If US Election Was Held Today,

If US Election Was Held Today,
Who Polls Say Would Win Presidency...

Current Polls Project A Razor-Thin Margin Of Victory For John Kerry,
But The Razor's Edge Could Cut Either Way By November

According to professional pollsters, the American electorate is so highly polarized in 2004 that only 3% are still undecided "swing-voters." So who's ahead in the presidential race? The answer depends on the specificity of the polls. In a three-man race between George Walker Bush, John Forbes Kerry, and Ralph Nader, the more generalized national polls currently show that Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry by an average of about +2%. [1] Nevertheless, if the presidential election was held today, the more specific state polls currently project that Mr. Kerry would win by a slim margin of 270 to 259 in our often-berated, little-understood Electoral College. [2] However, specific is better.

For instance, they show that Mr. Kerry holds a narrow lead in five states, and Mr. Bush holds a narrow lead in six states, all of which are so narrow that they're actually in "statistical dead heats" (i.e., each lead is less than or equal to the margin of error in each state's poll). Additionally, they show that the candidates are tied in Colorado. [3]

Hence, at least one dozen states can be categorized as key "battleground states" because they're literally "too close to call." Those twelve states are as follows (you'll find the leader, and then the percentage by which he's ahead, in parentheses):

Furthermore, the two major presidential candidates are maintaining a "weak lead" -- which is defined as "between +5% and +9%" -- in eleven states: (A) Mr. Kerry holds eight "weak leads" in Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington; and (B) Mr. Bush holds three "weak leads" in North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia. [4]

Three Conclusions: (1) In practical terms, this means the Democrats must turn out 100% of their voter base in twenty key states on November 2nd (i.e., in twelve key battleground states, plus eight states in which Mr. Kerry holds a "weak lead"); (2) Mr. Kerry's overall lead within the Electoral College is encouraging for Democrats, but it means very little predictively, because (a) the presidential election is NOT being held today, (b) his current slim leads in five of twelve too-close-to-call battleground states could evaporate as soon as next Friday, and thus (c) the Electoral College's dispositive outcome could tilt either way before Election Day; and (3) the national electorate's ideologically-polarized status is primarily caused by an underlying Urban-Rural Split, because state polls reveal the existence of a demographic dividing-line, wherein Kerry-Edwards tends to be ahead in predominantly Urban States with populations concentrated in metropolitan centers, whereas Bush-Cheney tends to be ahead in predominantly Rural States with populations dispersed over small towns and farming/ranching areas. [5] [6]

The Bottom Line: (A) This week's Republican Convention in NYC probably will produce a small "poll bounce" in favor of Bush-Cheney; (B) after which, the last foreseeable chance for Kerry-Edwards to recover their lead will arrive via this autumn's televised presidential and vice-presidential debates, which are more accurately characterizable as "pseudo-debates" or "jointly-held press interviews"; and (C) unless some election-altering "October Surprise" occurs (e.g., Osama bin Laden is arrested on All Hallow's Eve), Kerry-Edwards should be capable of closing the poll gap during their debates, but to do so, they must abandon their ineffective above-the-fray "Rose Garden" strategy by (i) taking the fight for domestic regime-change directly to the incumbents by highlighting their incompetent and corrupt performances, (ii) sharply differentiating the Kerry administration through wiser themes, fairer policies, and better plans, and (iii) pro-actively defining both themselves and their party's platform in highly-positive terms. [7] [8]

[1] See PollingReports.com's side-by-side comparison of the six most recent national polls for a three-man presidental race, which average out to a +2% lead for Mr. Bush, by clicking on these blue words: http://pollingreport.com The Latest Trial Heats: Bush/Kerry/Nader

[2] According to the US Constitution, the presidential candidate who wins the majority of the votes in each of the 50 states will receive 100% of that state's electoral votes -- the exact number of which are determined by the size of that state's population -- within the Electoral College. For instance, California has the most "votes" in the outcome-determinative Electoral College

because it has the largest population (i.e., 34 million people). Hence, a candidate could win the popular vote, yet lose in the Electoral College, as did Al Gore in 2000. See Electoral-Vote.com's results by clicking on these blue words:

[6] Why do the middle classes inside the Rural States regularly vote against their own self-interest? Hint: Republicans have been using highly-emotionalized wedge-issues to manipulate the "Heartlanders" into embracing a twisted version of pseudo-populism, which is inherently self-defeating because it results in the implementation of policies that are diametrically opposed to their economic interests. Better answers can be found in this brilliant book, so click on these blue words, then scroll down to read Amazon.com's reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/104-7862634-6351914?v=glance Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won The Heart Of America" (Metropolitan Books, 2004)

[7] Read John Nichols' 8-26-04 CommonDreams.org essay on the duopoly's exclusionary, overly-controlled, televised pseudo-debates by clicking on the blue words: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0826-05.htm Include Third-Party Candidates In Debates

[8] Of course, in a choice between the top three candidates, Ralph Nader is the only true progressive, and he would unquestionably make the best president. However, Mr. Nader cannot hope to win. Therefore, the author advocates voting for Senators Kerry and Edwards: (a) to end the kleptocratic Bushites' viciously social-Darwinist top-down class warfare against the have-nots and the barely-haves on behalf of their greedy-multimillonaire and predatory-billionaire clientele; (b) to prevent the bellicose Mr. Bush and his war-profiteering neocon chickenhawks from using their new tactical-battlefield and bunker-busting mini-nukes to wreak havoc and destruction in yet another unnecessary illegal war of aggression; and (b) hopefully, to restore our civil liberties and universal human rights under the rule of constitutional and international law.