The New Republican Party?

The emergence of Arizona Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as his lone remaining obstacle to the nomination, along with the withdrawal of Mitt Romney from the race, heralds the "Republican Reformation," according to Ross Douthat, a senior editor for The Atlantic and co-author of “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.”

Writing as an op-ed contributor for the New York Times, Douthat contends, "The conservative critics of Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee weren’t wrong on every issue. But in their zeal to read both candidates out of the conservative movement, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, the movement’s leaders raised a standard of ideological purity that not even Ronald Reagan could have lived up to."

Douthat goes on to say, "Precisely because the right has won so many battles ... in the decades since it squared off against Gerald Ford and Jacob Javits, the greatest danger facing the contemporary Republican Party is ideological sclerosis, rather than insufficient orthodoxy. Conservative voters seem to understand that. Too bad their leaders don’t."

The 2008 campaign is proving -- so far -- to be the perfect example of how much the conventional wisdom can change in a few short years.

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were re-elected four years ago, that feat was accomplished primarily by carrying the states they carried in 2000. There were a few minor differences -- and the Electoral College math was a little different because of the 2000 Census.

But it was pretty much the same electoral map in 2004 that it was in 2000.

There were a few differences, though. Bush made an appeal to Latino voters that resulted in the Republican ticket receiving 40% of Latino votes nationally. That resulted in shifting allegiances in places like New Mexico, which narrowly supported Al Gore in 2000 but swung to Bush in 2004.

Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the country, but they register and vote in much smaller numbers than other ethnic groups. Their influence is being felt, however, in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, mostly in favor of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

And, because many have been alienated by Republican positions on issues like immigration and the lackluster response to disasters like Hurricane Katrina, it is generally assumed most will stay with the Democrats in the general election.

A few years ago, the talk was about how the Latino voters were going to make the Republicans the permanent majority party. Now, Republicans need to make themselves more attractive to Latino voters simply to be competitive.

That may be another reason for nominating McCain. He represents a border state, and slightly more than 25% of its population is Hispanic. He was re-elected to the Senate with 77% of the vote in 2004, so it can be argued that he knows how to connect with his Hispanic constituents.

By contrast, just slightly more than 3% of Arkansas' population is Hispanic.

McCain may be the best hope the Republicans have for recapturing Latino votes that were lost in the last four years.

And that could pose a problem for Clinton -- if she wins the nomination.

It could also be a problem for Barack Obama.

It doesn't seem likely that Obama would lose the support of either black voters or young voters, both of whom have helped him remain competitive in the Democratic nomination campaign.

But he can't win the general election with mostly black votes -- blacks have been solidly in the Democratic camp for decades, and the Democrats have only won three of the last 10 presidential elections.

And he can't win with mostly young voters. Even though they've been showing up in higher numbers for the primaries and caucuses this year, they still haven't established themselves as a bloc that can be depended upon in the general election. And even if they do turn out on Election Day, there aren't enough of them to overrule the other age groups if they tend to vote for the other side.

If Obama wins the nomination, he will have to make an appeal to the Hispanics who supported Clinton in the primaries if he wants to win the election.

That's not necessarily something a politician from Illinois would be unfamiliar with. After all, nearly 13% of Illinois' population is Hispanic.

But, to win a national election, the Democratic nominee will have to do better among Hispanic voters than the nominee has done in recent elections.

And the Democrats will have to reduce their deficit among white men. They don't have to win the white male vote -- John Kerry could have won the 2004 election if he had only reduced his deficit among white men.

But the deficit must be reduced for the Democrat to win. And it isn't clear, at this point, whether Clinton or Obama would be in the better position to do that.

Beyond the demographics, there will be real issues to be debated in the general election campaign.

As McCain pointed out during his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, past campaigns have been "fought within margins of small differences."

Not so 2008.

"We are arguing about hugely consequential things," McCain said.

Many in the audience at CPAC did not get the message.

Perhaps that is because there are things that appear almost certain to happen, no matter who is elected.

"Waterboarding" and other forms of torture seem likely to be forbidden, whether McCain, Clinton or Obama takes the oath of office next January. Stem cell research will probably have an ally in the Oval Office, and it looks likely that Bush's policy on immigration will remain virtually unchanged.

There truly isn't much difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama on these, and some other, points.

But there are "hugely consequential things" that separate the Republicans from the Democrats, and McCain as the nominee won't be any different from the right-wing's darling, Romney. In foreign affairs, McCain will be supportive of the "surge" tactic in Iraq; his opponent can be expected to favor bringing the troops home soon.

Domestically, McCain seems to be in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts; neither of his presumptive opponents favors that. The three candidates' views differ on a whole range of domestic issues, and they have different voting records on everything from health care to the Bush Supreme Court nominations.

If you're a conservative and you're still not sure about John McCain, these issues can give you some insight into what a McCain presidency would look like.

For that matter, if you're a Democrat and you haven't decided which candidate to support, familiarize yourself with their positions on the issues. Visit their websites. If you're looking for daylight between Clinton and Obama, that's where you're likely to find it.

It's really the best indicator you're likely to get about the differences between the candidates.