Great post, RD. I like your statement that the middle class has, in effect, always been an artifical creation of government policy. When "free" enterprise gets too free, the middle class disappears and all that is left is a population that consists of a few ultra-wealthy plutocrats, with the remaining 98 or 99 percent of the citzenry living in abject poverty. I know, this scenario has been the GOP's goal and dream for the last 30 years. I am hoping that maybe we as a nation can now begin to slowly turn things around, and hopefully tip the balance back toward workers and middle class people. It is certainly a change in direction that is long, long overdue.

I think Huck and Palin appealed to essentially the same voters: the hard-core base. Just look where Huck actually won primaries: states of the deep South, Appalachia, and a few scattered pockets of the Plains--precisely the only areas where McCain won. Huck didn't have the "newness" of Palin, and he wouldn't have turned on the old (white) men of the party the way Palin did(does).True, Huck doesn't have some of Palin's liabilities, but to the base she flaunts other assets that more than compensate for this. In the end, I think the results here would have been close to the same, with maybe a few minor differences in demographic composition of the vote.

Amazing, ONLY 3 in 10 Republicans view Gov. Palin as unprepared. I think they are going to be a minority party for a long time... and with views like this, after next Tuesday, they will also be  a minor party for a good long while.

I guess there comes a point in time during a losing campaign when you've gotta just stand and fight, regardless of how hopeless it looks. As election day draws closer and closer, there are only so many states that McCain can pull out of, and still have any hope of winning. At this point, if he pulled the plug on all the states he is lagging behind in, he would only be playing for about 185 electoral votes. That isn't going to get the job done; so I suspect that is what we are seeing here. McCain is down in so many places now, his dart board is about as good a strategy-maker as anything. And so the noose gets a little tighter....

TX and OH are shaping up to be MUST WIN states for Clinton. She can get away with a string of big losses in Febuary with wins in these states. The big question is, what effect will a poor Febuary have on her standing in these states? Her national poll leads? It is hard to see making a strong case for her candidicy if she is swept (again) on March 4. What about a split decision on March 4? Ah, so many questions, so few answers...still, if she is leading in national polls at this point, it is hard to see her conceding, even with losses on March 4. Then again, with a string of losses that long, it is hard to envision her still leading in national polls. Polls with Obama I mean, not the (at this point) meaningless ones with Mc Cain. We have some interesting times yet ahead, and right now I would be surprised if this thing is settled on March 4.

Steve M has it right here, Mc Cain 2008 is NOT Mc Cain 2000. Right now, he is the "maverick" in places with high numbers of independents, and in "Red" states he is the hard-line right-winger. The Dems should have no problems tearing him to shreds by simply not allowing him to enjoy his dual status in a head-to-head match-up. I agree, I think his age (and hot temper) will be real detractions in the all-out campaign ahead. That said, though, I don't think Clinton or Obama will win a landslide, and it will take focus and perserverance to insure defeating this guy.

My second to last sentence should read "...enthusiasm and large numbers will be decidedly lacking."

I keep reading that Guilani is the GOP's best shot at defeating Clinton, and that the evangelical wing of the GOP cannot stop his nomination. This all may be true; however, these same pundits also say that evangelicals will(should) just shut up and quit whining, and vote for Rudi.All this talk of a third party candidate is just bluff and bluster, they say, and that in the end evangelicals will flock to Rudi. This is where I take issue with the analysis; I live in the buckle of the Bible belt, and I can assure you that evangelicals will NOT flock to Rudi. Certainly, lots of them will vote for him, but many will not; they will stay home, or vote third party. What these "expert" GOP  pundits are forgetting is the fact that it takes evangelicals voting as a near monolithic bloc--and in high numbers--to elect a GOP candidate to the White House. Rudi will achieve majority support with this group, no doubt, but enthusiasm and large numbers will not be decidedly lacking. This spells doom for any GOP candidate.

Mose, I tend to agree with your analysis. Living here in the buckle of the Bible Belt (SW MO), I can say from first-hand knowledge that there are large numbers of Conservative Christian types that will NOT vote for Rudy under ANY circumstances. The GOP is under some delusion that the social issue crowd will somehow be forced to vote for Rudy. Believe it or not, social issues are much more important to these people than simply electing a Republican to the White House. Talk of a third-party, far-right candidate does not surprise me at all; in fact I fully expect this scenario if Rudy is nominated. And as we all know, if this happens the GOP candidate has NO CHANCE of being elected, no matter who that candidate may be.