Are the Republicans Really Doomed?

Conventional Wisdom--Democrats will win the White House in 2008 in a landslide, increasing their majority in the House and picking up the seats needed to end the filibusters in the Senate.

Just makes you want to hide under a rock--I would say leave the country, but that is a Liberal reaction...after all, where would a true conservative go? Anywhere else in the capitalist world is much more Socialist than the US...we really have no choice but to stay (even with Hillary riding a Socialist wave into the White House)! I just wish the whackos that suffer from BDS (see last post--Bush Derangement Syndrome) would have been true to their word and left... we would be so much better off without them...

So, is the CW correct?

There are many reasons why I believe that it may not be a fait accompli--thank the Good Lord--however, I will look at just one now. My homestate of Ohio, in all of its purple splendor!

The magic number is 17...

Seventeen electoral votes switch, we have a tie in 2004, more than 17, Dems win.

So, let's look at the map. Which states are likely in play? Well, let's start with the ones which are most unlikely to move:

DEMS
The following 9 states had at least a 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): DC, MA, RI, VT, NY, MD, CA, IL, and CT
Total: 146 EVs

The following 6 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): HI, ME, WA, DE, NJ,and OR
Total: 44 EVs

REPS
The following 22 states had at least a 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): UT, WY, ID, NE, OK, AK, ND, AL, KS, TX, SD, IN, KY, MS, MT, GA, SC, LA, TN, WV, NC, and AZ
Total: 183 EVs

The following 5 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): VA, AR, MO, FL, and CO
Total: 66 EVs

THESE WILL NOT BE IN PLAY!!! (there are two possible, but unlikely, exceptions, both of which are not good for Dems--if Guliani is the nominee NJ and CT could be in play )

That leaves 9 states that were within 3 percentage points of switching
MN +3D, 10 EV
PA +2D, 21 EV
MI +2D, 17 EV
WI +1D, 10 EV
NH +1D, 4 EV
NM +1R, 5 EV
IA +1R, 7 EV
OH +2R, 20 EV
NV +3R, 5 EV

Republican states on the brink carry 37 electoral votes--but OHIO is the only one that matters. Even if the Dems keep all the states they carried in 04 and pick up NM, IA, and NV...they can only get an electoral tie (a whole new analysis needed here...).

Now, a Guliani nomination puts PA into play big time, and a Romney nomination puts NH into play as well...so, the chance for an electoral tie is minimized.

It comes down to Ohio--the Buckeye State. On the surface, this seems to be great news for the Democrat party. The Republican brand name there has been badly harmed--and is compounded by the State party's self-inflicted wounds. The combination led to a near-Democratic sweep in 2006 (the Republican candidate for State Auditor was the lone GOP winner statewide, and he took less than 51% of the vote).

So, why am I so optimistic at this point in time (and it is way to early to say that this is difinitive)? Well, I recently read about some polling in Ohio. According to the National Review Online Campaign Spot (emphasis added):

"Rasmussen's latest numbers in Ohio have some bright spots for Thompson, and generally a better outlook for the GOP than one might expect:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Ohio voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 50% have a negative view. On the Republican side, McCain is viewed favorably by 54%. Favorables for both Giuliani and Thompson total 53% while Romney earns positive reviews from 43%. Just 38% have an unfavorable view of Thompson while negative ratings for the other GOP candidates are in the low-to-mid forties . . . Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both “lead” Clinton in Ohio by a statistically insignificant two percentage point margin. Fred Thompson is tied with the Democratic frontrunner while Clinton leads Mitt Romney by eight points. If the Republicans have managed to keep Ohio as competitive today as it was in 2004 (when Bush won by just over 2%), the party is in much better shape than anyone - even the most wild-eyed optimists - have imagined.

Hmmm...

I'll let you ponder this...of course, this is so early as to not really matter much at this point. However, I do believe that the Democrats do not have a lock...Hillary's negatives are just too high. I cannot see how someone with such high negatives can gain enough support to change the electoral map.