Why I am not worried about MN, Iowa and Wisconsin. Take a look

[Quixote1818]

Look who voted for LOOSER Dukakis in 1988 when he got a whopping 111 electoral votes! Also, who voted for Carter in 1980.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_ecmap.html

[yellowcanine]

1. That's nice but unfortunately demographics have changed.

It doesn't really mean anything.

[Awsi Dooger]

2. Exactly right, and that goes along with the charts I've posted many times

Indicating the partisan shifts in many states since '88, the Dukakis election.

Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin are 3 of the 4 states that have steadily trended away from us, along with Oregon. Those states are more bellwether states now than partisan Democratic. Oregon may reclaim some Democratic edge in 2004 without Nader on the ballot, and with Kerry the challenger, supposedly winning undecideds.

[FlaIndie]

3. * was supposed to win Iowa and Wisconsin in 2000

but it didn't happen then either. I don't think they turn red.

[0007]

5. I respectfully disagree with you, in this case the human

population and population segment won't have a thing to do with demographics.

[StupidFOX]

4. AWESOME! Kerry has OH and PA wrapped up, so along with MN, Iowa, and WI

I smell victory. It smells like a disgraced idiot

[ISUGRADIA]

6. Dukakis also carried WV with 55% of the vote...states

change. Still, me thinks all three for JK on Tuesday.