I was a bit on the deliberately provocative side to draw response, though I do believe what I typed.
I've been waiting for MI to come to its senses for a long time. The reappearance of Reagan Democrats was promised twice in a row and didn't happen. So MI, the home of the auto biz, supported Mr. "Earth in the Balance" by a stunning margin, and then supported Mr. Traitor, admittedly by less. I have a hard time imagining anyone who voted for those two NOT voting for Hillary.
The other two best chances for a turnaround for the GOP would be MN and WI. I know they were close this time, but again, what person who voted for Gore or Kerry won't vote for her?
I'm also deathly afraid that the nutbar portion fo the 50% of the population that doesn't vote will come out in droves in 2008 to vote for her. At the same time I think Karl Rove got as much of the GOP base out as anyone ever will.
Throw in the normal smattering of Democrat vote fraud, illegal alien voting, and the like....I must stop.
As a MI native, I can attest with at least some sense of certainty that states like MI and PA voted for Gore and Kerry in spite of their liberalism, not because of it. Gore was basically seen as a continuation of Clinton's centrism and the economic boom. At the time, we didn't realize how liberal Gore really was. Kerry was largely an anti-Bush vote. Reagan Democrats can be very Pat Buchanan-like on the war. They don't like Iraq and were mad at Bush for taking us there. Also, they were upset about the recession. Without any Bush baggage, the GOP should do better up there next time. And Hillary is widely known as a NY liberal, not a supposed moderate like her husband.