In the absence of a “macaca moment” from John McCain — a game-changer that fatally wounds his campaign — the most likely assumption is that the 2008 campaign will play out in the Electoral College this November along very similar lines with the results in 2004: McCain will win the red states won by Bush, including Florida, and Obama will win the blue states that voted for John Kerry.
Clinton’s margin of victory over Obama among Democrats in Ohio’s 29-county Appalachian region was 44 points.
Like 2004, this would likely make Ohio, with its 21 Electoral College votes, the linchpin in pulling out an upset for the Democrats this year. On the surface, the focus on Ohio would appear to be good news. The Ohio Republican Party, which controlled the state house and the legislature until recently, befouled itself in a series of scandals that has left it weakened and on the sidelines.

But even with Democrats now in control and under the leadership of a popular governor, Ted Strickland, Obama faces an uphill climb to win Ohio. The challenge he faces is serious, and overcoming it will be difficult.

The problem in Ohio, suggests the Columbus Dispatch, is racism:

Doubts were cast about Obama’s chances in Ohio after Clinton beat him by 10 points in the primary, winning all but five of the state’s 88 counties. Clinton racked up huge margins in rural counties where Democrats now must compete because of population shifts away from Democrats’ traditional urban strongholds.

Clinton was especially strong in Ohio’s 29-county Appalachian region, a traditional swing area, where her average margin of victory was 44 points.

Obama fared poorly among voters of two key groups — women and whites. Women represented 59 percent of the Ohio primary voters, and Clinton carried them by a 16-point margin. White Democrats, representing 49 percent of the voters, went for Clinton by 43 percentage points.

These statistics suggest that race might have played a role in the primary and that Obama has much work to do against McCain in Ohio’s overwhelmingly white rural counties.

“In Appalachia and southern Ohio, I do, unfortunately, think (race) will play a big part for some of the rural-thinking people,” said Diane Carnes, chairwoman of the Ross County Republican Party.

But she said Obama’s biggest hurdle in rural counties will be his “liberal stands on issues,” not race.

Right — “liberal stands.” In reality, the biggest hurdle Obama faces is the fact that the racists who wouldn’t vote for him in the primary were Democrats. In the general election, with Republicans going to the polls too, there will be more than twice as many racist voters in the mix.

For now, the polls don’t look too bad for Obama:

Most recently, the Quinnipiac poll released May 22 showed Obama trailing McCain in Ohio by four points and losing the white vote by 14 points. More than a quarter of Clinton voters said they would support McCain when the survey of 1,244 Ohio voters was conducted from May 13-20.

But there’s also this statistical analysis of polls I cited earlier today:

In Ohio … Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

Gov. Ted Strickland is from southern Ohio, a fact that ought to place him on the short list for consideration as Obama’s vice president. There is a sticking point, however. Strickland was a major backer of Clinton in the Ohio primary.

Just seven years ago, racial tensions in southern Ohio become violent in Cincinnati, leading to rioting in the streets — which underscores the fact that whether America is ready for it or not, Barack Obama’s candidacy is going to create a national discussion on race. It looks like Ohio is as good a place as any for this discussion to start.

Writing in the New York Times, Neil deGrasse Tyson, a host on PBS’ “Nova,”
presents statistical analysis based on research by a pair of astrophysicists that predicts that if the general election were held today, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain, while Barack Obama would lose:
“If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.”
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.

Using the Gott-Colley method, Tyson compiled polling in 19 states from realclearpolitics.com over the last six weeks:

[…]

The folks over at Congressional Quarterly must have a lot of time on their hands. They’ve created a game called VP Madness that is just made for political junkies like my wonkish colleagues at Pensito Review.

The game is based on a bracket system similar to those used for the March Madness of the NCAA finals. The CQ experts have come up with 32 veep candidates for Barack Obama, paired them up and the rest is up to you.

Getcher game face on!

First the bad news: On Tuesday, the California Secretary of State’s office confirmed that supporters an anti-mariage ballot initiative had gathered enough signatures to place the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot. If the measure passes, the state constitution would be amended to ban marriage for gay people.
Unlike Massachusetts, where gay marriage is also legal, California has no residency requirement for marriage, so gay couples from across the country are welcome to be married here.
Yesterday, however, the state Supreme Court denied an appeal by GOP-connected political operatives to stay its ruling legalizing marriage until the vote in November.

That means marriage will be legal for gay couples in California from June 16 at least until Nov. 4.

Unlike Massachusetts, where gay marriage is also legal, California has no residency requirement for marriage, so gay couples from across the country are welcome to be married here.

Marriage activists predict that couples from other states who get married in California will challenge the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits states from recognizing gay marriages from other states. This appears to be an obvious violation of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause.”

Ironically, DOMA was the work product of a handful of powerful adulterers in Washington. It was written by thrice-married, then Rep. Bob Barr, who is the Libertarian Party presidential nominee this year. It was rammed through the Senate by Majority Leader Bob Dole, who left his first wife for a stewardess, and through the House by Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was concurrently having an extramarital affair — and signed into law by Pres. Clinton at the time of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Out of state political groups with connections to the Republican Party are thought to be behind the anti-marriage initiative, which they hope will increase turnout for John McCain.These groups paid over $1 million to workers who gathered signatures in supermarket parking lots in rural districts. A pair of polls on the amendment in the last few weeks offered precisely opposite results. A Los Angeles Times survey found that 54 percent of voters were in favor of the measure, while a Field Poll found that 51 percent of voters were against it.