I have a forthcoming article in The Free Radical entitled"Bush Wins!," which I'll be delighted to share with my L&P audience after it is published. The gist of the article is expressed in its conclusion:

Other things being equal, voters are not going to choose Kerry, when they’ve already got in Bush a Republican dedicated to all the conventional Democratic planks: an expanding welfare state, budget deficits, and a war abroad. A long and potentially nasty campaign beckons; the race may center on 17 battleground states that are not yet claimed by either candidate and so much can happen between now and Election Day. But, as of this moment, I still think Bush wins.

Yes, I know: This could be one of those"Dewey Defeats Truman" moments, as I say in my article. But I do find it interesting that in today's NY Times, people from various parts of the political spectrum conclude, as I do, that Bush and Kerry have much more in common than either camp would have you believe. Check out this news item, this Nicholas Kristof Op-Ed piece, and this William Safire essay, all of which point to what Safire calls"the Bush-Kerry Nondebate."