"after Florida's 25 electoral votes were awarded to Bush" - this meme will never die apparantly.
Agree with OJ - hard to think of state that Bush won in '00 that are in play (even the close ones like Florida) and easy to think of states Gore won that Bush is ahead in or can win.

Only 500 votes and non-cooperative weather made the difference in NM.

Wonder how many pubbies were kicking themselves that night, well along w/the FLA panhandlers who decided the race was over.

There was a FL poll about a week or 10 days ago, which showed Bush leading each of the Democratic candidates by at least 20 points. Granted, it is early and people will focus on the elections next year, but at this point, Bush can have the luxury of focusing on turnig the "Blue" states that were close in 2000 (IA, MN, WI, NM, and OR) and pour money and effort to tie down Dems in states such as WA, CA, and NY. (Remember, the last CA poll showed Bush essentially tied with Clark in the state.)

NH, WV come to mind. OH may be in play for dems too. This is a close election for both sides. Bush may be doing well overall but PA is untouchable and close states from 2000 like IA, MN, WA are unlikely to be achievable without Nader in the mix.

close states from 2000 like IA, MN, WA are unlikely to be achievable without Nader in the mix.

Pawlenty had no problem in Minnesota with an Independence Party candidate's taking 16% of the vote, and Coleman won two weeks after Wellstone's death (don't know who that ended up helping) with an IP candidate's getting 42,000 votes.

NH went solid GOP in the '02 elections and should still be in Bush's corner. Not sure about WV. As for the others, I believe that Bush would do better in '04 simply by 2 major questions about him in '00 going away - the DWI issue and the gravitas issue. These alone would help Bush win these close states even without Nader. Factor in the economy and WOT and he should carry these states.

Another interesting "census-demographic" factoid is that the "Red-shift" would have been even greater (I think another 8 or 10 votes) were congressional districts allocations reflected only the citizen population (as opposed to all heads, including those here illally).

PA is "untouchable" for Bush? He only lost it by four points in 2000, and his daddy caried the state in 1988. If OH is in play for the Dems, PA is at least equally in play for the Repubs.

My guess is that Bush arrives at election day with unemployment at 5% and falling and inflation at 2% and steady. Which means he wins big. Especially if he runs against Howard "I want to raise EVERYBODY'S taxes" Dean. I would predict a PA win for Bush with those economic numbers.

The only two possible derailments: a major terrorist attack on American soil that can be credibly blamed on Bush, and/or an ENORMOUS increase in American casualties in Iraq, to something approaching Vietnam 1968 (three hundred dead a week).

The main priorities of the Bush administration are, very correctly, to avoid both of these possibilities. By election day American troop strength in Iraq will probably be a whole lot closer to current levels in Afghanistan instead of 1968 levels in Vietnam. So three hundred combat deaths a week don't look very likely.

The terrorist threat is obviously a lot harder to defuse. But a whole lotta people in this administration are working on nothing else but.

NH is the most Republican dominated state in the Union right now.

The Upper Left Washington will have not just Bush on the ticket, but an election for governor that's beginning to look winnable by the GOP (time for a change after several terms by Dems to screw things up along with one strong GOP candidate instead of the usual collection of dwarves fighting to see who gets to lose), and Patty Murray's attempt to secure a third term.

Yeah, it may end up going all Dem, but 1994 showed what can happen if the GOP tries. (Defeat of several incumbent congesscritters including Speaker Foley.) and we may be seeing the same dynamic-- Dems saying why bother, so it all comes down to how energized the GOP is about going out and voting.

O.J., Idaho. The Congressional Delegation is all R's. All major state office holders are R's. The state house and senate D's are in the minority.

I think my father-in-law and the majority of my law professors at the University of Idaho are the only D's in the state.

Small disagreement with Casey's comments: I find it hard to see a major terror attack on U.S. soil rebounding to the Democrat's advantage. For that to happen, a Democrat would have to be criticizing Bush for insufficient aggression against terrorists, and none are really doing that. I doubt if the average voter will see any of the 10 Dems (or Hillary!) as a better choice for Commander in Chief.

pchuck:

It's even more lopsided here: the whole congressional delegation; the governor, the Executive Council (very powerful and I think unique to NH); and both houses with tiny minorities for the Dems.

OJ: Things have changed considerably in a short time in New Hampshire. Wasn't Sheehan (D) just recently your governor? She really must have screwed up or was she just a fluke?

oj --

Indulge me. If someone told you that we would do without National Presidential Elections and the myriad senate races. Instead, we would run 100 simultaneous (something like parallel time lines) ballots with two choices GOP or DEM in either NH or in Idaho. Since this is a GOP wet dream, the rules are: GOP wins only if they win at least 95 simulations. Which state should we pick? (I think I go Idaho.)

MG:

Absolutely.

However:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/002679.html

A fluke. She ran way Right against weak GOP opponents. She also lost when she tried moving on to the Senate to John Sununu who had a bitter primary fight against Bob Smith.

NH doesn't have a sales or income tax, I believe Idaho has both. That trumps it.