I think, given Obama as the democratic Nominee, the 2004 election map is useless as a starting point. I also think that in states like Florida, polling is not going to find the now likely voters who would surely have been unlikely in 2004.

You are right that Minnesota is not in play for the GOP. Don't say so too loudly, though, or they might not waste so much money and political opportunity cost (w/ TPaw) here.

Florida is where it is again. The voter roll has been un-purged of a half million black non-felons who were barred from voting by prior GOP SoS administrations using intimidation tactics and "inaccurate" voter-roll scrubbing methods. These people already would have delivered FL in '00 and '04, before they had their own disenfranchisement as an influence on their party preference.

If we did lose FL (again, w/ obama, that is hilarious) and OH (more plausible), the white house would be McCains... Demographics that rule OH successfully predict the winner almost all the time, right? FL is MUST win if OH falls. But again, Obama would have won Florida by 3-5 points due to increased turnout among unlikely voters even without the voting rights issue.

Justin, You must be smoking some of that legalized weed to come up with that analysis. Once the repubs are done with Dukakis, oops I mean Obama, he will wish he had some accomplishments to talk about. Yes we can is simplistic nonsense. McCain has a life story of successes to highlight.

I am sorry I called him Dukakis, he is more like a Mondale. He will carry MN and the rest is history.

God bless John McCain!

We read MinnPost for well researched and thought out columns like this. Thank you.

One sobering observation from the past 5 years is the corrupting influence of the consolidation of power when one party controls the executive and both houses of Congress. I have a gut feel that with House and Senate in Democratic hands, people will tend to give McCain the presidency.

Unfortunately, Al, our governor would not sign the medical MJ bill, and even if he had, I thankfully only suffer from chronic optimism about future elections, which would not meet the narrow parameters of our bill.

In all honesty, I don't think that is funny - my mom died of lung cancer last year, the chemo was like something out of Dante, and medical marijuana might have helped her while she was dying. Denying palliative care because law enforcement officials unions might endorse someone else is kind of a sore point with me.

Due respect, but your analysis is horribly flawed. First, Obama is much more highly qualified, has a much more polished resume than many of our previous presidents. One key example that keeps coming up is Abe Lincoln. Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and is currently a US Senator, for crying out loud. If you are criticizing his background, AI, I have to ask, what have you done recently?

Second, you say McCain has accomplishments, but from where I sit, they appear to be limited to two areas. 1) Fighter Pilotry and 2) Campaign Finance reform. Also, from where I sit, neither of these accomplishments played out quite how McCain hoped they would.

I was actually thinking Obama is going to win a Reagan-esqe victory this fall, but I decided against the hyperbole because it would sound as ridiculous as the Mondale claim you included.

The fact is Obama is expanding the Democratic base in a way no other candidate could, by energizing the most loyal but least-participating segment of the party (African American Voters). McCain, on the other hand, has alienated the corresponding section of the GOP base (evangelical voters).

McCain is pandering as fast as he can to these guys, but he doesn't have time. In spite of claiming that he'll appoint judges to overturn roe (which means he'll never get one confirmed during his presidency), he is saying he believes in science as far as evolution and climate go. There goes the religious right.

There are two other large factions of GOPers who might hold their nose and vote for McCain or stay home. I think portion will be staying home. I speak of the rabid anti-Mexican crowd (who favor English as a national language even though their skills in English are often highly questionable) and of the rabid "money is speech" crowd who will never forgive McCain for campaign finance reform.

The far left, on the other hand, is unified. Obama isn't pandering to them because he doesn't have to. While McCain tries to win the right flank, Obama can focus on the center. Obama was doing better there before Hillary started running for the 2012 nomination, but he'll recover fine because he has moderate positions on issues.

And McCain is throwing away the center (except for the belief in science) as quickly as possible. Which of the following statements represent the views of the average american moderate, in your opinion, Al?

1) THE US SHOULD OCCUPY IRAQ "FOR 100 YEARS."

2) THE US SHOULD "BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN".

3) US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SHOULD BE CHOSEN ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WILLINGNESS TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.

4) A GAS TAX HOLIDAY OVER THE SUMMER IS THE ANSWER TO OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL AND HIGH GAS PRICES.

I think McCain is a big loser in this race because he can't deliver the GOP base, which makes his appeal to independents and moderates beside the point. Against Hillary, when moderates and independents have very high negative opinions of his opponent (to say nothing of how much the GOP base hates her), he might possibly have squeeked by with a 537 vote margin, but against Obama, there is no chance for him. The south is going to vote solidly against him, which will offset his better than expected performance in mountain states. He can't carry the northwest or the Northeast. I explained how Florida is a different state than it was in the past two elections.

Ohio Valley states are in play, but upper midwest states are all for Obama.

My analysis, I think, is pretty accurate. Obama needs to win FL so that he can afford to lose OH and PA. He should be able to.

Here's my prediction. McCain carries 10 or 11 states.

AL, AK, AZ, CO, MS, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, and TX.

Oh, and SD. I forgot about that state's love affair with overturning Roe.

I think the dynamics of the electorate (that being people who actually vote) will be substantially changed by Obama's candidacy. With 20 percent of Democrats saying they won't vote for Obama, it seems unlikely at this early date that he can carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania, states that were strong for Hillary. On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised to see southern states, which for the past nine elections have been solidly Republican, come into play because of the expected increase in black turnout.