"Because if they lose Florida, there is no path, there is no electoral college path to win the White House."

That's not necessarily true.  If Utah gets one extra electoral vote, then Republicans would only need one of the 10-vote Dem swing states (Minnesota, Wisconsin) to win the white house or one of the bigger ones (Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan).  Several smaller ones added together could give them the electoral college as well.  Though Florida would make it a lot easier for us, it wouldn't guarantee the race.

Great post.

I look forward to hearing about Hispanic realignment in other states.  Texas, for example.

     That Walter Shapiro article is all about the primary, by the way, with no discussion of the partisan trends.
     It's confusing to call different groups by the same name. In Florida, we need to distinguish between Cuban-Americans and other Hispanics, such as Puerto Ricans, Dominican-Americans, and Mexican-Americans. All of the latter tend to vote Democratic by about 2-1, reversing the ratio among Cuban-Americans. But virtually all of the growth in population is among non-Cuban Hispanics, and while it will take some time for Mexican-Americans and Dominican-Americans to vote in proportion to their share of the population, Puerto Ricans are American citizens by birth. If the growth is largely among Puerto Ricans, that would be very good news, indeed, for the Democratic Party.

The wild card in any electoral calculus is Rudy Giuliani.  Adding New Mexico (5) and Florida (27) to Kerry's 252 electoral votes would increase the Democratic total to 284.  Rudy is fully capable of winning New Jersey (15) for a flat-footed electoral tie and possibly Pennsylvania (21),New Hampshire(4)or Connecticut (7).  Democrats could counter in Nevada (5) or Iowa (7).

Fortunately Rudy seems to be running a spectacularly inept campaign for the Republican nomination qhich seems to be handed to Mitt Romney by default.  Romney will not win in NJ, PA or CT and would be a long shot in NH.  He wwould have to pick up two of the Great Lakes States and hold on to everything else (say Michigan and Wisconsin).  I don't thing that will happen for the dog torturer.

Great post. You and David Kowalski are both correct that the fly in the ointment when it comes to realignment -- at least in the near term -- is Rudy Giuliani. I hope that Giuliani's campaign really is inept enough to hand the nomination to Romney, with whom I think we'd wipe the proverbial floor, or to Thompson, the generic (R) in a generic (D) year. Unfortunately, I'm not yet convinced -- Romney's still coasting off of early organization, investment, and advertising, an edge that's likely to erode over time. And I'm not sure Thompson would be any less inept than Rudy.

And it really doesn't help us that Giuliani's key primary state is also a key general election state.

If Guiliani is only up 6 points on Clinton in Florida this far before the election, the Republicans are in big, big trouble.

BTW, the head to head matchups in Ohio and Pennsylvania should be carefully considered when talking about Clinton's "electability" relative to the other Democratic candidates. She polls stronger in both of those states. If the Democrats were to lose Pennsylvania, that would be devastating in the electoral college.

where are hispanic VOTERS likely to make the difference as opposed to net influx of immigrants in general? I mean, if most Hispanic immigrants are moving to CA and IL or something like that, how does that help Dems if those states are blue anyway (I guess if it adds EVs then maybe).If Hispanics are becoming voting citizens in large #s and more than compensate for blue collar white democrats voting Republican then that would help.

So take FL for example, if hispanic migrants become voting citizens and more than compensate for net change between dying elderly East Coast transplants in Broward/Palm Beach who vote Democratic and Midwestern ones who retain their GOP lineage (folks from Naples up thru I-75 to Gainesville), then FL trends may be good for Dems.

I also think that the death of the immigration bill won't have much of an impact long term. Although it would have helped countless number of undocumented immgirants most of whom are latino, it might have enraged tons of blue collar white dems in Michigan, Ohio, Pennyslvania (note the Hazelton, PA Mayoral nomination)and Wisconsin. So if it may pull some in FL closer to the Dems, it may drag in the Midwest and the end result may not be a win. Additionally, not all immigrants like the bill particularily those from non-border countries in Asia & Africa.

Finally, note how sub silentio illegal immigration and gay marriage are replacing racial preferences and gender rights issues to motivate main street voters... unlike the issue of the 70s that motivated blue collar whites, the GOP may have figured a way to get the same result and add blacks and traditional union voters to go with them...conservative politics almost always stays alive because of its inherent ability to motivate people to speak out more when in opposition to something than when in support of something.

Two very different issues are present: FL (with it's Cuban immigrant vote) and the Latino vote, which is overwhelmingly Mexican and favors immigration reform.

Most (over two thirds) of the Democratic senators voted in favor of the recently defeated immigration reform bill; most Republican senators (37 of 49) voted to block action on the bill.

This means that a strategy for winning FL will not be based on immigration reform while gaining the Latino votes requires coming up with a proposal that combines elements acceptable to a majority of legislators, so that a benficial and workable immigration bill can be passed.

This must be accomplished without ignoring the reality of the labor market, and that requires focusing on the those segments of the economy that Americans aren't involved in - agricultural field workers, in particular. Otherwise, crops will continue to drop and rot on the ground due to the shortage of Mexican harvesters arising from increased border security measures.

Creating a national data base for all non-Americans entering the country, a tamper-proof SS card and a date limited license to work are necessary adjuncts for achieving a selectively permeable border, while a path to citizenship is not the reason people come from Mexico, anyway - they come to work.

I've been working on a Temporary Agricultural Guest Worker Exchange Program (TAGWEP) that would stand a better chance of being approved.

As for the 12 million undocumented non-Americans already here - many of whom are not working in an agriculture related capacity; that will have be dealt with in a separate bill, in order for TAGWEP to pass.

TAGWEP is a supervised program that will insure fair and equal treatment of migrant farm workers, something that the defeated bill did not do.

Farm workers already here legally will also benefit from this measure, something that will not be ignored by the voting Latino community.  The same is true for unions.

Florida,. Schmorida. Dems should be winning Florida based on trends prior to immigration.

The place this is going to matter is the southwest; if Kerry had done 10% better among Latino voters in 04 in NM and NV, or 20% in CO, he would have won those states and would be president. Look at how a swing in the Latino vote in CA in the 90s turned it from a lean-Republican state to a solidly blue one. Imagine what it means for the country if NM, NV and CO become reliably blue states this year.

Then the big shift will come when Bush is gone and the Latino vote puts TX back in contention.

Didn't the House recently vote to restart agricultural trade with Cuba?  I am sure that won't go over well with the hard core anti-Castro Cubans.  It was I believed introduced by a Repub, but obviously supported by the Dems.  I don't think Florida is where we look to make in roads with Latinos, it's more a matter of clearer, PAPER ballots. No hanging chads and no Diebold.

There are more US citizens in New York than in Texas. Yet, Texas has more electoral votes. This is because immigrants, legals and illegal as well as visitors such as students are counted towards redistricting. We all know Texas votes GOP and New York goes to the Dems. Under these circumstances pray tell me why the GOP would want to solve the illegal immigration problem? If we had not include illegals in the 1992 census, Texas and Florida would have had six fewer electoral votes, California three fewer, but NY, PA and IL would have had eight more electoral votes and Gore would have been elected President and the Supreme Court would not have Alito or Roberts. So why would GOP want to solve the illegal problem. An illegal population of 25 million would lock in a GOP Presidency for at least a century!!

You've forgotten about all the former felons who WILL be able to vote in the Presidential elections of 2008. They are a brand new voting block.

The absence of a direct vote (the presence of an antiquated and undemocratic electoral college), helps the party of the privileged few more than it does any of you, and an inability to pass needed reforms (whether electoral or immigrational) means the USA's political culture will remain out of date and out of step with the rest of the world.

IAC, winning FL requires making sure that blacks are registered to vote, able to get in and vote and that their vote will actually be counted; it will also require taking a strong stance in favor of Israel's right to exist and condemning terrorism there in the same terms as in the USA. Florida's Cuban immigrant vote (which as I said, has a dynamic that's quite distinct from the Latino vote) would find a stand in favor of civil rights in Cuba attractive.

The Latino vote will continue to become increasingly important as time goes by and understanding the positions taken by (and responding to the needs of) the UFW and Latino organizations would be a good start for securing that vote.

Guadalajara