Will someone please vote for John Edwards? The guy is the only serious candidate who could realistically win. It's pretty pathetic that the only people who seem to realize that are in the Bush Administration. It's either Edwards or Bush as far as I'm concerned.

Two points:

1. A correction for Vodka. The notions that the Democratic nominee is likely to win all five of those upper mid-Western states and that they are Democratic strongholds is not accurate. In 2000, the margin of victory for Gore over Bush in Iowa and Wisconsin, for example, was less than one-third of one single percentage point. The spread in Minnesota was less then three percent. And that, of course, was a contest between a two-term incumbent Vice President and a Texan, during a period of 4 percent unemployment. Merely by virtue of him being the incumbent this time around, it is highly likely that the President will win at least three out of those five states.

2. The larger question, in my view, is whether the entire Democratic Party has de-evolved into a regional political entity. Simply put, without overwhelming advantages in the Northeast corridor (whose population is shrinking noticeably), the Democrats would not even be competitive in a national election at this point. Along similar lines, you could make the case that the Democrats are becoming the party of individual cities across the nation. They literally need massive turnout and overwhelming support (90-plus percent) from urban African-Americans and other minorities just to compete in state-wide races.

In the recent California recall election, the Democratic candidate lost by seventeen points, and the Governor won outright majorities in more than half of the counties in the state. Take away the votes cast in two cities, however -- San Francisco and Los Angeles -- and the result would have been a preposterous landslide in favor of the GOP.

Louisiana provides another intersting example. This is supposedly one of those border swing states. Bill Clinton carried it in 1996. They have not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in over 150 years. Yet, this past October, the Democractic candidate (a career politician who was a sitting Lieutenant Governor) nearly lost to a 32 year-old first-time candidate for public office. And that was despite garnering over 90 percent of the African-American vote in New Orleans Parish, one of the largest cities in the South.

Absolutely astonishing. Especially given the fact that, only 15 years ago, the Democrats had over 250 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Re: jtl

The recent race in Louisiana is the governor's seat. And it's highly likely that Bobby Jindal (the Republican candidate who lost) will make a run for the open US Senate seat.

BigFire:

Perhaps. But my real point is how incredibly precarious the Democrats are in statewide races around the country at this point; except for around 8 to 10 states in the Northeast. In Louisiana's recent governor's race, an incumbent, Democratic Lieutenant Governor only beat a first-time candidate by two points; despite the fact that she carried over 90 percent of the urban vote. Now, fast forward 5 or 10 years from now, when a larger population of Louisianans (as is the case in many states) have moved out of New Orleans and into suburbs. By that point, the Democrats might not be able to win a statewide race, even if they get 100 percent of the urban vote. That type of scenario is plausible throughout the country; including states where they currently tend to win elections. In short, this is a party slowly heading for political extinction, unless they make a drastic shift back to the center and cast aside their left-wing elements.

It's very unlikely that either the Republicans or the Democrats will be a marginalized party for very long, because no matter how out of sync with the country they might get for a time. Our electoral system makes the emergence of two major parties nearly unavoidable in the long run, and the institutional advantages that the GOP and the Democrats have make it very difficult to replace either one. So people intersted in winning usually drag them back to the mainstream before they've completely fallen off the abyss and into minor-party land.

Dave:

Indeed. That's what history would suggest.

But, strange things are afoot among the Democrats these days. When Dennis Kucinich is a candidate for President and actually is pulling more than 1 percent of the vote, and when the former governor of vermont (pop. 600,000), a person who left their church over a bike path, is the LEADING candidate among the Democrats for President, well, that does not bode very positively for the future of their party. I suspect that they have already fallen off the cliff.

Now, that's not to say that they never will win the White House again. They will. Undoubtedly. But, my God, as a whole, the party is looking in horrific shape.

The GOP was the minority party -- except for Presidential races -- for two full generations. We might be seeing a realignment along those lines right now; just in the opposite direction.

jtj is right - a lot of what VodkaPundit says is flawed.

First, he makes the same mistake as ALL of the Democrats by starting with the same premise: the 2000 election results.

Remember - and never forget (although the Dems seem to..) 9/11. Changed. Everything.

As to the individual states:
Florida - only close because of Lieberman and Mediscare. Ask Bill McBride/Terry Mac if Florida is a 50/50 state.

Nevada - jtj is right. The population is growing, but its likely to be disaffected Republicans fleeing the People's Republic of Grey Davis' California. The Yucca Mt issue is overblown.

Minnesota - 2002 revealed a trend that other analysts are saying: Minnesota is becoming (if not GOP) a 50/50 state.

The South is solider (incl. Gore-less TN), and PA, IA, and WI were narrow wins for Gore over when Bush was not an incumbent fighting a winning war on terror, but a 2 term Tex. Gov who just was revealed to have a DWI in his past.

California is not as blue as it was, but I think that Bush won't win it - it'll be closer.

Likely scenario, Bush wins by about 100 EVs (something like 317-218).

Mike,

Uh, something like 320-218? It should total to 538 (don't forget DC's 3 EVs).

What do you think about New York?