You really think that Mass. Dem voters will go against their own, still-sitting Senator? If they do, that's one hell of a repudiation of both him and his policies.

When was the last time they elected a Democrat governor?

Raoul - MA has elected a GOP governor since Dukakis in 1988. If Kerry is in really sad shape come November don't discount the possibility. Some MA are stilling rueing being the only state to vote for McGovern.

Obviously, I believe Bush will win in November, but I'm not optimistic enough to say that it will be 50-0. But as far as Massachusetts, don't forget that Gore lost Tennessee in 2000, so it wouldn't be the first time in recent memory that a state decided that one of their own was too left wing for the West Wing.

In '96 both Clinton and Kerry won in MA. But Kerry got 20 points less than Clinton.

And Ed - McGovern took MA, but *not* his home state (whatever that was).

Kerry's got McGovern's foreign policy (against a far less unpopular and screwed-up war), Mondale's economic policy (in far better economic times) and Dukakis's regional bas (at a time when the Northeast has a smaller proportion the nation's population).

I was going to say he has Dukakis' charisma, but that would be unfair to the Duke, who managed to project an illusion of wonkish competence as long as he stayed away from military equipment.

The worse Kerry's prospects look nationally come late October, the more likely Massachusetts voters might desert their own senator (or to be more specific, the more likely it is Kerry partisans won't bother to go to the voting booth, since there aren't any major downballot races in the state this November -- barring a vote on a gay marriage amendment, and that's not likely to favor the senator, either).

Don't count your landslides before they hatch. The country is a LOT more polarized than it was in '84, and the media even moreso, so while Bush has done as much for America as Reagan ever did, he's gotten none of the credit that Reagan did, and the press wasn't openly aiding Mondale the way they are aiding Kerry now. Gore losing a red state like Tennessee is a lot different than Kerry losing a blue state like Mass. He has the Kennedy on his side and as contemptible as he is, in Mass. they follow him like sheep. Kerry will win Mass, the rest of New England, Jersey, California and New York, but the rest of Gore's states are in play and there's not a single state Bush won in '00 that Kerry has a prayer of taking. That's not a landslide, but it's not something Kerry can win without divine (or diabolic) intervention.

Mark:

Yes, in '84 it wasn't polarized because there were so few Republicans.

Unless it collapses completely, the Kerry campaign is going to put some effort into winning Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and West Virginia, if for no other reason than to keep Bush &co on the defensive somewhere.

NH has a popular Republican governor and senator up for re-election--Kerry'd be wasting his money.

Kerry has no chance in NH. Nationally Bush will likely win but it isn't going to be a landslide. Nader will drop out in October and endorse Kerry, unless the polls show Nader at 6% or better.

Nader is irrelevant - he will be lucky to poll over 2%. Even in states like WI and ME he won't go over 4-5% (presuming he can get on the ballot). Bush will win CA and the election will be a yawner. The only real question is Senate seats like Boxer, Daschle, Murray, and open (LA). Too bad Schumer isn't vulnerable.