwards and Dean would kick Bush's ass back to Crawford, but I think Kerry would have his ass kicked back to Cape Cod.

If the Democrats want to win, truly win in terms of an electoral strategy, they'll go with Edwards or Gephardt, the latter being the best and most deserving candidate IMO.

Mydd- Like your new predictions for governor and senate. Any polls out on McBride since the debate? The only prediction I still disagree on is Thune Vs Johnson. Everyone expects Johnson to lose due to the Republican bent of the state but if voters in S.D. don't vote by party in 02' then Johnson will be the victor.

Hagen is gonna lose Ohio big. According to the latest UC poll, hagen is down by 18 pts. I think UC polls are rotten to the core, but even if Taft's lead is half that, hagen has no chance.

Another opportunity squandered by Ohio's clueless state party and a clueless candidate. They need to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to statwide races: it ain't the same state it was when Glenn and Metzenbaum were the Senators.

Ohio is a great Republican success story. They control every elected statwide office right now, control both legislative bodies, and of course both U.S. Senators are Republicans and a majority of House Members are GOP. Go Ohio GOP!

Mydd,I appreciate constant updates on your prediction web site, I disagree with Kirk and Sanders picks but you finally have "The Torch" going down and you still have Thune winning. I see Thune-Johnson contest just being razor thin (thank goodness this isn't Florida, or we would be waiting for months to get the winner). Your house predictions make me feel better about GOP chances to retain the body, because you have Democrats basically getting all the close matches and still only have a 10 seat majority (which isn't going to happen).

"RWG, I think that the 49-46 poll was done only in South Florida. I'm not sure about that, though. If you're right, then Bush has gained ground."

I was being sarcastic...SurveyUSA polls are not accurate.

"The real question is whether or not McBride is gaining ground after the first debate? He did poorly during the first debate so I would expect his numbers to stay put or go down."

I disagree that McBride did poorly. He came in as the underdog, and held his own against what is supposed to be a powerhouse. He's not all that well-spoken, but anyone that viewed the Dem primary debate knew that. He does come off as folksy and honest, with jeb being a slick hustler vs McB's dadlike demeaner. In one TV news show, they assembled 11 independant voters, and McB was the winner for 8/11 of those viewers.

But most importantly, outside of a major debate gaffe it doesn't matter who 'wins', what matters is how well the post debate spin is handled by the candidates camp. Ultimately, this race is gonna come down to turnout and the usual Fla electioneering corruption.

"NRA policy is to endorse the incumbent if there are no differences between the candidates with regards to their views on second amendment rights."

NRA policy is to endorse any incumbent that has a 100% NRA legislative rating. However, the Alabama GOP was incensed, and even accused Siegelman of taking advantage of an Alzheimer's-afflicted Heston to get the endorsement. Needless to say, that didn't go down very well.

If Vilsack and Harkin have opened up this big a lead and manage to keep it, you can bank on either Leach or Nussle going down if not both.

Hopefully Nussle-much rather beat the conservative Budget chair than a moderate-to-liberal Republican with a solid enough environmental record to get LCV backing.

And if Hutchinson beats Baghead Jim, but the GOP keeps the House, who would be the new Budget Committee chairman?

While many incumbent Governors who at one point looked pretty safe are suddenly in tight races, Siegelman, who for most of the summer I had given up as a goner, has suddenly surged and seems to have momentum. Any explanation as to why the Alabama race has run opposite to the national trends?

Jim Leach isn't in as uch trouble as it seems He's always behind in fundraising and money when he gets credible opponents. He wins regardless of the $ disadvantage. He is probably the safest of the three Republican incumbents in Iowa.

I saw McBride for the first time in a 1am replay of the debate. I thought he was dry, monotone, and uninspired. Bush, on the other hand, was relaxed and very comfortable with the material. I don't think anyone can honestly say that McBride looked comfortable. Bush used numbers and reports to back up his claims, while McBride spoke way too generaly and used the term "stressed out" so many times that it came off that he did not want ot challange kids in school.
Now, it was his first debate and he is not a career pol. Also, just because he not a good speaker (he mumbled countless times), that does not mean that he would be a poor gov. The danger for McBride is that he will not energize the party base to get out and vote. I think the GOP (after the debate) is more motivated to vote than a typical Dem. Actually, more troublesome for McBride is those 8 of 11 indy voters surveyed may lack the inspiration to vote for him after more monotone mumbling deabtes and speeches.

Haha. That's some spin. If mumbling, fact-less, uncomfortable oration is decisive in debates, baby Bush would be back in Texas running another oil company into the ground.

Take it from a Floridian, McBride has the momentum and he will win. Jeb is gone. McBride has the four big issues on his side "Education, Healthcare, the DCF, and the Economy". If he has the fund he will win I predict 52%-48%.

As for Iowa I am very glad to see Harkin and Vilsack in the leads. I think if Harkin can weather this tape storm in the next week, he will win easily. I think Vilsack is safe. Gross peaked in the summer.

As of now I think Democrats will pick up 11 states (KS, MI, IL, RI, NM, PA, WI, TN, MA, AZ and FL.) I think they will lose HI, NH, and maybe SC or AL. That would yield a 8-9 seat pickup.

Dear Governor Siegalman:

Fight with your last breath we need you as Governor of Alabama you are the only one concerned for its people.