“Change election..”
I agree. This is a change election, and if it is Fred versus Clinton, it will be a change from 20 years of Bush-Clinton, which has driven the taxes up from 28% to 35%, and has exploded the size of the federal government, infringing on states’ rights. These are the two themes that separate Fred, on the one hand, from Bush-Clinton, on the other. As Reagan said in 1984, when the Democrats were clamoring for change, “We ARE the change.” Fred IS the change.
On the states that Fred could flip, I happen to disagree with you on Ohio. I think it is only gone if the GOP continues down the domestic path Bush has led. That said, there are a number of targets of opportunity in the upper Midwest. Bush only lost Wisconsin (10EV) by 10,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Michigan(17 EV) 51-48 by 165,000 votes out of 5 million cast. He lost Minnesota(10 EV) by 51-48, 99,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Pennsylvania(21 EV) by 51-49, 140,000 votes out of 6 million. He lost New Hampshire(4 EV) by a fraction of a percent, only 9000 votes out of 700,000 cast.
Of these states, Fred will appeal to blue collar workers in Michigan and NRA members there as well, because he comes from humble beginnings and is the most prominent NRA supporter to run for President. Ditto Pennsylvania. I think his low tax reputation will carry the day in New Hampshire. As for Minnesota and Wisconsin, these are rural states that have been trending Republican in Presidential elections. Fred’s rural roots will be a very good fit there.
Also, I think Clinton will have to devote more resources to defend California. With Fred’s celebrity and personality, it cannot be taken for granted by the Dems the way it could when the Bushes and Dole were at the top of the ticket. Reagan won there consistently, in spite of the fact that the state was electing far left Democrat senators in the 1960s and early 1970s like Alan Cranston and John Tunney (who were every bit as left wing as Boxer and Feinstein). California does not necessarily vote ideologically. It can be swayed by the right candidate.
You are right about parts of the State. We are very conservative, but we are also pretty independent. We also have two extremely liberal parts of the State that dominate the elections (even if some of it is through fraud).
I am sorry to say that a southern conservative wont do it here. I could possibly see Rudy taking that State because we have a strong independent streak in us. In 2006 the Republicans lost the assembly. We retained the senate by only a one vote majority. We reelected (by a healthy margin) a democratic crook. I just do not see Wisconsin going red again, with the exception of a Rudy nomination. Although we do have a strong social conservative streak, it just isn't that dominate in places outside the very rural areas.
Good analysis!