CO   RNC +3.4	    (DNC +5.5)
FL   RNC +2.2	    (RNC +1.7)
NV   DNC +0.5	    (DNC +4.6)
OH   DNC +0.7	    (DNC +4.7)
NM   DNC +1.7	    (DNC +2.2)
IA   DNC +2.1	    (DNC +2.6)
WI   DNC +3.6	    (DNC +3.9)

Alaska:

Candidate : Votes : Percentage

2000
Bush : 167,398 : 58.62%
Gore : 79,004 : 27.67%
Nader : 28,747 : 10.07%

2004
Bush : 151,876 : 61.70%
Kerry : 86,064 : 34.96%
Nader : 3,890 : 1.58%

and Oregon:

Candidate : Votes : Percentage

2000
Gore : 720,342 : 46.96%
Bush : 713,577 : 46.52%
Nader : 77,357 : 5.04%

2004
Kerry : 879,520 : 51.25%
Bush : 812,025 : 47.32%
Write-ins : 8,169 : 0.48%

Alaska seems rather weird, but that is probably because turnout as a whole seems to have gone down (votes not all counted yet?). In 2004 Alaska, Kerry is the only one of Nader/Kerry/Bush that got more votes than in 2000. I have to think that lots of those votes came from 2000 Nader voters, and not all from new voters or 2000 Bush voters.

In Oregon, Nader wasn't on the ballot this time, which I have to think is a significant amount of the reason that Kerry gained 160K votes over Gore 2000, while Bush only gained 100K votes over Bush 2000. A lot of that 60K difference in vote gains, I would think, is from 2000 Nader voters going for Kerry.

The position of the party at midterm seems to be better than the 'doom and gloom'.

My crystal ball has Santorum facing Ed Rendell
in PA and you can see we made gains there.

My understanding is that even if a Court opening came tomorrow you're looking at a lengthy delay in confirmation. I don't think there would be more than one hearing happening at once.

So on the prediction that Rhenquist is the first to go. They gain nothing really till after 2006.

We will see...

1. We wavered in our role as the opposition in the face of 9/11, making ourselves look weak.

2. As good and worthy of an individual as he is, we fielded the wrong candidate.

3. We allowed ourselves to get victimized by a wedge issue.

4. We were up against terrible demographics in the Senate races.

5. We were up against an incumbent candidate in a time of perceived national crisis.

6. We have not marketed our brand effectively

1. We let the issue of the Iraq war split us right down the middle. In 1991, when the case for war was clearly much stronger, we voted almost monolithically against the war. What happened to us this time? Where were our leaders? We will never EVER beat the Republicans by trying to be like them. I hope this lesson convinces us of that. Instead of caving in to the Rove Machine impugning our patriotism for not voting the way we wanted to, we should ALL have impugned theirs for trampling on the institutions we are founded on. Spinelessness NEVER pays.

2. Kerry was just not the man to take down George Bush. He was weak where George Bush was weakest, on Iraq, and also weak where George Bush was strongest, in appealing to evangelical white protestants, especially in the South. On Iraq, he was obviously weak because he voted for the initial war resolution. As much as he contorted himself to show he had had a consistent position, he could not escape the label of flip-flopper. If he really had reservations about the war, he should not have given W carte blanche when he did. As it is, he he could not run strongly on the disaster in Iraq, because he was thoroughly hoist upon his own petard. What we needed was a candidate with a strong military resume who had been against this war from the start. Due to item 1 above, we did not have one. On the appeal to the Good Old Boys, the case is obvious. This has NOTHING to do with ideology. It is purely a question of visceral trust. That is why Clinton did so well. HE has that smooth Southern charm, to which Kerry's stiff patrician demeanor is the diametrical opposite. This matters, people. Therefore, we MUST MUST MUST not even THINK aboput trying to run Hillary Clinton in 2008.

3. The issue of gay marriage should NEVER have been on the table in this election cycle. It is our fault and our fault alone that it was. First, let me proclaim clearly, living in Berkely, CA, that I am 100% for gay marriage. I sympathize very strongly with my gay friends who cannot enjoy the privileges and societal sanction of their committed relationships that are conferred by it. BUT THIS WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE TIME TO BRING IT UP!! Here in SF, I blame Gavin Newsom the most. Why did he have to start performing Guerilla Gay Marriages in March? SF has GREAT domestic partners statutes. Couldn't he have waited until November? Barbara boxer, who I have no doubt is personally in favor of gay marriage, was forced to come out against it by this self-aggrandizing punk. In the same vein, why didn't the DNC or whoever find the individuals who sued for gay marriage in Massachusetts and alternately ply tham with huge promises and death threats to keep this from getting to the supreme court until now? Surely, the litigants in question were Democrats. Why were they not coerced to come to Jesus? The result for both them and Newsom now, is that in their childish impatience to put their issue to the test, they have put off getting what they want for at least four years, and maybe for decades. The mnoral of the story is that we need to have PARTY DISCIPLINE. Peolle who are pushing third-rail issues like this and drug decriminalaztion need to be FORCED to STFU during importan election cycles. The Republicans are VERY good at this. Until we become so, we can expect to keep getting creamed. I reccommend we start by breaking Gavin Newsom's kneecaps, and then similarly punish any future loose cannons in the same fashion.

4. What can you say about this? We had more seats in contention than they did, and practically all of ours were in solid red states. It doesn't get any worse than that, and it won't be next time, although geting beat by both a rankly nepotistic appointment and a patently senile man hurts.

5. This just is what it is. There is not a damn thing we could do about this.

6. The Rockridge institute, Air America Radio, Move On. We need more and more and more institutions like this to help us develop our marketing strategy and push our talking points. EVERYBODY needs to read George Lakoff's book on framing the debate, Don't Think of an Elephant. The Republicans have been working on this one for decades. We need to get busy NOW.