Redstate

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

there are in Ohio. The GOP was very corrupt in that state and really caused a lot of anger.

I imagine things will tighten up a lot before the general election.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Look at the polling history. Prior to the Jeremiah Wright controversy Obama and Hillary were running about the same distance behind McCain.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/19/obama-tumbles-in-kentucky/

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The corruption scandals in the Ohio GOP turned off a lot of voters. Bob Ney's ties to Jack Abramoff, etc.

In 2006, incumbent Republican Mike DeWine was decisively defeated by ultra-liberal Democrat Sherrod Brown, suggesting that Ohio has now swung Democrat.

This is why the GOP must find ways to appeal to some Blue States. They probably can't win by playing Karl Rove's "Red States Plus Ohio" playbook anymore. This time, Ohio may well vote Democrat.

We also just voted out the first Republican governor in thirty or more years over a hiring scandal that otherwise amounted to nothing. Lots of heavy coverage of that on the local news, so could be lingering resentment over Gov. Fletcher.

--
This too shall pass.

...we do have a tendency to default to nominating the guy whose turn it is. Conservatives are also pretty much resigned to being half-out, even when we're in (which is why 2007 was such a great year for the GOP), which does nothing to cheer us up - but does quite a bit for helping us dispassionately decide when it's time to debride the wound.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm not sure what kind of rallying there will be in the Democrat Party. While McCain was not well liked, I don't think we had enough time to get a lot of polls of Republicans asking "If your guy doesn't win will you vote for whoever does?" and finding large numbers who said absolutely not.

The Democrats have gotten much more intense and harsh than the Republicans really got, and it is showing up in polling where large chunks (25-35%) of voters say they won't vote for the other guy if their guy loses. And in the Democrats case it should be more concerning.

Take Obama - he's very liberal, a little bit insulated in that urban elite and thus out-of-touch with "real people" like those blue-collar, slightly conservative working class folks in Kentucky, WV, Southern Ohio, etc. The general election polling is clearly bearing out the nomination race polls - those voters are not looking like they will flock to Obama after Denver. In fact, given the "moderation" of McCain, I think they will find McCain a better fit for them than Obama. Some may just stay home - leading to polling in a place like KY showing Clinton close and Obama getting blown out. Or, to date, big differences in Florida (perhaps related to some Obama weakness on Israel). Ohio also shows a significant distinction.

On the other hand Clinton doesn't excite people the way Obama does. Clinton may not be able to hold on to many of the young idealists who think Obama is the second coming. Young people are notoriously fickle - and we saw how well Kerry did relying on a surge in the youth vote. Obama is also increasing participation in the black community. The enthusiasm may also wane there meaning Clinton might lose votes but McCain won't necessarily pick them up. This is probably best evidenced in Oregon, where there are plenty of nutter lefty kids. It also shows in the fact that Obama runs better in NC and SC than Clinton (perhaps on increased black turnout).

Clinton may actually be in a better position - with her the Obama voters just disappear from the electorate and fail to show up, where Obama might actually cause Clinton people to not only fall away from the Democrats but actually cross over and vote for McCain. As I noted in comments on the latest Election Projection thread, she starts from a stronger position in all 3 of the "big 3" of PA, OH and FL - she leads PA, she has a slight edge in OH and she runs closer in FL. Obama - according to the project basically concedes FL, has sunk to a tie in PA and is trailing in OH. Democrats can't afford a repeat of the maps in 2000 and 2004 - they should be going with the person who is stronger on "red state" turf and working on bringing traditional blue states (like MI, WI, OR, and WA) back, then sticking with the guy who only starts with states that are already blue and has to convince people in red states to change their mind and vote for a guy even more liberal than John Kerry.

You'd better believe the superdelegates are being explained just that you said in your last paragraph, too.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm not sure what kind of rallying there will be in the Democrat Party. While McCain was not well liked, I don't think we had enough time to get a lot of polls of Republicans asking "If your guy doesn't win will you vote for whoever does?" and finding large numbers who said absolutely not.

The Republican bloc that is really alienated to McCain, possibly beyond repair, is the Michelle Malkin/Tom Tancredo angry nativist bloc. This is the bunch that walks around decrying "shamnesty" (was Michelle Malkin the one who invented that word?) and calling for the end of bilingual telephone answering system menus.

Democrats can't afford a repeat of the maps in 2000 and 2004

Democrats have a good chance at picking up Ohio and Virginia, as well as holding on to all the Blue States that Kerry won. They also have a shot at a couple of Southwest states like Nevada and New Mexico, due to heavy Hispanic voting. If they win all that, they win the White House. Unless McCain can counter by winning Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

McCain is actually well liked (for a Republican) in the Hispanic community, so he might be able to blunt the Democrat thrust in the Southwest. But it's going to be fun to see how Michelle Malkin's nativists react to McCain wooing the Hispanic community of the Southwest.

There's still a lot of white blue-collar people in the Northeast that are of the "Reagan Democrtas" but are not the upscale-college educated demographic that supports Obama. There was actually a lot of movement in the region away from Kerry in 2004, with Bush losing New Jersey in 2004 by only 6% whereas he had lost by 16% in 2000. It is not surprising to see McCain competitive in the northeast, especially against Obama.

I appreciate the insight.

"we all know he's not a diehard for the anti-immigration efforts. Divine providence? Fortitious Chaos? I don't know."

First, I don't think he has tried to embrace an "anti-immigration effort." He has moved to an enforcement first approach to illegal immigration but he has never and still doesn't support lowering legal immigration numbers. Further, he always supported enforcement provisions. The only change has been to do things in sequence instead of simultaneously.

Second, while I give God some credit for our good fortune, I would like to claim a little credit for helping with the outcome. I know I spent a not insubstantial amount of funds, time, effort, etc on helping the Senator during the primary. I was not alone on RS or elsewhere but it's not like we were numerous in the blogging community.

As for the analysis of competitiveness, I think what you're really seeing is the Kerryification of Obama. People thought he was something new and better. But with such a meager voting record, every comment (especially unrehearsed ones) will be parsed for meaning. And the Wright/"cling"/flag pin/Ayers incidents and statements make him look much more like a standard leftist (and a far cry from the Mr. Clintonian center-left). His anti-trade offense makes him look like a typical panderer who should know better.

So as Obama becomes "just another politician" who does he attract: 1) the true believers who are mainly young voters, 2) blacks, 3) college town professor types who vote on social issues but dislike that some poor people do the same.

That combination of rich whites, young people, and blacks is a strong portion of the Democratic electorate. That being said, if he didn't have the black portion, he would be like several other past D candidates who didn't make it out of a primary (see Gary Hart). Those people did poorly with working class whites as well.

The Appalachian stretch has been very much Mrs. Clinton territory. And I think it is this region where the Democratic switch-overs from Clinton in the primary to McCain in the general is most likely. KY, TN, WV, and AR wouldn't be competitive in McCain-Obama. And OH, PA and MI would be more likely to go McCain.

On the other hand, Obama's young professional and upscale white base helps notably in OR, WA, CO, and NJ. The combo of those groups and blacks makes NC and VA both interesting.

Really, it's two different maps depending on the nominee. Personally, I'd prefer to face Clinton because I think she understands people different than herself and she's tested. She understands foreign policy even if I don't agree with her.

I think Obama's out of his league, unprepared, contemptuous of people different than himself, and shows poor judgment in choosing his church, his friends, his political allies, and his acquiescence with radical leftism in both Wright and Ayers. Since I don't have a long voting record to assess, those judgments (not leaving his church or keeping his children away, going to a fundraiser at a terrorists home) loom much larger.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

At 15 EVs it would make up almost entirely for any loss of IA, NM and NV (which total 17 EVs). Especially if Obama continues to struggle in FL and OH.

California would be nice, but if you ask me, I think we will probably know who won before California comes in. On the other hand, if NJ, OH and FL all came in for McCain early in the night it would probably depress Obama voters across the country. Ot could be as good for us in getting Democrats to stay home in CO, NV, CA and OR as calling FL early in 2000 was good for getting panhandle conservatives to stay home (thus causing the whole recount in the first place).

Those are the early states that if they go McCain would signal a great evening. They have 15, 20, and 18 electoral votes (IIRC). Those are big pickups. Of course OH, VA, and FL are the Bush states that will be watched for a shift the other way.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

....however, I highly doubt Virginia and/or Florida can be picked off, especially if the nominee is Obama. He is VERY weak in Florida.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

McCain has no shot at California. None. Don't even try.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

To win California, McCain would have to capture a sizable majority of the independent voters (who do constituted a substantial portion of the registered voters) and get a strong vote from the shrinking Republican base.

I think you're correct that McCain alone wouldn't be able to do this. He thus would need help. One possiblity would be a Democratic implosion, but then McCain won't need California in an electoral landslide.

The other is Arnie - and that's quite an if: if Arnie decides to throw strong support to McCain (well, they both are GW believers), and if Arnie in the upcoming budget dispute manages to come out a public hero. Right now, Arnie doesn't have enough clout to turn the tide.

So in brief, today - no chance. November - depends on factors outside of McCain.

And Rightly So!

McCain outperforms other Republicans among Hispanics in Arizona and Obama underperforms other Democrats among Hispanics in Illinois. They say Democrats need to win Hispanics 2:1 to win statewide in California. I bet McCain can eat into that. The question is whether he can overtly court the Hispanic vote without angering the conservative base.

Asian voters are a huge demographic in California - a larger group than African Americans. They went solidly for Kerry in 2004, but very strongly for Schwarzeneggar in 2006, and were also solidly in Hillary's camp in the primary (3:1 advantage for her over Obama). McCain could win this group.

Any time he tries to do anything that the Democrats and their union buddies don't want him to do, he fails.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

In the recall election, the Ds split. The Davis people were telling people to leave the election half blank, and just to vote no on the recall.

The Bustamante people were saying No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante.

So who knows.

As for the re-election, well, all the strong Ds backed off that year.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I also agree CA shouldn't get any campaign money (esp. with the limited budget). But Arnie does speak to the exact voters who could throw the election to McCain. He does occupy the "middle" to "center-left" part of the voting spectrum. If he spent time and energy, he could make it possible.

But what does he get for doing it. Partisan Rs aren't going to like him anymore. Perhaps he runs for SEN in 2010 (I'd support him against Boxer) and gets President McCain support in return for his help in 2008.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"But what does he get for doing it. Partisan Rs aren't going to like him anymore. Perhaps he runs for SEN in 2010 (I'd support him against Boxer) and gets President McCain support in return for his help in 2008."

I would like to see him run for the Senate, but rumor has it that he is not interested. Perhaps he might be interested in a cabinet position.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---