Two former democrats who will be voting for Bush,
Maria, and Roger L. Simon's blog, brought this article to my attention: I'm a Democrat for Bush.

My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat. They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede.
Tax cuts for the rich? Kerry can roll them back with my blessing. It is not a matter that affects me greatly. The deficit? Perhaps he will reduce it, though I’m sceptical. Abortion rights? By all means, let’s hang on to them. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Good idea, I hope it works. Health? I would love to see more people insured. The death penalty? I’m against it even for terrorists, which puts me to the left of the Democrat candidate.
But, if Bush is ousted, there will be victory celebrations across the undemocratic Arab world. More “martyrs” will step forward, eager to play their part in the decline of the West. The fundamentalists are playing a long game: is Kerry? I suppose pollsters could classify me as a “security mom”: I have two children, aged four and seven. After the attacks of September 11 I feared we were entering a new, war-torn century. The peaceful years of my childhood, in contrast to the violence experienced by my parents’ generation, suddenly looked like the historic aberration.
I was standing next to the World Trade Center, gazing in horror at the torment above, when the towers collapsed. I was showered with pulverised masonry and the ashes of nearly 3,000 people. I decided fairly quickly that America was a beacon of freedom that needed defending against the anti-western, freedom-hating religious bigots and death cultists. I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown.

DenBeste has a statistically correct interpretation on poll results. Belmont Club interprets the results:

The most striking thing about the Kerry trend line is that it suggests a system that has been maxed out, like an engine which has reached the limit of its design. That suggests a far larger problem for Liberals then the mere weakness of a Kerry candidacy. To a substantial extent, Kerry is a proxy for an abstract candidate called 'Anybody But Bush'. The failure to get maximum acceleration when the Left needs it most could indicate that its traditional political instruments are losing traction. Celebrity endorsements, mainstream media support, favorable reviews from academia plus street events rooted in the old antiwar-civil rights movement -- the old winning combinations -- no longer have an overwhelming effect. That doesn't mean they have no effect. We will know whether Steven den Beste's long term trend lines are correct in a little over two weeks.

Mark Steyn remarks,

That's the difference: Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them the events would end up shaping him. There would be lots of discussion. Frenchmen would be involved. And, in the end, President Kerry could claim that however things turned out was what he wanted all along because, on Saddam and Iran and North Korea and a whole lot more, who the hell can say with confidence what Kerry wants anyway? How it would all turn out is anybody's guess. And on November 2 America won't be in a mood to vote for a guess.

Steyn isn't the only one realizing this. Matthew Manweller, a political science professor at Central Washington University points out that we are at a once-in-a-generation crossroads. Additionally, some of us really mind that Kerry's been getting endorsements from Mahathir Mohamad and the Palestinian Authority.

My friends aren't the only democrats voting for Bush, it looks like. The Kerry Spot says that in a poll with a majority of Democrats, Bush and Kerry tied at 46 each in New Jersey.