Up until 2004, the electoral map strongly favored the GOP because there was a significant block of votes that it could more or less take for granted. For democrats to prevail, they both had to control swing states like FL, MO, OH, PA and IA, and somewhere crack the GOP monolith in the south and midwest.

The only time Democrats were able to do this were with a Southerner at the top of the ticket (1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000).

GOP candidates, meanwhile, were free to campaign as moderates and pick off both swing states, which would have been enough to give them victory.

It fine to say that the Democrats ran hapless candidates, but except for Dukakis, that really has not been true.

The map is a bit different now. While I can really say it favors the Democrats, the continuing realignment in American politics that began in the arly 1960s has at least erased much of the GOP's advantage.  

Additionally, a CBS affiliate in California reported this week that, if the primary election were held today, Barack Obama would now beat Hillary, by 6%.  Given this fifteen-point shift (Hillary had on by apx 9%), there is considerable buyer's remorse in Calif.  The California (Big State) hypothesis takes another hit.

I thik that a regional study would be great as insight as to how the migration of those from the Northeast (traditonally leaning Democrat) to the Southeast. Virginia certainly has been influenced politically by such patterns of relocation. Its not as though we ahve seen dramatic increases in birth rates across the South but what the Southeast has seen is tremondous growth in places like Virginia through relocation. This relocation certainly comes into play when we are talking swing states or at least traditional ones. For example, many folks are moving from places like Michigan to Virginia-I met three such families alone last week from Detriot and Lansing which if there is due to the economy there and Ohio an exodus of voters to other parts over time could also have an impact.
Also, in all fairness must every post dealing with the election going forward have the same post of Bush/McCain? I guess the continued message of a Bush third term is the message being implied given the photo has been used about six or eight times. Wouldn't it be great if we all actually applied the kind of politics and discourse that Obama has been talking about in his campaign. If we are not going to align ourselves to that end then why should anyone else let alone the opposition.

...you WILL be seeing a lot more of that photo.  It's a classic, in that it sums up perfectly what people will be getting if they vote for John McCain.  Not just 4 more years of Bush policies, but a man who sold out his "straight talk" and independence for a last shot at the Republican presidential nomination and the White House. Pathetic.

It should be a nice show. If this is to be one of the pillars so be it but it will not work on the independents who supported McCain in 2000. McCain and Bush are less bed fellows as Clinton/Obama on the issues so I just can't understand why all the fuss with letting Clinton stay in forever. Whats all the fuss, she would govern like Obama if the Supers give her the chance right? No. You mean there is a difference b/t Clinton and Obama on policy? I bet you would bend over backwards to argue that there are and yet you want to play pure politics (something the Obama supporters claim they are against with this "change") and associate McCain along the same lines as Bush when you no for years they have differed greatly on issues. So if I get it right, it really does'nt matter whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination since they are so aligned on policy.
In the end I am sure the pic will get plastered here more but then so will all those pics of Obama and say Rev. Wright I guess on the conservative and independent blogs as they play the same game of associations and photo-ops.
The candidates and as a mater of fact the nation deserve a better more candid debate for the future than pics and associations.

"but it will not work on the independents who supported McCain in 2000"

I was one of the independents who supported McCain in 2000.  However, we are in a different time and place.  We have had 8 years of bush-cheney fumbling and bumbling along.  They have broken our laws, screwed our troops, and sold out the very principles on which America was founded.  Unlike bush-cheney some of us actually learn from our mistakes.  I don't dispute that McCain differs from bush on some policies.  However, on the most disastrous ones he is full speed ahead.  America has to get off the course that bush-cheney-McCain support before it is too late.  

Which is why if this were a referendum on Bush policy and agenda I would agree but no matter how one wishes to look at it you have to look at the man under the umbrella first and the umbrella. The umbrella being the Party. McCain is certainly in this time the one that the Dems did not want to have to face and most about five months ago admitted as much when he was way behind in the Republican primary. Now that he is the man the spin is spinning a bit different which of course is pure politics.
If you look at many policies like say Education and NO Child Left Behind or energy and global climate change McCain is nowhere near Bush. In fact he and John Warner are closer to most Dems on the environment than any other Republicans. McCain would prosecute the war on terrorism quite a bit differently than Bush I believe and in fact I believ one of the best things McCain could do is unify of Federal Departments under a real vison of policy--places like State where everybody knows that 90% of the folks are not really aligned with Bush policy in the first place, except the political appointees that is.
Whats even more interesting to me most of us who worked on Webb's campaign here in Virginia as independents, about forty are confirmed to get together June 4 to determine planning for the Fall via straw poll. It will be interesting to see what transpires given McCains support over the years by many of those folks.
Not all Republicans nor Democrats are the same and have to be examined individually. Webb is a shining example of this as he certainly his in his own right a New kind of Democrat. McCain is a different kind of Republican and must be judged as such otherwise why do we not just forget all the Primaries and let the Chairman of the Parties pick the candidates for President and save us alot of aggrevation.

Electing McCain is a vote for bush's third term.  That photo should be posted nonstop. I just arrived from McCain's website, it looks to me like he is committed to continuing bush's policies on all major fronts. He is committed to appointing far right judges, just like bush, and indeed wants to oveturn Roe V Wade.  He is committed to endless wars and occupations, just like bush.  He is committed to supporting tax cuts for the rich just like bush.  While he gives lip service to our soldiers, what has he done.  He has joined bush in being against Webb's new GI bill.  I don't doubt that he is different from bush on some issues but he and bush are brothers on all the major ones.  

It will be...posted nonstop that is! :)

I may need meds for nausea by election time after seeing so much of bush.  However, keep posting, variety is good!

You know I read this thing thing about how some Republicans not just McCain are "against" the bill when the reality is those that are not as it is written today are the same that have visited Iraq/Afghanistan and spoken with the troops. I spoke with a few two weeks ago that just returned and to a man they said they wanted the benefits but WANTED more retention and reenlistment bonus features for staying in not just those that they get when they get out. The point was we are rewarding soldiers who chose to leave the military disportionately to those that stay in. This is something many Democrats are missing.
I placed two calls to Webb's offcie about this very point. And by the way when was the last time Obama, Clinton or any of the other previous nominees on either side other than Biden, McCain and Hunter were in Iraq to begin with.

why don't you just go to a more friendly site?  You aren't going to change anyone's mind here!

supports McCain, I just think he doesn't understand how important it is to tie John "Most Definitely NOT Straight Talk" McCain to George "29% approval rating" Bush over and over and over and over and over...

This guy McCain is a little NUTS, to say the least.
First he says he voted for Bush, then he says he didn't-- See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
and now he says he did--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Most interesting is that now it comes out that McCain thought Bush was "dumb as a stump" in 2000!
See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

somebody has got to do a You Tube video showing this guy saying all these stupid things! I don't think he'd be my local supervisor, much less a national leader. The guy is very flawed!! To say the least! He's a loser if there ever was one. A better name for him would be McStump!!!! He's just trying to be another stump! hehe

McCain would love that. He wants to put as much space between him and Bush as he can. McCain's entire hope to win this election depends upon him winning Independents and banking on the GOP base to hold their noses and vote for him to keep Obama out of the presidency.

The fact is that on some issues very important to the wing-nut base, McCain has differed on Bush, which is why they hate him. McCain is counting on this to woo Independents.

But the fact also is that on the three most important issues for this campaign -- the economy, Iraq and judicial appointments, McCain has made clear that he will continue Bush's policies. He is counting on this to woo those conservatives, while hoping he can fool everyone else.  

to vote for whom he wants without disclosing his vote.  I think by running this story that he didn't really vote for Bush could actually help McCain since Bush is so disliked.