One state, two state, red state, blue state -- a map of electoral votes

Phrases I will be happy not to hear again after the election

Red state/Blue state
Talking points

Do you have others? Tell me about them.

The legend for this map should be pretty self-explanatory. The redder the state, the more it went for the Republicans; the bluer the state, the more it went for the Democrats. All Nader votes were assumed to be Gore votes (in practice, this is a bit unrealistic, as Nader will still probably get 1-2% in the upcoming election, and a few votes were probably from wacky wraparound Republicans, but it is a decent starting point). As I mentioned before, Bush's travel schedule has him on the defensive; he hasn't made any visits to Iowa or Wisconsin or Minnesota recently at all.

The deepest colored states are those that went in favor of their candidate for 10% or more, the next lightest, between 5-10%, and the lightest, 0-5%. Here is the breakdown of electoral votes by how committed those states are to their candidate.

It looks like Kerry is in slightly better shape than Bush -- the Democrats must defend only 92 electoral votes, while the Republicans must defend 126.

Josh Marshall is going through the same mental gymnastics that I am regarding gay marriage. The Republican's language is really straight out of the 1960s and 1970s. Step 1 is to blame the courts; since the courts, as unelected bodies, can easily be blamed for ignoring the popular will of the people and promoting their own agenda (to some extent, this is the reason we have courts -- as a safety valve against majority tyrrany and legislative stupidity). Step 2 is to re-cast civil disobedience as law-breaking (I have mixed feelings about this one; personally, I always prefer more traditional channels for alterning the law). Having not lived through any of the 1960s, I can't actually tell if this is in fact playing out in the same fashion. But if it is, it's another potential wedge for progressive causes. I think, at least politically and electorally, that the backlash from the 1960s (and 1970s) is very, very, real, considering the legislative and judicial assault on abortion and civil rights, among other things. Thus it would seem to me that it is Edwards, not Kerry, who has the more pragmatic progressive stance on the gay rights issues; he opposes gay marriage (though he is always careful to say that this is personal opinion), he doesn't talk about civil unions, and he supports "moving forward" by providing domestic partnership benefits for committed same-sex couples. Kerry, meanwhile, actively has to come out against gay marriage, not just on a personal level but as a matter of policy.

On one hand, it's really hard to argue with pictures of ordinary Americans smiling and hugging and putting rings on each other's hands. On the other hand, given the stigma attached to homosexuality just 15 years ago, these pictures aren't entirely "ordinary". On one hand, token steps towards improved gay rights seem like the safe way to go. On the other hand, books like 58 Lonely Men document that the schools most successful in integrating peacefully were those that integrated most quickly, and with the most direct support from local political leaders and law enforcement. On one hand, gay characters are appearing frequently in the media; be it on TV, the movies, or books. On the other hand, it's not like the people getting married look like Carson, or Thom, or Willow, or even Kerry Weaver.