This is what I really like about Mike -- he really is authentically who he says he is, and I suspect he's right in touch with the populist heart of his district.

The northwest PA economy, like the upstate NY economy, is a tough puzzle to solve. I think you're right that solving it starts with sticking by your progressive values.

This is a winnable seat, but only if we can concentrate netroots support behind a progressive candidate.

Mike will be around for a while to respond to comments... I hope people will recommend the diary!

Wait, I actually wasn't even referring to your diary. I was referring to the diary about California.

I generalized. Still sorta negative spin for Obama.

on the Rec list.

Ah, primary season...

The problem is that the contexts are so radically different. "Change" in the French context means, among other things, a Thatcher-esque restructuring of the French labor market. Whether or not that's a good idea, it's the conservatives who would be the natural party to bring about such change, even if they have yet to do so.

There's simply no analog here in the US. The "change" Gingrich advocates would only constitute more of the same conservative degradation of infrastructure investment and social insurance. US Republicans remain a Thatcherite party (Bush's "big-government conservatism" notwithstanding), and Americans, post-Katrina, are hardly in the mood for more Thatcherism.

Huckabee has not caught fire because the Club for Growth kneecapped him a few months ago, on account of his tax-rasing record in Arkansas. The fiscal conservatives don't like him.

Which is good for us, b/c Huckabee is the most talented GOP candidate, and he represents the kind of politics most likely to help conservatives build a majority coalition.

Don't get me wrong -- he's a schmuck. But he would be a dangerous schmuck, if the Repubs weren't so short-sighted.

hmm... the "consequences .... would not be inconsequential."  Awkward.

I hope you're right, and you may be, but I'm not sure that it's "automatic." Pulling the trigger on leaving the GOP coalition will be a big decision for the fundamentalists (at least for the ones with enough influence to make it really happen). They'll have to consider the consequences of the rupture, which would not be inconsequential.

I think that all things considered, the evidence mitigates in favor of running a separate campaign if Rudy gets the GOP nod, simply because they can't afford to let themselves be marginalized within the fusionist coalition. But there would be damage either way, and don't be surprised if the big fundie guns ultimately just don't have the courage to pull the trigger.

Well said. I really don't get the fear over a Thompson candidacy. He's not much more than a generic (R) -- fake populism included -- and I don't think 2008 will be the year for that. I know I'd much rather be up against him than Giuliani.

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.