I was looking around at the site http://www.uselectionatlas.org/, and it's weird but true that in many states which John Kerry lost, he got a higher % of the vote than Bill Clinton did when he ran the first time around. For isntance, these are all states Kerry lost Ohio: '92: Clinton 40% (W) '04: Kerry 49% Florida '92: Clinton 39% (L) '04: Kerry 47% Colorado '92: Clinton 40% (W) '04: Kerry 47% North Carolina '92: Clinton 42.5% (L) '04: Kerry 43.5% Texas '88: Dukakis 43% (WTF?!) '92: Clinton 37% (L) '04: Kerry 38% So what the hell? Did Clinton's Clintonesque qualities actually have nothing at all to do with the fact that he won? States like Louisiana and Kentucky went for Clinton in higher percentages than Kerry obviously, but people in places like Colorado and Ohio seemingly liked Kerry ALOT more than Clinton, or at least hated Bush II alot more than Bush I... Could it be, that in American politics, being Clintonian doesn't much matter unless you happen to have 2 viable opponents, and that people in places like Ohio infact aren't turned off as badly by North-eastern Liberals, and don't like traditional Southern values Democrats quite as much?