The article suggests that Hawaii voting for the Republican is caused by there being a landslide on the mainland (with a sample size of two previous events). Hawaii voting Bush could have several other, more likely, explanations, to wit: (1) the high number of veterans in Hawaii and Kerry's unpopularity with vets; and (2) Hawaii's sense of insecurity about terrorism being the closest US state to Indonesia and the Philippines, which are bubbling hotbeds og Muslim hatred.
The fact that the polls show it close on the mainland suggests that these other explanations are more likely.
Your argument hinges upon this being a historical abberation, which actually supports my argument. Since Hawaii only votes GOP in Republican re-election landslides, that brings some relevance into this current election cycle.
Bush leading over Kerry in Hawaii, points to this quite possibly being another re-election landslide for Republicans, namely President Bush.
You forgot a third possible expalanation. Reagan and Nixon were in what could be called neck and neck races just before their re-election landslides. We see the same now, with Bush v. Kerry.... and we see Hawaii leaning Bush now as well.
I'm guessing but it could partly be that Hawaii likes to be on the winning team. Being far out in the Pacific and ignored is lonely. California can afford to be ignored by Bush, and they are, but Hawaii could really benefit.
Isn't there some sort of political aspects relating to Guam that is changing Hawaiian votes?
I understand that there are a fair amount of Mormons in Hawaii also. Is this true and does that factor in.
You left out same sex marriage. The state courts tried to impose it on Hawaii in '94, so in '98 Hawaii became the first state in the union to define marriage as one man to one woman. Kerry hurts himself in Hawaii by being on the wrong side of the CMA.