Phil Mickelson is clearly the most likeable of the Big 4 golfers, not that great an accomplishment considering the other three all have the charisma of boiled tofu.  Yes, Tiger's game is exciting and that makes him a good spokesperson for "just do it" Nike.  But if you're a corporation looking primarily for an image makeover, you'd go for big teddy bear Phil, with the "oh shucks" grin and the good looking family of blondes that surrounds him on the 18th green after a win.  That's why Exxon chose Phil to be its spokesman for its Masters ad campaign and why I stopped rooting for him about halfway through Sunday's telecast.

Though this is partly idle wishful thinking, I'm also curious what is motivating people to unseat Bush.

You can trade the presidential election online at tradesports.com (and maybe other sites I don't know about), which also gives the option of trading on a state by state basis, ie, who will win each state and its electoral votes.  The trade is presented as the odds that Bush will win that state.  I like to follow the online odds as these are people who are putting their money where their mouth is which I value more than normal polls.

Based on the data at tradesports as of today:

1. Bush would win the election with 278 electoral votes to 260 votes for the democratic opponent.  That's very very close.
2. There are only 7 states where the vote is close. The democrat has a lead of less than 10% in 5 states: Iowa, Michigan, Penn, West Va, and Wisconsin, which totals 60 electoral votes.  Bush has a lead of less than 10% in 2 states:  New Hampshire and New Mexico, which total 9 votes. This means the dems have more at risk in key swing states and its ticket must hold onto slim leads in several rust belt states to even have a chance.
3. According to the betting, Bush now has fairly comfortable leads in Florida, Ohio and Missouri (if you don't agree, go to the site and place a bet and make money).  It seems the dems must pick up one of these states to win.
4. Overall this shows me what a polarizing figure Bush is as there are so many states that are clearly Blue or Red, regardless of who the dem candidate turns out to be.  I'll keep people posted as to changes as the ticket becomes clearer.

The site also has Kerry as 88% favorite to win the nomination, so true believers in Edwards could make good money there as well.

My last diary entry has stirred a little debate as to why Gore lost and what the democratic candidate should avoid doing this time around against the same guy.

Before last night I thought Edwards' chances of catching Kerry were close to zero.  Now I'm not so sure.  It's not just Edwards' strong 2nd place finish - after all 2nd place is still 2nd place.  It was the speeches afterwards.  Smartly, Kerry bumped Edwards off the media stage. He succeeded in shutting off an effective speaker, but unfortunately that meant making us listen to him.

MESSAGE TO OUT OF TOUCH DEMOCRATS -- We do not want to hear a laundry list of issues that your pollsters tell you Americans are concerned about - for the following reasons.

1. It's boring.
2. Americans are not that stupid.  We know that someone who thinks they can promise every American great health care, a great education, a job for everyone in every industry, and good looking, well behaved kids is a liar and we don't like liars.
3.  For better or worse the Reagan revolution happened and the subtext behind the typical liberal laundry list "I'm going solve all your problems" speech is "I'm going to raise your taxes so gov't can solve all your problems" and even Bush haters don't want their taxes raised because the economy is tough right now for avg people.

Yes I want to know how candidates stand on key issues and I generally want to hear the opposite of how Bush/Cheney is going about it.  But more importantly I want to know who you are, your basic values and principles, do I relate to you? Because deep down voters want to elect someone like themselves.

Gore should have won easily.  He had 8 years of peace and prosperity behing him.  He was a boy scout.  He was the best of Clinton w/o the slickness. Though considered boring, he had a history of winning campaigns. But then he stood up at the democratic convention and gave his laundry list speech and continued giving it throughout the campaign. He opened himself up to the liberal charge and the boring charge, and even a pompous first born from a republican dynasty came across as the more populous, blue collar candidate.  I see Kerry making the same mistake.

If you could do a "character" or "substance" catscan of the candidates, I think Kerry would show more density inside than Edwards.  But if Kerry doesn't change his stump speech soon, I think the ABB crowd should switch to Edwards as our best bet.

Best Supporting Actor - Max Clelan.  

Thank God Kerry dumped Kennedy and had Clelan by his side at the podium.  If democrats think that having an old-time liberal fatcat like Kennedy next to you will be a plus in key swing states next fall, they deserve to lose.  Plus Clelan deserves the attention after the dirty tricks played on him last election.

Best Actresses - The Kerry Women

His wife and daughters are bright, articulate and attractive.  The help neutralize his aloofness.  He should have them around as much as possible.

Best Romance -- Not Kerry-Edwards

A ticket of two Washington senators would be a disaster.  Doesn't matter that Edwards is likeable, Americans hate DC politicians - that's how Bush got in and maintains his popularity.  One senator on the ticket is pushing it.

Best Comedy -- The Media saying it's over

What if South Carolina were last night and NH was lost in the mix next week? Or any number of other states where Kerry will likely trail both Edwards and Clark?  Edwards and Clark will get a boost next week and be in this for awhile, and Dean still has money and the power of denial.