Sullivan points out that some maps projecting the candidates’ electoral votes at this time four years ago were wildly wrong as predictions of the outcome, which ought to send cold shudders through every Obamaite in the country for a couple reasons. First, the electoral maps are only representations of the polling at the time, and most polling (except for reliable operations such as Rasmussen) in mid-2004 did show Kerry with sizeable leads. John Zogby, to his everlasting embarrassment, was predicting a Kerry landslide on Election Night itself. Oops. Second, Kerry’s lead earlier in the year in many polls gradually evaporated over the summer and fall, which reflected the typical erosion of support for the candidate from the non-incumbent party. What does this mean? It means that Obama’s continued weak levels of support in reputable national tracking polls (he continues to trail in both Gallup and Rasmussen this week) and his anemic polling in many swing states should be worrying his supporters a lot more than they are, and it may mean that Obama’s results on Election Day may be much worse than what those electoral maps are projecting today. Just as polls are not predictive, but are a rough measurement of opinion at the time they are taken, these electoral maps are not predictive, and we all understand that things will change between now and Election Day. The rather grim thing for Obama boosters to consider is that the change is more likely to be for the worse for their candidate than it will be for the better.