A large percentage of the population is evagelical christian (apparently about 40%, although subtracting blacks from that and you probably have about 35%), and there percentage appears to be growing larger, if this election is any indication (assuming we didn't just get Diebolded-IMHO, the jury is still out on that, but I'm leaning towards no).  These people care little about the competence of the person they vote for, as long as they speak thier language and share their "values".  The Democrats can not get a significant number of those votes-nor should we try.  Therefore, we must think strategically on who to choose in 2008.

Both the president and vice-presidential nominees must:

1. Come from purple-red states and be popular in thier home states.
   
2. Have the NRA's support.
   
3. Be leaders, not members of the crowd.
   
4. Never say, in any way, shape or form, "I'm going to raise your taxes."
   

Bush asked to speak with Kerry (via phone, I assume) after the debate ended tonight.  This strikes me as very odd.

From the official Kerry blog via DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/14/1194/1032

"anyway, I am new tonight... as you may not have seen me before in here.. just a FYI that I am deaf here and can read lips okay..
at the end of debate where Kerry and Bush shook hands.. Bush was asking Kerry, Can I talk to you later tonight? Kerry said sure then Bush said where would you be? I missed what Kerry said.

I wondered what Bush wanted to talk to Kerry about??

... not good. Not. Good. At all.
I watched them talk after, and it seemed like Kerry was surprised... something was off. I was wondering what was said...

When the president asks to talk to you, you don't not meet with him...

Whatever Bush says, whatever it sounds like, I wouldn't trust it worth a damn.

But Kerry's a senator... he knows the game."

Later, another poster put the exchange as:

"Bush: Can I talk to you (later tonight)?
Kerry: ???
Bush: Where you gonna be?
Kerry: ???
Bush: ... We'll find each other.

Kerry had his back to the camera for this."

So why did Bush want to talk to Kerry?  That's beyond unusual.

Let's assume Dick Morris is correct in this column, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13068 , and 85% of the undecides go for the challenger.

Zogby (who personally is a Democrat) and Rasmussen (who personally is a Republican) seem to have thier shit together, as it were.  I trust them both.  Both are full-time pollsters who run thier own firms.  Thier names are on the line, so they want to get it right.

Zogby has Kerry down by 3 with 7 undecided, including minor canidates or not: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867

If 85% of the undecided go to Kerry, then Kerry ends up with 6 of the 7, and ends up being up by 2.

I also like the fact that Badnarik is gaining and Nader is falling...I would love to see Nader place fourth behind Badnarik.

Rasmussen has Kerry down by 2.7%, with 3.8% undecided: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm If you give Kerry 3.2% (85% of 3.8%) and Bush .6% of the undecided, Kerry would be up by .9%.

It's not over yet...

More precisely:

61,857,928 votes for Kerry
49,942,157 votes for Bush
1,441,478 votes for Nader

How did I come up with such (rather nice) numbers?

First, I took the popular vote from 2000: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm (giving Bush's numbers to Bush, Gore's numbers to Kerry, and Nader's numbers to Nader)

Then, I looked at this poll I'm always quoting: http://www.worldpoll.com/press_room_wppk_qr.phtml

Following what it suggested, I first took 14% of Bush's numbers and gave them to Kerry, then I took 5% of Gore's numbers and gave them to Bush.

Then, using Ross Perot as a guide (comparing his 1996 results with his 1992 ones), I chopped Nader's vote in half.  I gave one quarter to Kerry, and threw away one quarter (people who won't vote this time or who will vote for Cobb).

Then, since Karl Rove said there were 4 million evangelical Christians who failed to vote in 2000, and he's putting out the GOTV to get them, I gave Bush that 4 million.

Since our side's GOTV are rather insane, too, I multiplied the result I had for Kerry by 110%.  Not unrealistic, I don't think-may even be conservative.

There you go.  Note that even if you give Kerry zero votes from Nader, AND assume our GOTV doesn't work at all, AND still give Bush his four million, Kerry is still up by over five million votes, merely from the 14% vs. 5% crossover vote differential.

I hope I did all my math correctly. :)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Rasmussen's presidential tracking report showed interesting results for September 11th.  This poll is a rotating poll, showing the average of calls placed the previous three evenings.  Look at September 12th, the first day with Sept. 11 in it-a huge jump over the previous day, by almost a point (which probably means that Bush was polling 3 points higher than normal on 9/11).

But here's something else interesting-it was completely gone on todays poll results, even though Sept. 11 is included in today's results.  Bush is only leading by .8 points in today's poll!  I'm guessing a combination of the North Korea explosion, news about Bush's guard service, and bad news from Iraq have hurt Bush.  Kerry was almost certain to have been ahead in yesterday's calls alone.

Basically, ignoring the artificial 9/11 bounce, Kerry is ahead.  I am predicting that once calls placed on Sept. 11 fall out, Kerry will be ahead in this poll again.  This will happen on the results provided on Sept. 15, this Wednesday, which will have the results of calls placed on Sept. 12th, 13th, and 14th.

Kerry will completely have erased Bush's SBVFT/convention/Sept. 11th bounce in this poll on Sept. 15 and be in positive territory again.

http://www.gmi-mr.com/en/worldpoll/press_room_wppk_qr.phtml

I posted this poll over in the "The World Likes Kerry" thread...but they asked a question of American voters I haven't seen much in other polls: Are you going to vote differently this time than last?

They asked (in two seperate polls, one in July, one in August)people who voted for Bush (and Gore) in 2000 who they would vote this time.

In July, 10% of Bush 2000 voters said they will vote for Kerry, and 14% were unsure.  Just 4% of Gore voters in July said they will vote for Bush this time, with 10% unsure.

In August, 14% of Bush 2000 voters said they will vote for Kerry, with 12% unsure.  5% of Gore voters in August said they were voting for Bush this time, with 9% unsure.

So, in the August poll, only 74% of Bush 2000 voters are certain to do so again-while 86% of Gore voters are positive about going with Kerry.

I have always believed that there were Bush voters who changed thier minds, but very few who went the other way.  This proves this theory, at least in my mind.

Since the last election was, basically, a tie, this means Bush loses.  There is no way around this, unless Rove really is able to get out more of his base (or he cheats)-and a higher percentage than we are able (I expect higher turn out by both sides this time, at least in their bases-some moderate or fiscal conservatives may be turned off by Bush, so that may hurt him, too).  Plus Nader is weaker this time-a few of his votes will bleed into the Kerry column.

Logically, Kerry is a shoo-in.  Still, we must pretend he actually is down by ten and campaign accordingly, even if he, in fact, is winning.

(Geotpf is right. According to the latest poll from Alabama, conducted by Capital Survey Research Center/Alabama Education Association, (Aug. 30-31, 2004, N=482 likely voters statewide, MoE ± 4.5), Kerry leads 34-1-1 over Nader and Moore, with 63% undecided.--Chris)

I think he can defeat Nader, Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka easily.  See, you have to have a nominee before August 31 to get on the Alabama ballot, according to: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ , and Bush wasn't nominated by that time.  So Bush is off the ballot, so Kerry wins!  Yeahhh!

(Of course I'm kidding-I'm sure, just like in Illinois, they will change the rules to let Bush get on the ballot.  Hell, the rules don't apply to Republicans, anyways, right?)

Update (Chris): Okay, apparently Alabama has changed the law to accommodate the extremely late GOP convention. It certainly would have been nice if the Bush campaign had been forced to spend resources in order to win Alabama as a write-in campaign, however.

Obviously, they are willing to commit your standard garden variety smear tactics and dirty tricks, such as SBVFT.  But does anybody actually think they will commit massive, organized voter fraud (via electronic voting machines or other methods)?  Or maybe take it one step further, and kill a few hundred US citizens, and call it a "terrorist" attack?

I personally don't think either will occur...but I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the subject.