Estrada won't get through, but if he does thats meaningless. Bush's nominations of minorities do not have a political effect, except for immunity from attack by the democrats on that subject. Bush's political moves will come back and kill him.
I like Bill Nelson as Kerry's potential VP, I saw him yesterday on C-Span and I liked him. Picking Graham would be stupid, Kerry needs to break the deadlock by being younger and newer than Bush/Cheney. I think John Edwards would be an excellent pick as well. He has a phoenominal stump speech, and did surprisingly well here in New Hampshire among the educated voters! Or Evan Bayh?
The states are smart picks. Kerry would certainly win NH and I think New Hampshire if his VP pick is smart. I see it as essentially everyone who voted for Gore, who, lets be frank, was in many ways the lowest common denominator of a democrat, will vote for Kerry. Bush's voting support has I don't think increased, especially against Kerry who has full credentials, and looks presidential. I think Bush's increased support has come within his base, but will not be strong in states with a high percent of college graduates. Kerry's hunting attempts will put him in good shape in West Virginia and his story will do well in Ohio and Missouri.
The West will probably go for Kerry as well, unless Bush can get McCain to campaign for him with passion. Bush's environmental policy will be hard-felt for him there.
I wonder if McCain will break from the Bush camp, or stay neutral, or join Kerry. They are both veterans, senators, and both angry at the WMD situation, and think through many other issues.
Gore was not the lowest common denominator for a Democrat - he was the high water mark! He got more total votes than any Democrat who ever ran for President, and he got a bigger percentage of the vote than Clinton ever got. (Clinton only won because of Perot).
Gore got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton got in 1992, but lower than Clinton in 1996.
To suggest that Kerry will pick up every Gore vote is taking a lot for granted.
Gore was a sitting VP of a two-term Democratic administration with an economy still peaking. He campaigned as moderate on social/cultural issues, but as a liberal (government proposals) on the environment, education, and health.
Kerry has nowhere near the credentials of a Gore in 2000, and doesn't cover as much of the Democratic and independent moderate base. Even if the percentage of popular vote was the same in 2004 as 2000, Kerry could easily lose some of the states that Gore just managed to squeak out, while perhaps racking up bigger margins in the Northeast and Far West.
As far as McCain, I don't see him supporting a Democrat in 2004. Lieberman made some allusions to having McCain in his cabinet, which would have made sense - the two are not far off on a lot of issues, and have supported a lot of important bills together (I believe it was McCain who co-sponsored Homeland Security with Lieberman).
But McCain will campaign for the Republicans and wait for 2008.
