Does Ryan Put Wisconsin in Play?

Politically, Wisconsin is a fascinating place.

(I'm sure it is fascinating in other ways, too. I have never lived there, but, in the interest of full disclosure, I have been a Green Bay Packers fan all my life.)

It is mostly regarded as a progressive "blue" state, having produced Robert La Follette, 1924 presidential nominee of the Progressive Party. La Follette got nearly 17% of the national vote that year, the best showing for a third–party candidate between 1912 and 1992.

La Follette began his political life as a Republican. Joe McCarthy, a controversial right–wing Republican senator, came from Wisconsin, too. In fact, although Wisconsin is often thought of as a Democratic state today, the truth is that the Republican Party got its start in a meeting at a school in Ripon, Wisconsin, in the mid–19th century. Opposition to slavery was the unifying theme at the time.

In 2008, Barack Obama won Wisconsin by more than 400,000 votes. Obama's 56% share of the vote was the highest in that state for any presidential candidate since 1964.

With the exception of the southeastern corner of the state (where Milwaukee is — although Milwaukee County itself voted 2 to 1 for Obama), the Democratic ticket cruised to victory in just about every county.

Based on that — and the fact that Democrats have carried Wisconsin in every election since 1988 — Wisconsin has acquired a reputation as a decidedly blue state.

But that six–election streak is a bit deceiving. Before 2008, Wisconsin was more of a purple state.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry beat Republican George W. Bush in Wisconsin by about 11,000 votes. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush there by about 5,000 votes.

Prior to that, Bill Clinton did win the state by comparatively comfortable margins, and Michael Dukakis did get a majority of the vote against George H.W. Bush (even though his margin was less than 100,000 votes).

But Republicans won Wisconsin in four of the five elections prior to the Bush–Dukakis race — and the only exception was a narrow victory for Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Wisconsin's political allegiance seems to shift every couple of decades. The state often seems determined to march to the beat of a different drum. It even voted against Franklin Roosevelt the fourth time he sought the presidency in 1944.

There were indications in the midterms of 2010 that such a shift could be happening in Wisconsin now. Wisconsin's House delegation went from being majority Democrat to majority Republican, Republican Scott Walker was elected governor and survived a recall election in June of this year, and Ron Johnson upset three–term Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold, becoming the first duly elected Republican senator from Wisconsin in a quarter of a century.

Obama is still popular in Wisconsin, but consider this: Ryan's district re–elected him with 64% of the vote in 2008. In the same election, that district gave Obama 51% of its vote. Clearly, many of the residents of that district who voted for Obama also voted for Ryan.

In fact, even if one assumes that every voter in the district who voted for John McCain also voted for Ryan — and experience tells me that some did not — the conclusion that more than one–fourth of Obama's supporters must have voted for Ryan, too, is inescapable.

But Ryan has never been in a statewide race before. The elections of Walker and Johnson two years ago suggest that Wisconsin is receptive to the idea, but the most recent polls I have seen indicate that Obama is poised for a narrow victory in the state. Marquette University's latest poll shows Obama leading Romney, 50 to 45, which is about what most polls have been showing.

And conventional wisdom holds that, in an election involving an incumbent, undecided voters usually (but not unanimously) tend to break for the challenger. In that pre–Ryan environment, Democrats could anticipate a slim win in Wisconsin.

Of course, none of the polls were taken after Ryan was introduced as Romney's running mate.

Presumably, new surveys are being conducted now, which will give us some context for comparison as we get closer to Election Day.

If subsequent polls show the race tightening, Democrats may be forced to fight for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes.

Goodbye and Good Luck

---

---

Five years ago, I was a John Edwards supporter.

I had one of his bumper stickers on my vehicle, and I believed he was the best hope for the country.

The economic meltdown hadn't happened yet, and my assessment at that time, in the summer of 2007, was that the American public simply wasn't ready to elect a black president — or a female president.

I was a Democrat at the time, and I did not think either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was the answer for the nation.

I believed the time would come for that, but the time wasn't right. I still didn't think the time was right when the meltdown happened in the autumn of 2008, and the major parties had already nominated Obama and John McCain.

That meltdown completely changed the nature of the 2008 campaign — and I think it is clear that it will heavily influence the 2012 campaign as well. But that is another story.

The story today is about Edwards' acquittal on one count and the jury's deadlock on the other counts in his corruption trial in Greensboro, N.C.

Much of the post–trial discussion has concerned whether the prosecution will attempt to re–try Edwards on the other five counts.

I do not think that is going to happen. I mean, the prosecution spent a lot of money on this trial and came away empty–handed. Many of the jurors probably will be interviewed now, and the weaknesses of the case will be revealed — which could, conceivably, lead prosecutors to pursue a conviction again with a new strategy.

But a Raleigh defense attorney told the Greensboro News–Record that he, too, thinks that is unlikely — and for the same reason as I do.

"They got their best witnesses, their best evidence and the judge ruled in their favor on all major evidentiary issues," he said. "The jury didn't believe them."

The jurors clearly didn't go for the case presented on the third count, which dealt with money that was given to the campaign by a wealthy heiress. It was the only one on which they all agreed.

And the prosecution's case on that count was probably the strongest one it had — which really isn't saying much. I'm no lawyer, and I didn't watch and/or read every report on this case, but I never felt the prosecution established its case. And I'm dubious that it will be able to do so in a do–over.

When I was a reporter covering trials in the county where I lived and worked, I learned a lot about the judicial system, lessons that seem to be repeated over and over again.

One lesson I learned was that there is no reliable way to predict what a jury will do. Don't believe me? Ask the experts who believed O.J. would be convicted of a double homicide or who were convinced that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter and there was no way she would escape the long arm of the law.

But both were acquitted.

And there are other such cases, some that only get local attention and are not the subjects of national attention but are still astonishing when they result in unanticipated verdicts.

Veteran court watchers look at jurors' body language during testimony and closing arguments and try to interpret what they are thinking, whether they have made up their minds. And I remember that such veterans did not hesitate to tell me, when I was a reporter, what they thought a quick verdict meant or what one that took several days' worth of deliberations to reach meant.

But, at best, their conclusions were and are only educated guesses.

Prosecutors may one day bring Edwards before a new jury and charge him with the remaining counts, but don't look for that right away. Their gun is out of bullets and, unless they come up with a new bullet that is sure to bring down their prey, I don't expect to see him in court on these charges again.

Another thought struck me as I watched Edwards' press conference this afternoon.

He said all the right things. His problems were of his own doing, he said, no one else's. In spite of that, though, God is not finished with him yet, he said. "I really believe he thinks there's still some good things I can do."

Perhaps Edwards is right. Perhaps God is not finished with him.

But I am.

What Might Have Been

I happened to overhear something last week that started me musing.

I was standing in line at the grocery store, and two women were ahead of me. I'm not sure what their relationship was — friends, neighbors, sisters? — but they appeared to be purchasing items for a summer cookout.

Anyway, they were talking about the debt ceiling debate while waiting their turn to check out.

It's such a shame, one said, that the two sides can't put aside their partisan bickering and put the interests of the nation first.

Yes, the other agreed. This would never have happened if Hillary Clinton had been nominated instead of Barack Obama.

The first one nodded. Hillary would have been a better president, she said.

I didn't hear the rest of the conversation. It was their turn to be checked out, and their attention turned to that. I presume the what–if discussion continued after they transferred their groceries to their car and began driving wherever the cookout was going to be held.

But I had started thinking about the proposition, and I am still thinking about it a week later.

If you recall, that was what the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination came to be about — when the only candidates still standing were Clinton and Obama. In the final weeks of the battle for the nomination, it wasn't about the economic collapse (which really didn't occur until after the party conventions) or six–digit monthly job losses. It was about misogyny vs. racism.

This much was certain. The Democratic ticket would be historic. It would be symbolic. But that was about all that was certain as the primary campaign entered the homestretch. Would the nominee be the first black or the first woman?

Racism won out — which, I have heard it said, was the reason why John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. He hoped to win the support of disaffected female voters.

I don't know if that is true or not, but, if it is, I suppose that, by the same logic, McCain would have chosen a minority (a black man or, perhaps, an Hispanic) if Hillary had been the nominee.

That's speculation, of course — a little gentle musing — just as it is speculation, at this time, knowing what we know in 2011 that none of us knew in 2008, to suggest that someone else would have done better than the president who was elected.

We'll never know, of course, because Hillary and John Edwards — and all but one of the others who sought the '08 Democratic nomination — didn't win the prize. Obama did.

Yet, it does become progressively more difficult to rationalize what has happened during this presidency — and, as it does become more difficult, I guess it is only natural to think of the paths that were not taken.

A different president might have faced different conditions by this time, but the conditions upon entering the presidency would have been the same for anyone — and a different president might still have called for some sort of economic stimulus.

There was a lot of pressure at the time for the new president to do something to give the economy a boost, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the new president would have pressed for a stimulus package. The amounts and priorities probably would have been different under different presidents, and it is a matter of speculation how those differences might have affected the economy of 2011.

As I have written here before, I was a supporter of Edwards early in the campaign. Given the revelations about him that have surfaced in recent years, it is hard not to imagine him being a weak chief executive at this point in his term.

I don't know what kind of stimulus package he might have pressed for, or what kind of bargains he might have been willing to make to get them — but, considering the kind of information about his private life that he almost certainly would have wanted to keep from the voters, I can't help thinking he would have been vulnerable to considerable manipulation in office.

Hillary would have been a different matter. Her life had been an open book in America for more than 15 years (and in Arkansas for more than a decade before that). She had been first lady for eight years. She didn't need to introduce herself to the American public.

Maybe what she would have needed to do in the general election campaign is re–introduce herself to the public — as a potential president.

One of the concerns about Hillary's candidacy that I heard expressed time and time again in 2008 was the suggestion that electing Clinton would mean that, from 1988 through (presumably) 2012 (at least), the United States would be governed by two dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons. It was time for a break from the two families that had been running the country for the last two decades, I heard Hillary's critics say.

I suppose that Hillary would have had to constantly reassure voters that she, not her husband, would be setting policy.

And there was a segment of the electorate that was worried about former President Clinton being on the loose in the White House with no responsibilities, free to approach any intern in the West Wing at any time.

Issues about being the first woman president might have come up as well, but my memory of the 2008 campaign is that little was said about Obama's race. Most of the attention was on the economic disaster. Perhaps the gender issue wouldn't have been raised.

One thing that seems sure to be mentioned, at some point, is the squabble over the debt ceiling limit that appears to be the main reason why S&P lowered the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+.

Some people have mentioned the 14th Amendment and asserted that Obama should have invoked it to end the impasse, thus avoiding the impression that S&P got that Americans have allowed their politics to run wild, creating an unstable economic environment.

Perhaps they have, but that is the kind of thing a leader is supposed to prevent from happening. And a lot of people think Obama could have done that by invoking the 14th Amendment — which most people may remember for being the post–Civil War amendment that overruled the Dred Scott decision on citizenship, but, in fact, it also stated that the public debt, duly authorized by Congress, "shall not be questioned."

Legal experts disagree over the powers that clause gives a president. There are those who felt a demonstration of firm presidential leadership was what was called for while others contend that anything Obama did would have been overturned as unconstitutional.

Although he taught constitutional law before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama appears to be in the latter camp, convinced that the issue is resolved — although it really isn't.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, said he wouldn't hesitate to use it — and, if a similar debt ceiling debate had occurred in a Hillary Clinton presidency, one can logically assume that he would have urged her to do so as well.

Obama could have helped better define the role of the president by invoking the 14th Amendment, as well as possibly sparing the nation the first decline in its credit rating history. Eventually, it might all have been overturned by the courts, but there is nothing, beyond some legal opinions, to suggest that is absolutely what would have happened.

If nothing else, Obama might have shaped the rules for the next debate on the debt ceiling, possibly saving himself or his successor another long, destructive legislative battle in the near future.

Sometimes presidents must be creative, must think outside the box.

They must be leaders.

Going Rogue

---

rogue (noun)

1. vagrant, tramp


2. a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel


3. a mischievous person : scamp

Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary

---

The other night, a high school classmate of mine made an interesting observation on Facebook.

Referring to Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue," my ex–classmate posted the Merriam–Webster link and wondered, "So, which of these definitions does Sarah Palin think best describes herself?"

He confessed that "ever since the book was announced I've been very puzzled by her choice of titles."

Another former classmate tried to clarify the point, saying, "She is using the term that McCain's staffers used about her."

The first classmate responded, "So she wants to emphasize the fact that the people whose job it was to sell her to the public thought she was unstable and irresponsible? If I were managing her 'brand' I would counsel her to reconsider. Maybe this is all part of being a 'maverick' ..."

I wasn't a Palin fan last year — in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn't an Obama fan, either — and she never seems to make it easy on people like me. This is the 24th post I have written in which "Palin" has been listed as a label, and I have tried — or, at least, I feel that I have tried — to give her the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to Palin, I rarely agree with her on anything, but I do try to be fair. Her book hasn't hit the store shelves yet so I haven't read her side of the story, but I am unaware of any lobbying that she did (or that anyone did on her behalf) to encourage John McCain to pick her as his running mate.

In fact, Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson wrote, in "The Battle for America 2008," that, although McCain had been reviewing possible running mates since securing the nomination in the spring, Palin's name wasn't added to the list of prospects until about a month before the Republican convention — when the McCain campaign "became alarmed at the size of Obama's lead among women."

If it turns out that Palin waged an active campaign to be chosen, I would feel differently. But the Balz–Johnson account tends to confirm what I have suspected all along — that she was not chosen because of her political views but because of her gender.

McCain, I have contended, believed that the majority of Hillary Clinton's supporters could be persuaded to support his campaign if he had a female running mate. But, while Clinton's supporters undoubtedly were disappointed that she came up short in her bid for the Democratic nomination, it turned out they were driven more by ideology than gender.

McCain might have been more successful in winning their support if he had chosen a centrist woman to be his running mate — but I have seen no indication that ideology played a key role in Palin's selection.

Once she was on the ticket, campaign officials may have experienced "buyer's remorse" when it became clear that she was in over her head — but it should be noted that McCain was the buyer. He may have felt remorseful at times, but I think that was overridden by his desire to avoid appearing indecisive in what was perceived to be his first presidential–level decision.

The role of the campaign staff was to be supportive of the ticket and try to help shore up any weaknesses, like the fact that she came across as inexperienced and uninformed in her interviews with Katie Couric. If she was ill–prepared for the national spotlight during the fall campaign, it was in part because the campaign does not appear to have made much effort to address her deficiencies.

It was legitimate, for example, to question Palin about the leaders of foreign countries and America's relationships with those countries because, if elected vice president, that was the kind of knowledge she would need if she eventually became president. But five vice presidents had been elected since the last time a sitting vice president ascended to the presidency, and such knowledge wasn't strictly part of the definition of the job for which she was a candidate. The vice president presides over the Senate. In modern times, the vice president has been dispatched to represent the United States at the weddings and funerals of foreign dignitaries so familiarity with the governments of foreign countries is a good thing to have, but it is not a constitutional requirement.

The vice president is next in line for the presidency, but it has been nearly 50 years since a vice president became president following the death of a president, and it has been 35 years since a vice president became president following the resignation of a president. As I observed before either running mate was chosen, we're overdue — historically — for such a thing to happen, but, in a lifetime of studying the presidency and presidential campaigns, I have seldom come across an instance in which a prospective vice president was chosen because he (or she) was believed to be the most qualified to take over as president if that became necessary.

I have seen running mates who were chosen because their presence on the ticket, it was believed, would heal political wounds and unify the party (i.e., Ronald Reagan's choice of George H.W. Bush, his main rival for the 1980 Republican nomination, and John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his 2004 running mate). I have seen running mates who, like Palin, were picked because it was believed they would appeal to certain demographic groups (i.e., Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984).

I have even seen people who were mentioned frequently as potential running mates primarily as lip service to shaky supporters.

Perhaps my classmate was right. Perhaps McCain's staffers did view Palin as "unstable and irresponsible." If so, they weren't the only ones. But it was their task, as my classmate also observed, to "sell" her to the voters. And they failed.

I'm inclined to believe Palin is right when she says she has been made a scapegoat for McCain's defeat. As objectionable as she may have seemed to many voters, I don't believe any running mate could have salvaged the Republican ticket after the economic meltdown occurred.

Having a running mate who went "rogue" did not cost McCain the election. No matter which definition one takes for that word.

War and Peace

It may be hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as the economy is concerned.

But the light is becoming easier to see in Iraq — although it may seem every bit as far away.

Barack Obama said today that the nation has "begun the work of ending this war" and will all but end the combat mission by August 2010.

It is a gradual conclusion that is realistic and responsible, even if it is considered inadequate in many ways by Obama's fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi feels the residual force Obama plans to leave in Iraq (between 35,000 and 50,000) is too large.

Other Democrats also quibbled with the number. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California said such a force would be viewed by Iraqis as an occupation force.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who ran against Obama in pursuit of the presidential nomination last year, said, "You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time."

But Obama's foe in the 2008 general election, Sen. John McCain, said Obama's strategy was "reasonable" and said he was "cautiously optimistic."

And a majority of the visitors to CNN.com — 55%, in fact — say the plan is "just right." The CNN poll isn't scientific, but nearly 180,000 people have responded to the question as of 4:25 p.m. (Central) today.

Obama, undoubtedly, needs to cultivate the support of Democrats in Congress. But his approach makes sense to me. Steve Benen writes in Washington Monthly that it's about time the war in Iraq came to an end, and he is right. But the conflict must be brought to a responsible conclusion.

And it will allow the United States to shift its attention back to where it should have been all along — Afghanistan.

Thoughts on Transfiguration Sunday

Today was Transfiguration Sunday.

In my church, my pastor spoke about what always crosses his mind on this day — the first reported "appearances" of Jesus on things like tortillas. RoadsideAmerica.com has an interesting account of the "Shrine of the Miracle Tortilla," which my pastor mentioned in his sermon.

It was interesting to hear his thoughts, but I've been thinking about a different kind of transfiguration today — if, indeed, "transfiguration" is the right word for it.

Roget, by the way, defines transfiguration as "the process or result of changing from one appearance, state, or phase to another."

After church, I stopped off at the grocery store on my way home — and, in the checkout line, I saw one of those tabloids, which reported that George W. Bush is depressed and suicidal these days, following his departure from the White House, and that he feels a "tell-all" book, written by his wife, will destroy him.

It's not my intention to draw a conclusion here about Bush or his presidency or whether or not a book by his wife will destroy him in the eyes of his countrymen. But seeing that tabloid made me think about the choices Americans make when they come to the inevitable forks in the road.

Last year, for example, the fork in the road was the decision Democrats had to make between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were choosing their presidential nominee. The eventual nominee, of course, was Obama. He's only been president for a month, and it remains to be seen whether he was the best choice, but America, of course, actually wound up getting both candidates in leadership positions. Clinton is now secretary of state and will play a significant role in shaping American foreign policy in the years ahead.

In 2000, it was the Republicans who came to a fork in the road and had to make a choice between Bush and John McCain. It's still too early to determine whether the GOP — or the nation — made the right choice, but I think I can reach a few transfiguration conclusions.

Because of his age (and because Democrats had held the White House for the previous eight years), I'm inclined to believe that McCain's "time" to run for president was in 2000, not 2008. He was still in his 60s then. By 2008, he was in his 70s and the Republicans had held the White House for eight years. Conditions were more favorable for the Republican nominee in 2000 than they were in 2008.

And, of course, there was the economic meltdown last fall — which I believe sealed the deal for the Democrats. Until that happened, McCain still had a chance to make the race competitive. After that happened — and America started losing half a million jobs per month — the Republicans' chances of winning were slim and none.

Conditions weren't dire for the Democrats in 2000 — but there was a sense of "Clinton fatigue" in the land, even though Clinton was leaving office with a budget surplus for his successor. I'm still not convinced that Bush legitimately won that election, but I'm not sure that McCain wouldn't have been able to do so if he had been the nominee.

You could probably go back through the last couple of centuries and find all sorts of examples like that in American history.

But my thoughts today have been drawn to Jeane Dixon, the astrologer/psychic who achieved fame for allegedly predicting that John F. Kennedy would die in office. Before the 1956 election had been held, Dixon wrote in Parade magazine that the 1960 election would be "dominated by labor and won by a Democrat." She didn't predict who the Democratic nominee would be — and later admitted that, during the 1960 campaign, she thought Republican Richard Nixon would win.

I mention Dixon because, a few years before her death in 1997, I saw her being interviewed about her predictions and she said that she had warned Bobby Kennedy not to run for president in 1968. She said he was "rushing things" by seeking the nomination that year, that his "time" was really eight years later, in 1976.

She didn't say Kennedy would be killed if he sought the nomination in 1968. But, when one looks back at the events of 1968 and 1976, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that Dixon may have been on to something.

Ever since seeing that interview, it's been hard for me to think about the 1976 campaign — in which former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, who did resemble Kennedy, won the nomination and, ultimately, the election — without thinking of Dixon's comments.

I don't know if Dixon was correct about Kennedy or even if she predicted that his "time" to run for president was 1976, not 1968. I've heard many people say that, if he had not been assassinated, he would have beaten Richard Nixon and George Wallace in the general election, but that isn't necessarily true. Nixon might still have been elected, in part because Americans had been through eight years of Democratic rule and were ready for a change.

Another "what-if" from American history to ponder.

The Vantage Point

It may not seem like it at times, but America and the world traveled a long way in 2008. And — even with the economic meltdown and the terrorist attacks in India — some progress was made.

I've been doing some reflecting.

As the world was about to ring in 2008, Andrew Sullivan of The Times of London may have shown the most political prescience of any observer, foreign or domestic, when he suggested — less than a week before the Iowa caucuses — that "After following this race for an almost interminable preamble, all I can say is that I can't imagine a more constructive race than one between Obama and McCain. The odds are still against it. But it is more imaginable now than at any time in the past year."

Keep that word "imaginable" in mind because the new administration's success or failure will depend, to a great extent, upon how reality matches up against how voters imagine things should be.

Sullivan gets points, though, for suggesting, in December 2007, when Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were the smart-money favorites to win their parties' nominations, that Obama and McCain would be the best nominees.

And he probably deserves additional credit for making this observation not from the heart of America, where the Iowa caucuses were held, but from across the Atlantic Ocean.

Obama's race for the nomination went on for six more months, but he became a serious contender for it in Iowa a year ago today.

And the candidate Obama battled for the nomination until June (now his secretary of state-designate), Clinton, finished third in Iowa that night, slightly behind former vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

McCain trailed most of the Republicans in the field in Iowa, finishing fourth, and his eventually successful race for the nomination actually got going the next week, when he won the New Hampshire primary. But he wrapped up his nomination a few months before Obama did.

I mentioned Sullivan's article in my blog about four days before the Iowa caucuses.

In the same blog post, I mentioned that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had misgivings about all the candidates on both sides and complained that "[t]he trouble is that ... neither the Democratic nor the Republican slate of candidates seems, at this point, to contain an excellent future president."

I wrote that future presidents are usually considered inadequate until they get the opportunity to prove themselves on the job.

"After becoming president, some never exceed the expectations of mediocrity that were established by the media and their fellow citizens," I wrote, "but truly great presidents prove themselves on the job, not on the campaign trail."

The issues confronting Obama are different than the ones America expressed concern about in January 2008, but he will have no shortage of opportunities to prove whether he is one of those "truly great presidents."

And great presidents often have to prove themselves while dealing with problems they couldn't anticipate during the campaign.

• Gas prices are no longer hovering around $3.00/gallon — which is where they were in most places when 2008 began. They're about half that, currently, but they're bound to go up again, and America has made no progress in developing alternate energy sources in the last 12 months.
  
  But we have — at long last — begun a dialogue on that issue. And that's progress, such as it is. The next step will be to actually do something. Preferably, we'll get started on that right away, instead of waiting until the annual price spike around Memorial Day, when such efforts will be seen as politically motivated.
• In 2007, the annual unemployment rate was less than 5%. In the last 12 months, the economy lost 2 million jobs, and now unemployment is more than 6%, with many economists predicting it will go even higher in the next year. There is a lot of pressure on Obama and the Democrats who control the House and Senate to do something about joblessness now.
• Likewise, there is a lot of pressure to do something about the housing crisis. Millions of Americans have lost their homes and the money they've invested in them.
  
  The challenge is to make Americans feel more secure about the roofs over their heads and the jobs they hold (or the new jobs they hope to get). If the Democrats can accomplish that, they will win the allegiance of voters across the American spectrum for a generation or more.
• The implosion of the American economy wasn't exactly a surprise to many economists, many of whom have been anticipating something like it for years.
  
  It probably surprised Obama, who (I'm sure) entered the campaign expecting the Iraq War to be the dominant issue, an issue which he undoubtedly believed could differentiate him from his opponents, most of whom spoke against the war but had been complicit in giving George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq in 2003.
  
  But Obama discovered quickly that — unless an unpopular war is being fought by troops who have been drafted into service — pocketbook issues still trump everything else.
  
  It was unfortunate that neither major party nominee brought much economic expertise into the general campaign.
  
  But, by November, it was understood by the voters that the winner would have no choice but to confront these domestic issues first. America's involvement in a two-front war and the need to improve national security remain high on the agenda, but they must take a backseat to the economic issues that affect us all.

The presidency almost always seems like an impossible job for anyone to take on.

But I guess it takes a special kind of confidence for someone to seek it in the first place.

In a couple of weeks, the new administration will begin. Let's hope the new president can continue to inspire confidence in the people, regardless of the challenges the future brings.

Another Historic Achievement

---

---

America has elected a president 56 times.

Even if the outcomes of some elections have been similar, even if some of the outcomes have appeared to be identical, each election has been unique.

Certainly, the early elections were conducted entirely differently from the ones we have today.

The most telling difference, of course, has been the fact that ordinary eligible voters were given the authority to choose the presidential electors in every state in 1824; up to that time, state lawmakers still made the decision in many states.

In three elections — 1876, 1888 and 2000 — the candidate who received the most electoral votes did not receive the most popular votes. Such outcomes have, inevitably, led to heated debates over the future of the Electoral College, with its detractors claiming that it isn't representative of the wishes of the people.

Over the years, there have been many arguments for and against the continued existence of the Electoral College — but there's only been one real attempt to abolish it.

The 91st Congress, which convened immediately after the contentious 1968 campaign, proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would have eliminated the Electoral College and replaced it with a system in which a presidential ticket would be chosen by popular vote.

To put things into historical context, this amendment was proposed after Richard Nixon had emerged as the winner in a brutal three-way race against Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent George Wallace.

Nationally, Nixon won the popular vote over Humphrey by less than 1%, but both candidates fell far short of 50%. Wallace received more than 13% of the popular vote and carried five Southern states.

In the Electoral College, Nixon received nearly 56% of the vote.

Due to the discrepancy between the winner's share of the popular vote (roughly 43%) and the electoral vote in the most recent national election, the amendment included a provision stating that a candidate had to receive at least 40% of the popular vote to win without being forced into a national runoff with the runner-up.

The amendment sailed through the House Judiciary Committee and was overwhelmingly approved by the full body of the House in September 1969.

Shortly thereafter, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to consider whether to recommend the measure to the state legislatures, Nixon gave his endorsement to it, and the New York Times reported that it had the support of nearly enough state legislatures to be ratified.

But the amendment died on the floor of the Senate in September 1970, when a filibuster forced the majority leader to move to set the amendment aside so the Senate could take up other business. The amendment was never brought up again.

In truth, though, the Electoral College never really has been "representative" — although I presume that the real complaint hasn't been that it's not "representative" but that it isn't "proportional."

I'll give you a more extreme example of what I mean than the 1968 election.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president with nearly 59% of the popular vote. By winning 49 of the 50 states — and receiving all of the electors from those states — Reagan ended up with nearly 98% of the electoral vote.

If the electoral vote had been in proportion to the popular vote, Reagan would have received 316 electoral votes instead of 525.

But the historic assumption is that, if a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a state, whatever the margin of victory may be, he receives all of that state's electoral votes. Usually, that's how it works out. There have been a handful of "faithless electors" in American history but very few.

Clearly, in states where the vote is close — the best example of that this year is Missouri, which remains too close to call five days after the election — those voters on the losing side tend to feel — somewhat justifiably — disenfranchised.

However ...

Not all states employ the winner-take-all method. A couple of states — Maine and Nebraska — have passed state laws that follow what is called the "Congressional District Method."

At this point, it may be helpful to reflect on how electoral votes are allocated. They are allocated on the basis of a state's representation in Congress. A state receives one electoral vote for each House district it has — and congressional districts are based on the population figures from the most recent census.

Each state also receives an electoral vote for each senator it has. Every state has two senators.

In Texas, where I live, we have 32 House districts. That means we have 34 electoral votes (32 + 2).

Simply stated, in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the statewide vote receives the two electoral votes that a state receives for its delegation in the Senate. The remaining electoral votes are awarded based on the outcomes in each congressional district.

Therefore, it has been theoretically possible since those laws were passed for a candidate to win the state but not win all of the electoral votes.

Maine has had this law on the books since 1972. Nebraska has had it on the books since 1992. But neither state has ever had to divide its electoral vote because one of its districts voted differently from the rest of the state's population.

Until now.

Traditionally, Nebraska votes Republican. In fact, Nebraska has supported the Republican nominee in every election except one since 1940. On Tuesday, it did so again.

But the difference was that the Second Congressional District voted for Barack Obama.

Words cannot express how significant it is that one of Nebraska's congressional districts supported a Democrat for president.

Obama's margin over McCain in the Second District was a mere 1,260 votes. But you have to put it into historical perspective to get an idea of how remarkable it is for a Democrat to win even a single electoral vote in Nebraska.

Four years ago, the Second voted to re-elect George W. Bush, 60% to 38%. In 2000, the district supported Bush over Al Gore, 57% to 39%. In 1996, it supported Bob Dole over President Clinton, 52% to 38%. In 1992, it voted for George H.W. Bush over Clinton, 47% to 32% (with Ross Perot receiving 20%).

Not only has the district joined the rest of the state in supporting Republican nominees on a regular basis. It also has been represented in the House by Republicans for all but 10 of the last 58 years.

Granted, the Second is where Nebraska's largest city — Omaha — is located, and large, metropolitan areas tended to support the Democratic ticket. But the Omaha World Herald endorsed Republican John McCain. So did the Lincoln Journal Star, the Grand Island Independent and the McCook Daily Gazette.

I am unaware of any newspaper endorsements that Obama received in Nebraska.

But the endorsement that counted in the Second District was the one the voters gave him.

Election Night Prep

If you have a few minutes to spare before you settle in to watch the election returns tonight, I urge you to read Carl Cannon's article in Reader's Digest.

In it, he presents four "scenarios" that could occur. I suppose they're the most plausible scenarios.

Until the votes are counted, anything is mathematically possible.

Anyway, Cannon says the four scenarios are:

• Barack Obama wins a close election over John McCain, the nation's "fifth in a row if you factor out the muddying presence of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996."
  
  It's unclear, to me, what, in Cannon's opinion, qualifies this scenario to be "close," since he suggests that Obama will receive 52% of the vote and 350 electors.


• McCain turns things around in the closing days, "eking out narrow victories in Pennsylvania and Florida, and winning in Ohio by the same margin as George W. Bush did in 2004."
  
  In this scenario, McCain gets 49.5% of the popular vote, and Obama receives 48.5%.


• The "Republican doomsday scenario" is that Obama and the Democrats enjoy a reversal similar to the one Ronald Reagan and the Republicans brought about in 1980 — as Obama "attracts the passionate support of all those in his own party, nails down the late-deciding swing voters, and proves a magnet to first-time voters, many of them young Americans going to the polls for the first time."


• Obama wins "handily" in the popular vote, but loses in the Electoral College.
  
  That sounds reminiscent of the 2000 election, which Cannon acknowledges, but he takes it a bit farther.
  
  "This time, the numbers could be much more undemocratic," he writes, "a result that would be disenfranching to a clear majority of Americans and would generate ill-will that would have an explosive potential."
  
  If you don't think it could happen, read Cannon's scenario.

Hopefully, when the voters hand down their verdict, it will be decisive.

The last thing this country needs is another election that hangs in the balance over hanging chads.

Is It a Sign?

The residents of Dixville Notch, N.H., voted at midnight last night — as they do in every election.

And, for the first time in 40 years, the Democrat won the small New Hampshire hamlet. Barack Obama received 15 votes, John McCain received six.

That's not necessarily a good thing.

Dixville Notch doesn't have a history of picking the winner.

In the Democratic primary back in January, when Hillary Clinton revived her campaign after losing the Iowa caucuses, Dixville Notch's Democrats gave Obama seven votes, John Edwards two votes and Bill Richardson one vote. Clinton received no votes at all.

In the 2000 Republican primary, when McCain was en route to a big victory over eventual nominee George W. Bush in New Hampshire, Bush edged McCain in Dixville Notch, 12 votes to 10.

During the 1990s, Dixville Notch rejected Bill Clinton both times.

When he was being elected the first time in 1992, Clinton ran fourth in Dixville Notch, with two votes, trailing George H.W. Bush (15 votes), Ross Perot (eight votes) and Andre Marrou (five votes).

When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, his challenger, Bob Dole, received 18 votes in Dixville Notch. Clinton received eight. Perot and Harry Browne received one vote apiece.

Nevertheless, for a Democrat to win Dixville Notch in the general election is clearly an unusual event. And it may well be an omen.

We'll have to wait until tonight to see.

Late Endorsements

Usually, at this point in the election cycle, most people have decided how they plan to vote.

But, as the Denver Post points out, Barack Obama's leads over John McCain in many so-called "battleground" states — Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Post's own Colorado — are slender indeed.

So activists on both sides have remained busy in those states. And endorsements issued there in the final days may yet make a difference.

• Few people are suggesting — even in the aftermath of Ted Stevens' conviction — that the McCain-Palin ticket won't carry Alaska.
  
  But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Anchorage Daily News did endorse the Democratic ticket. Of course, it also endorsed John Kerry in 2004, but the state's voters supported George W. Bush.
  
  Now, the Juneau Empire has weighed in — with its endorsement of McCain.


• Likewise, I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating the possibility that McCain's home state of Arizona will not vote for its senator.
  
  But Tucson's Arizona Daily Star endorsed Obama. It also endorsed Kerry four years ago.


• Even though one of Connecticut's senators, Joe Lieberman, has been an outspoken supporter of McCain, the state seems likely to support Obama on Tuesday.
  
  But the Stamford Advocate is resisting the Democratic tide. It endorsed Kerry in 2004, but it supports McCain in this election.


• Illinois, of course, is the state Obama represents in the Senate. Many of the state's newspapers have endorsed his candidacy, and I'm not aware of anyone who has said Obama will fail to carry the state on Tuesday.
  
  In the past, a rhetorical political question has centered around whether a candidate or issue would "play in Peoria." Today, the question of how the presidential campaign is playing in Peoria received a partial answer. The Peoria Journal Star, which supported Bush in 2004, endorsed Obama's candidacy.
  
  We'll find out on Tuesday how the choice is playing with Peoria's voters.


• Minnesota appears poised to vote for Obama, but the Duluth News Tribune, after endorsing Kerry four years ago, endorsed McCain, saying "[d]uring these difficult days, our nation can’t risk an unproven hopeful in the White House."


• Some political observers think North Carolina is in play, but I find that hard to believe. It may be close in North Carolina — it frequently is — but I think it will be in the Republican column when all the votes are counted.
  
  The Winston-Salem Journal endorsed McCain. It endorsed no one four years ago.


• In Oklahoma, where Republican nominees have prevailed for 40 years, the Tulsa World added its name to the growing list of newspapers in Oklahoma that support McCain.


• Massachusetts is another state in which the outcome is probably a foregone conclusion.
  
  Massachusetts seldom votes for Republicans, and most of its newspapers have endorsed the Democrats, but the Springfield Republican switched sides. After supporting Massachusetts' favorite son, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, last time, the Republican is living up to its name and supporting McCain this time.


• Earlier in the campaign, I heard talk from some people that a "surge" of black votes in Mississippi would carry the day for Obama in that state. Such talk appears to have died out as reality has settled in for most of those people.
  
  Nevertheless, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger has endorsed Obama, which is, I suppose, a victory for Obama. The Clarion-Ledger endorsed Bush in 2004.

But, as I say, voters in these states appear to have made up their minds. So let's take a look at the battlegrounds.

• In Ohio, a newspaper that was once run by a future Republican president (Warren Harding), the Marion Star, has endorsed the Republican in this race.


• In Pennsylvania, where McCain has been campaigning feverishly in an attempt to flip the state and win its electoral votes, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has given its blessing to McCain.
  
  Obama, meanwhile, has received a recent endorsement from the Lebanon Daily News.

For the most part, endorsement activity seems to be tailing off. Almost all of the large newspapers have chosen sides, and most newspapers in the battleground states seem to have done so as well.

More endorsements may come on Election Eve, but it appears that it's up to the voters now.

The Final Weekend

There are a few things worth contemplating as we begin the final weekend of the 2008 presidential campaign.

• For openers, it was on the Friday before the election in 2004 that a taped message from Osama bin Laden was played on Al-Jazeera.
  
  In that message, bin Laden acknowledged his culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks for the first time.
  
  Many political observers sensed a shift in voter attitudes that weekend, culminating in George W. Bush's re-election the next week.
  
  Some speculated that bin Laden timed the release of the tape in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election.
  
  Is bin Laden planning something similar this weekend?


• Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune has been writing this week about his "08 reasons" why, first, John McCain would win and then, yesterday, why Barack Obama would win.
  
  His final reason why Obama will win — Obama’s been lucky — ties in with what I just mentioned.
  
  It's true that Obama has been lucky in this campaign, as Zorn writes.
  

  ---

  "Things have been relatively quiet all year on the terror and national security fronts — McCain’s strengths. And the major crisis of the campaign season — the economic meltdown — not only played into one of Obama’s perceived strong suits, it also caused McCain to appear impulsive and indecisive in the face of a sudden challenge."
  
  Eric Zorn
  Chicago Tribune

  ---

  Zorn says he thinks Obama's luck will hold through the election.
  
  I hope he's right — for all our sakes.
  
  But, even though he's been mostly quiet the last couple of years, I expect bin Laden to make some noise after the next president takes office.
  
  Whether he will choose to remain quiet through the election remains a mystery to be resolved.


• At this point, it appears virtually certain that Obama will receive more newspaper endorsements than McCain.
  
  In most previous elections, Republicans have received more endorsements than Democrats — in spite of their protestations of a "liberal bias."
  
  But, in some exceptional elections, when the "Republican brand" has taken a beating, the Democrat wins more newspaper endorsements than the Republican.
  
  That appears to be the case in 2008. Editor & Publisher reports that, as of Thursday, Obama held more than a 2-to-1 advantage over McCain in endorsements.
  
  And many of Obama's endorsements have come from large metropolitan newspapers while the majority of McCain's endorsements have come from small-town newspapers.
  
  That means, as E&P observes, that Obama's endorsements represent a circulation of more than 21 million while McCain's endorsements represent a circulation of about 7 million — roughly a 3-to-1 advantage.

Choosing Up Sides

I posted my prediction for the presidential election a couple of days ago. Included in my post were dozens of links to newspaper endorsements of either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Endorsements continue to come in, and, although most of the news has been good for the Obama campaign, McCain has been receiving more endorsements in the South lately — dampening earlier enthusiasm that suggested Obama would be in position to win Southern states that haven't voted for a Democrat in more than a generation.

For example, McCain has been endorsed lately by:

• The Albany (Ga.) Herald, which endorsed Bush last time.


• The Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal, which endorsed no one last time.


• The Knoxville (Tenn.) News Sentinel, which endorsed Bush in 2004.


• The Galveston County (Texas) Daily News, which endorsed no one in 2004.

Outside the South, McCain has picked up a few endorsements, here and there:

• The Twin Falls (Idaho) Times-News, which supported Bush in 2004, and


• the Willoughby (Ohio) News-Herald, which also endorsed Bush last time.

But the editorial momentum has been with Obama in this election campaign:

• The Lafayette (Ind.) Journal and Courier.


• The Portland (Maine) Press-Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram.


• The Cape Cod Times.


• The Joplin (Mo.) Globe.


• The Youngstown (Ohio) Vindicator.

And I'm particularly glad to be seeing editorial activity from the college newspapers:

• The University of California-Santa Barbara Daily Nexus.


• The University of California-Berkeley Daily Californian.


• The Columbia University Daily Spectator.


• The University of South Carolina's Daily Gamecock.


• The University of Tennessee-Martin Pacer.


• Southern Methodist University's Daily Campus.


• Bates College's The Bates Student.


• Davidson College's The Davidsonian.


• The Slippery Rock University Rocket.


• The Miami University (Ohio) Miami Student.


• The University of Michigan-Dearborn Michigan Journal.


• And I located that editorial in the Duke Chronicle to which I referred in my presidential prediction post.

Elections are about everyone's needs. Young people need to be involved, and their school newspapers can play a valuable role in motivating them to participate.

"Without a journal, you cannot unite a community," Gandhi said, and I've always believed he was right.

But I also believe Michael Graham when he writes, in the Boston Herald, that objective journalism has been the loser in this year's election.

On both sides of the political spectrum.

And, as a lifelong advocate of a free press, I am saddened by that development.

My Prediction in the Presidential Race

---

"[T]he balance of opinion could change, as it has several times in this campaign, and as it has in the past.

  "Harry Truman was trailing Thomas E. Dewey by 5% in the last Gallup poll in 1948, conducted between Oct. 15 and 25 — the same margin by which Mr. Obama seems to be leading now.

  "But on Nov. 2, 18 days after Gallup's first interviews and eight days after its last, Truman ended up winning 50% to 45%. Gallup may well have gotten it right when in the field; opinion could just have changed."

Michael Barone

---

I'm 48 years old (49 in about a month), and I've been interested in and observing presidential elections for the last 40 years.

In four decades, I don't think I've ever seen a presidential election campaign that was as capricious as this one.

About a month ago, Barack Obama began to build a lead in the race that, according to some polls, went beyond double digits. That led to some astonishing things.

I heard polls that suggested tight races in states like North Dakota and Montana.

I even heard it suggested that Alaska, the home of the Republican running mate and a GOP stalwart in the half-century of its existence as a state, might vote Democratic if Ted Stevens was convicted in his corruption trial.

Today, a guilty verdict was handed down in Stevens' case, but I don't think it will necessarily cost John McCain the state.

I do, however, think it will make the outcome closer than it would have been.

Less than a week ago, the Associated Press reported that McCain narrowed the gap to a single point in the days following the third debate.

And talk of another cliffhanger was in the air.

Who knows where things will stand a week from today, when the votes are counted?

In the closing days of the campaign, the Philadelphia Inquirer has written about the effort both Obama and McCain have made to win the so-called "red states."

Larry Eichel reports in the Inquirer that McCain has been forced to play defense in the Republican strongholds, but he and his campaign staff continue to believe that one "blue state" could flip sides on Election Day — Pennsylvania.

Eichel writes that Republican strategists conceded awhile ago that the Obama campaign would make gains in some places that traditionally vote for the GOP and that they believed Michigan and Pennsylvania, "with their older populations and socially conservative Democrats," were the best targets to make up for those losses.

But, as Eichel observes, the Republicans have given up on Michigan, leaving only Pennsylvania as a legitimate opportunity.

It may look like a longshot. Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican in 20 years. Yet Eichel suggests that, if McCain can, somehow, capture Pennsylvania, he can still win the election even if he loses Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico (which I now think he will) and Virginia (which I still think he won't).

In making the following predictions, I have reviewed past vote totals, considered newspaper endorsements (the links to many are included in this post) and consulted — to a lesser degree — recent poll results.

But I want to make it clear that I haven't just reviewed the latest polls to see who is leading where and by how much.

I've also checked to see what the approval ratings are.

And I've tried to balance them against voting results in the past and a general assessment of current moods.

A political scientist whose opinions I respect, Michael Barone, wrote a timely article about polling for the Wall Street Journal. When he says that reading polls correctly is "more art than science," he's absolutely right.

Of course, I've tried to keep an eye on the economic indicators and various important local races that could play key roles in the outcome of the presidential race.

They're all pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle.

Much has been said in recent weeks about Obama's inability to "close the deal." Given the poor economy and the unpopular war, Obama should have a double-digit lead over McCain, I've been told.

Have some voters been resisting the Obama candidacy? Is it racial?

I don't know if part of it is racial. Maybe it is.

In my opinion, several factors are at work here:

• At least part of it may have something to do with the fact that the "surge" in Iraq appears to have worked well enough that the Bush administration is reportedly expanding its plans for withdrawing the troops.
  
  A year ago, the war was expected to be the most contentious issue in the campaign.


• Another part may have to do with the fact that, while the economy continues to struggle, Americans have seen a sharp decline in gas prices recently. And the leading indicators were up in September.
  
  The stock market still resembles a runaway roller coaster, and some votes may depend on whether it enjoys a triple-digit gain or suffers a triple-digit loss the day before the election.


• And I think part of it is uncertainty about the participation level of the young.
  
  Jurek Martin writes about that in the Financial Times, saying, "Peak turnout among the under-30s was 55% in 1972, the first election after the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. That had slipped to about 40% by 2000, but its rise four years ago reflected the intensity of a campaign, held as the war in Iraq became bogged down, that produced a record overall participation."
  
  It can be more problematic for pollsters to attempt to measure the voting attitudes of people under 30 than any other age group. As Martin points out, many people who are under 30 use only mobile phones these days, and there is no public directory for those numbers.
  
  And some of the questions that pollsters use to differentiate between an ordinary respondent and a "likely voter" tend to disqualify young voters who will be voting for the first time — because they have no prior history of participation.
  
  Sort of a Catch-22, isn't it? Can't vote if you're not old enough, but pollsters only give respondents the heft of the "likely voter" designation if they've voted before.
  
  It's kind of tough for 18- or 19-year-olds to meet that standard.
  
  Voters under 30 supported Kerry in 2004, but they represented only 17% of the total vote. Voters over 30 supported Bush.
  
  Will young voters feel more inclined to participate in 2008? And if they do, how will the pollsters be able to tell ahead of time?

It's hard to measure those elements in the equation — just as it's hard to measure how many votes will be influenced by race.

But if race plays a significant role in the final outcome, that will have to be something that historians and political scientists will determine after studying the results at length and in depth.

Circumstances may make it a topic of conversation on Election Night, but anything more than speculation will require extensive post-election inquiry and the gathering of evidence to support the findings.

In other words, if race is a factor in the outcome, I don't think we'll know until it's much too late to do anything about it.

---

I predict that McCain will win these states:

1. Alabama (9): McCain 59%, Obama 41% — Obama has the support of the Tuscaloosa News and the Montgomery Advertiser, but I don't think it will help him. Jimmy Carter, in 1976, was the last Democrat to receive a majority of the vote in Alabama.
   
   The state's largest newspaper, the Birmingham News, endorsed McCain. No surprise — it endorsed Bush four years ago.


2. Alaska (3): McCain 57%, Obama 43% — The GOP should hold Sarah Palin’s home state — in spite of Ted Stevens' conviction and the fact that the Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama. (For the record, the Daily News also endorsed Kerry in 2004.)


3. Arizona (10): McCain 57%, Obama 43% — McCain should win his home state, but there are many retirees in Arizona who are nervous about the financial crisis.
   
   Still, it should surprise no one that the Arizona Republic endorsed McCain.


4. Arkansas (6): McCain 55%, Obama 45% — Obama was endorsed by the liberal alternative newspaper in Little Rock, the Arkansas Times, but Arkansas hasn't voted for a non-native Democrat since supporting Jimmy Carter in 1976.


5. Florida (27): McCain 49%, Obama 47% — Florida is a hotly contested (as usual) "swing" state that McCain absolutely must have to win in the Electoral College.
   
   McCain might not win the presidency even if he carries Florida, but he is virtually certain to lose if he does not.
   
   He has been endorsed by the Tampa Tribune and the Bradenton Herald.
   
   The Herald supported Kerry against Bush in 2004.
   
   Obama has been endorsed by the Miami Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, the St. Petersburg Times, the West Palm Beach Post, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Melbourne's Florida Today, the Lakeland Ledger and the Naples Daily News. The Lakeland and Naples papers endorsed Bush four years ago.


6. Georgia (15): McCain 53%, Obama 43% — McCain's campaign has been endorsed by the Savannah Morning News. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution supports Obama.
   
   Neither is a surprise. Nor should the outcome be one, either — although Obama has not been without his victories in the South. Case in point would be Sunday's endorsement from the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, which endorsed Bush four years ago.


7. Idaho (4): McCain 64%, Obama 35% — Does it surprise you that the Idaho Statesman endorsed Obama? It shouldn't. The Statesman endorsed Kerry in 2004. Kerry still lost Idaho, 69% to 30%.


8. Indiana (11): McCain 53%, Obama 47% — The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette endorsed Obama. Its endorsement of Kerry in 2004 didn't help him in Indiana; the Democrat lost there, 60% to 39%.
   
   Obama also has been endorsed by the Richmond Palladium-Item, which endorsed Bush in 2004, and the Muncie Star Press, which endorsed no one.
   
   The Indianapolis Star reported Sunday that its editorial board "remains evenly divided" and won't endorse anyone. The paper supported Bush four years ago.


9. Kansas (6): McCain 56%, Obama 44% — In the last 40 years, no Democrat has received 45% or more of the vote in Kansas.
   
   McCain has been endorsed by the Lawrence Journal-World. The Journal-World endorsed no one in 2004.


10. Kentucky (8): McCain 53%, Obama 46% — When Bill Clinton carried Kentucky in 1992 and 1996, he did so both times with less than 50% of the vote. Of course, Ross Perot was on the ballot as an independent both times.
    
    Most Democrats have struggled in Kentucky in recent decades. Since Adlai Stevenson narrowly defeated Dwight Eisenhower there in 1952, Democrats have lost Kentucky in nine out of 13 presidential elections.
    
    The Lexington Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier-Journal have endorsed Obama. In 2004, they both endorsed Kerry, who lost Kentucky by 60% to 40%.


11. Louisiana (9): McCain 58%, Obama 41% — Louisiana's black vote (and probably, with it, any hope Obama may have had of winning there) was decimated by Hurricane Katrina.
    
    Louisiana was one of a few Southern states that supported Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but it was close enough that one suspects he might not have succeeded without the help of the black voters in the state.
    
    And, when one goes farther back into Louisiana's political history, you find that the state supported George Wallace in 1968, Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Strom Thurmond in 1948. Voters there have never hesitated to support someone just because he wasn't likely to win.
    
    The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which endorsed no one in 2004, supports Obama. He's also been endorsed by the Shreveport Times, which supported Kerry. Will that make a difference?


12. Mississippi (6): McCain 57%, Obama 42% — Democrats who have run without the benefit of incumbency have received about 40% of the vote, if that, in Mississippi since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.


13. Montana (3): McCain 53%, Obama 46% — Voting patterns suggest that Montana will be in the Republican column, even though the Billings Gazette endorsed the Democrats. The Gazette endorsed no one in 2004.


14. Nebraska (5): McCain 60%, Obama 39% — Running as an incumbent in 1996, Bill Clinton received 35% of the vote in Nebraska. Since 1968, only two Democrats (Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Michael Dukakis in 1988) have done better — and no Democrat has received more than 40% of the vote in Nebraska since Lyndon Johnson won the state in 1964.
    
    The Lincoln Journal Star has endorsed McCain. It sided with Bush four years ago.


15. Nevada (5): McCain 49%, Obama 48% — It looks like a close race in Nevada so I'm sure that, if given a choice, the McCain camp is pleased to have the endorsement of the 199,602-circulation Las Vegas Review-Journal instead of the 174,341-circulation Las Vegas Sun, which endorsed Obama.
    
    Neither endorsement was a surprise. In 2004, the Review-Journal endorsed Bush, the Sun endorsed Kerry.
    
    The Reno Gazette-Journal endorsed Obama's candidacy this weekend. It supported Kerry in 2004.


16. North Carolina (15): McCain 50%, Obama 48% — North Carolina may be a political enigma until the votes are counted.
    
    In one of the races on the ballot, Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been fighting for a second term, in spite of the fact that she has high favorability ratings and a significant campaign war chest.
    
    Her success may depend on how the GOP presidential ticket fares in North Carolina. Historically, that wouldn't be a problem because the Tar Heel State has backed every Republican nominee but one (Gerald Ford in 1976) since 1968.
    
    Polls have indicated a tight race in North Carolina, though, and some pundits have predicted that Obama will win there. If Obama wins, will he have coattails long enough to win the Senate seat for the Democrats, who crave a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority?
    
    Even though he has received some endorsements in North Carolina, three of them (the Raleigh News & Observer, the Asheville Citizen-Times and the Wilmington Star-News) endorsed Kerry four years ago, and the others endorsed no one.
    
    As Steve Harrison and Ted Mellnik have written in the News & Observer, the outcome may depend on whether 2008 is the year that persistent efforts to register young voters pay off in actual participation.
    
    That brings me to another point.
    
    Although much has been said about the youth vote this year — how it was, in part, responsible for launching Obama's candidacy in the Iowa caucuses and how it has given him "rock star" receptions across the country — I have heard of only one college newspaper (the Duke Chronicle) that has endorsed him against McCain — but I can't verify that information because the Chronicle does not seem to have posted the editorial on its web site at the time of this writing.
    
    Perhaps other college newspapers will recommend him — or anyone — to their readers in the coming week.
    
    But, to date, the Chronicle is the only college newspaper that I've been told has encouraged its readers to vote for someone in the presidential election.


17. North Dakota (3): McCain 55%, Obama 44% — Last week, Larry Sabato shifted North Dakota to "toss-up" status in his presidential election projection.
    
    "This may be a temporary change of color," Sabato writes, "but we have seen too many polls that are tied in North Dakota to ignore."
    
    How can that be? North Dakota has voted for every Republican presidential nominee but one since 1940.
    
    When it comes to North Dakota voting for a Democrat, let's just say I'm from Missouri.
    
    You know what that means, don't you?
    
    It means you're going to have to show me.


18. Ohio (20): McCain 49%, Obama 47% — McCain has been endorsed by the Columbus Dispatch (which is not much of an accomplishment since the conservative Dispatch hasn't endorsed a Democrat since Woodrow Wilson in 1916).
    
    He also has the backing of the Cincinnati Enquirer, another Bush supporter from last time.
    
    Obama has been endorsed by several small Ohio newspapers, including three (the Canton Repository, the Hamilton Journal News and the New Philadelphia Times Reporter) that supported Bush four years ago.
    
    Obama also has been endorsed by the considerably larger Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dayton Daily News, Akron Beacon Journal and Toledo Blade.


19. Oklahoma (7): McCain 61%, Obama 39% — I lived in Oklahoma for four years. And I have a really hard time imagining that it will vote for any Democrat for president.
    
    I lived there during an election (1992) that has to be regarded as the Republicans' low-water mark in the last 30 years — and, even with an independent on the ballot who captured nearly one-quarter of the vote, the Republicans beat the Democrats by more than 8 percentage points.
    
    In this election, The Oklahoman in Oklahoma City has endorsed McCain. It supported Bush in 2004 — and, based on my observations in the four years I lived in the state, I assume it has been endorsing Republican nominees for a long time.


20. South Carolina (8): McCain 59%, Obama 41% — South Carolina has supported the Republican nominee in 10 of the last 11 elections. The sole exception was 1976, when Jimmy Carter carried the state.
    
    The State of Columbia endorsed McCain, just as it endorsed Bush in 2004.


21. South Dakota (3): McCain 59%, Obama 40% — South Dakota has supported the Republican nominee in 10 consecutive elections.
    
    In fact, the only non-incumbent Democrats who have been even remotely competitive there were Dukakis (1988) and Carter (1976).
    
    I suppose there's a marginal case to be made for George McGovern, the state's senator when he ran against Richard Nixon in 1972. McGovern lost by less than 10 percentage points to Nixon in South Dakota. In most states that year, McGovern was losing by 20-30 percentage points.
    
    I know the polls have shown a tight race in South Dakota, but the last non-incumbent Democrat to carry the state was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
    
    McCain has the support of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader — it endorsed Bush in 2004.


22. Tennessee (11): McCain 56%, Obama 43% — Like Kerry four years ago, Obama has the support of the Nashville Tennessean and the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
    
    Tennessee has voted for the Democrat more frequently than most Southern states, supporting the Democrats when Al Gore was Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992 and 1996, when Jimmy Carter was the nominee in 1976 and when Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964.
    
    But it was one of only three Southern states that voted for Nixon over John F. Kennedy in 1960, and it rejected Gore, its former senator, when he was the presidential nominee in 2000.


23. Texas (34): McCain 60%, Obama 40% — McCain has been endorsed by quite a few Texas newspapers, including the Dallas Morning News, the San Antonio Express News and the Amarillo Globe-News — all of which endorsed Bush in 2004.
    
    McCain has also received the support of some newspapers that endorsed no one in 2004 — the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, the Beaumont Enterprise, the Tyler Morning Telegraph and the Times Record News of Wichita Falls.
    
    I don't know if the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung endorsed anyone in 2004. But, in its endorsement on Sunday, the paper asserted, "Our support of McCain is tepid but it is representative of the more centrist position that probably aligns with the majority of our readers."
    
    And McCain was endorsed by one newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, that endorsed Kerry in 2004.
    
    Obama, too, has received some endorsements in Texas. Noteworthy are the endorsements he received from the Houston Chronicle, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Austin American-Statesman, all of which supported Bush four years ago.
    
    Obama also has been endorsed by the tiny Lufkin Daily News (circulation 12,225), which supported Kerry in 2004, and the slightly larger Bryan/College Station Eagle, which endorsed no one in 2004. (It's worth noting that the Eagle also recommended, at about the same time, that voters re-elect a Republican senator and a conservative Democratic representative next week.)
    
    And, in the interest of fairness, I want to point out that the Waco Tribune-Herald, which endorsed Kerry in 2004, chose "after long, even painful, deliberation ... to side with neither Barack Obama nor John McCain."
    
    But the paper told its readers, "We recommend believing that our democratic process — however turbulent, however flawed — will reflect a collective wisdom of the electorate. The notion we seek to inject into the community discussion is this: Whoever wins, our country must unite behind the next leader because our challenges are too great for the rancor that now paralyzes us."
    
    Well said.


24. Utah (5): McCain 69%, Obama 29% — Does this percentage for McCain seem wildly improbable to you? Utah gave 71% of its vote to Bush last time and it gave 67% of its vote to Bush in 2000.
    
    In fact, no Democrat in the last 40 years has received more than 37% of Utah's vote — most Democrats have received less than 30%.
    
    The Salt Lake Tribune, however, endorsed Obama. Four years ago, it endorsed the re-election of George W. Bush.
    
    Does that mean Utah will shift gears when the voters go to the polls and support a Democrat for the first time since 1964?
    
    Hmmmm ... Nope.


25. Virginia (13): McCain 51%, Obama 48% — The current of clairvoyance has been tugging observers toward the conclusion that Obama will be the second Democrat to win Virginia since Truman carried the state in 1948.
    
    I've been resisting the undertow. But Virginia is one of the more fascinating stories that will unfold next Tuesday.
    
    I wrote about all this last week so I won't repeat most of it here.
    
    I think Virginia is experiencing a transformation, but I am not yet convinced that it is as sweeping as many people think.
    
    It certainly doesn't seem to be sweeping the state's newspapers.
    
    The Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Lynchburg News & Advance endorsed McCain's candidacy. Both supported Bush four years ago. And the Daily Press of Newport News and the weekly Rappahannock News Times both supported Kerry in 2004, but switched to McCain this time.
    
    The state will be under a microscope on Election Night. Yes, it will be close — but, as I pointed out last week, it's been close in Virginia before. And, since the days of Dwight Eisenhower, every Republican except Barry Goldwater has carried Virginia.
    
    I expect the streak to continue.
    
    By the way, if you live in Virginia, be aware that state officials anticipate a record voter turnout on Election Day. Considering that more than 70% of Virginia's voters participated in 2004, that suggests some pretty long lines. Plan your trip to the polls accordingly.


26. West Virginia (5): McCain 54%, Obama 46% — Time was, non-incumbent Republicans didn't win West Virginia. For 70 years (from 1932 to 2000), the only Republicans to win West Virginia were incumbents seeking re-election.
    
    But the state seems to be undergoing a transformation.
    
    Actually, it may be a mistake to make it sound like an "in progress" phenomenon. George W. Bush wasn't an incumbent when he defeated Al Gore in West Virginia in 2000 — and, if the state had rejected Bush as it did 11 other non-incumbent Republicans since 1932, Gore would have become president. Even without the support of Florida.
    
    Democrats still win statewide offices in West Virginia, but the state hasn't shown much more inclination to embrace Obama than it showed for John Kerry or Al Gore. The state held its primary late in the spring, when Obama had all but wrapped up the nomination, yet West Virginia voted heavily for Hillary Clinton.
    
    Public opinion polls suggest the state could still wind up in the Democratic column, but McCain continues to lead in the surveys. It may take a more severe economic jolt in the final week of the campaign to flip West Virginia to the Democrats.


27. Wyoming (3): McCain 65%, Obama 35% — Bush received 69% of Wyoming's vote both times.

---

I predict that Obama will win these states:

1. California (55): Obama 54%, McCain 46% — A few large papers (the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the San Francisco Examiner) along with some smaller papers (the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the North County Times and the Bakersfield Californian) have endorsed McCain, and he's also been recommended by the Napa Valley Register, which has a circulation of about 17,000. But Obama should win the state decisively.
   
   Given the state's voting pattern of the last 20 years, I would expect Obama to carry California, even without the endorsements of the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, the Contra Costa Times and the San Jose Mercury News.
   
   And Obama has also gained the endorsements of some smaller California papers that supported Bush in 2004 — for example, the Stockton Record and the Long Beach Press-Telegram. More than half a dozen California newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed Obama.


2. Colorado (9): Obama 50%, McCain 49% — Colorado may be a good test case for the question of how much influence is wielded by an endorsement.
   
   The Denver Post, which endorsed Bush in 2004, endorsed Obama in 2008. Will that help flip Colorado, which has voted Republican in nine of the last 10 presidential elections, from red to blue?
   
   Obama also has the support of the Aurora Sentinel, the Boulder Daily Camera, the Aspen Daily News and the Vail Daily. They all supported Kerry in 2004.


3. Connecticut (7): Obama 52%, McCain 47% — Both the Hartford Courant and the New Haven Register supported Bush in 2004. They endorsed Obama in 2008.


4. Delaware (3): Obama 54%, McCain 45% — Thanks to a clause in Delaware's election laws, Joe Biden — like Lyndon Johnson (in 1960), Lloyd Bentsen (in 1988) and Joe Lieberman (in 2000) — is simultaneously running for vice president and re-election to the Senate.
   
   Only Johnson won both races — but, at the very least, Biden does not appear likely to be the first to be denied re-election to the Senate.
   
   As a vote of confidence, Wilmington's News Journal gave its endorsement to Obama.


5. D.C. (3): Obama 91%, McCain 9% — The Washington Examiner, a free daily tabloid, and the Washington Times endorsed McCain, but the heavyweight, the Washington Post, endorsed Obama.
   
   Blacks are in the majority in D.C., which has voted heavily for the Democrat in every election since first being allowed to vote for president in 1964.


6. Hawaii (4): Obama 63%, McCain 37% — Having been born in Hawaii and having enjoyed a resounding victory over Hillary Clinton there in the state's caucuses, Obama appears to be positioned to carry Hawaii by perhaps the widest margin in its history on Election Day.
   
   The Honolulu Star-Bulletin endorsed Obama.


7. Illinois (21): Obama 57%, McCain 43% — As an adult, Obama was sent to the Senate in 2004 by the voters of Illinois. About 70% of them voted for him over Alan Keyes, a long-time resident of Maryland who agreed to run against Obama. McCain will run stronger than Keyes did, but I've never given him much of a chance to win Illinois.
   
   Obama seems sure to be helped, in some quarters, by the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune, which gave its blessing to a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in its 161-year history.
   
   It is also the largest newspaper in Chicago, triple the size of the more liberal Chicago Sun-Times, which also endorsed Obama.


8. Iowa (7): Obama 51%, McCain 49% — Much has been made of the fact that the Iowa caucuses in January served as the launching pad for Obama's presidential ambitions. Due to the peculiarities of the rules governing caucus participation, not everyone who took part in the Iowa caucuses lived in Iowa.
   
   The involvement of young voters was deemed critical for Obama's success in Iowa. But you could participate in the caucuses if you were currently enrolled at a school in Iowa — even if you lived in a different state.
   
   So it's hard to tell how many of those voters will be voting in Iowa in November. Of course, it would be hard to predict how many of the younger voters will participate, anyway, since young people have historically been the least politically active demographic age group.
   
   The Des Moines Register endorsed Obama on Sunday. That came as no surprise, since the paper supported Kerry four years ago.
   
   And do you remember the character of "Radar" on "M*A*S*H"? Do you remember that Radar's hometown was Ottumwa, Iowa? Well, the newspaper in that town, the Ottumwa Courier, has endorsed Obama.


9. Maine (4): Obama 54%, McCain 46% — Once a reliably Republican New England state, Maine has shifted to the Democrats as the Republicans have taken on more of a southwestern flavor in recent decades.
   
   The Lewiston Sun Journal supports McCain. It endorsed Bush in 2004. The Bangor Daily News has endorsed Obama. Kerry received its backing last time.


10. Maryland (10): Obama 53%, McCain 47% — The only endorsement for McCain in Maryland thus far is from the Baltimore Examiner, a free tabloid with a daily circulation of 236,000. Its endorsement is the same as the one from the Washington Examiner, which isn't surprising since both are owned by the same company.
    
    The Baltimore Sun supports Obama. It supported Kerry in 2004.


11. Massachusetts (12): Obama 55%, McCain 44% — I know anything can happen in an election, but does anyone seriously doubt that the only state that resisted Richard Nixon's bid for a second term in 1972 — and produced three Democratic presidential nominees in the last half century (as well as two more high-profile candidates who were not nominated) — will be in the Democratic column in November?
    
    Boston's largest newspaper, the Globe, endorsed Obama. But he shouldn't need the newspaper's assistance.


12. Michigan (17): Obama 52%, McCain 47% — Not only does Obama have the support of the Detroit Free Press, but McCain has virtually conceded the state, withdrawing campaign funds to use them elsewhere.
    
    McCain does have the endorsement of the Detroit News. No Democrat has won the News' endorsement since it was founded in 1873 — but Republicans don't always win its support, either, as Bush discovered when it declined to recommend his re-election.
    
    McCain is also supported by the Grand Rapids Press, which endorsed Bush last time.


13. Minnesota (10): Obama 51%, McCain 49% — Times are changing in the home state of Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey. Minnesota isn't as liberal as it once was, but it's not as conservative as the modern Republican Party would like it to be.
    
    No Republican has carried the state in the last 36 years. And Obama has received the endorsement of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.


14. Missouri (11): Obama 50%, McCain 49% — The two heavyweight newspapers in Missouri, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kansas City Star, have endorsed Obama. They both endorsed Kerry in 2004, but the state voted for Bush, 53% to 46%.
    
    Obama also received the endorsement of the Columbia Daily Tribune, which endorsed Kerry last time.


15. New Hampshire (4): Obama 51%, McCain 48% — The state is more competitive than you might expect. It was the only state that voted for Bush in 2000 that rejected his bid for re-election in 2004.
    
    Earlier polls showed McCain in front. Recent polls suggested a double-digit lead for Obama, but the margin has dropped into single digits in recent polls.
    
    I have resisted until only recently counting it as an Obama victory.
    
    McCain has received the endorsement of the Union Leader of Manchester, and Obama has been endorsed by the Nashua Telegraph and the Concord Monitor.
    
    None of those endorsements represent a shift in allegiance from the last presidential election.
    
    New Hampshire Republicans voted for McCain over George W. Bush in 2000, and their support in this year's primary gave McCain the boost he needed to revive his campaign for the GOP nomination. And Hillary Clinton revived her presidential campaign by beating Obama.
    
    But I'm going to predict that Obama will receive just enough votes to win New Hampshire and therefore sweep New England.


16. New Jersey (15): Obama 53%, McCain 47% — The Asbury Park Press, the Bergen County Record and the Newark Star-Ledger all endorsed Obama, although he shouldn't need their help winning New Jersey.


17. New Mexico (5): Obama 50%, McCain 49% — New Mexico is a small state, but it's a bellwether that both sides would like to win. McCain has been endorsed by the Roswell Daily Record (circulation 11,700). Obama has been endorsed by the Las Cruces Sun-News (circulation 24,735), which endorsed Bush in 2004.
    
    I'm inclined to think that the race to fill Pete Domenici's Senate seat is a better barometer. The Democrat, Tom Udall, has been leading in the polls by consistently wide margins, and I think that will help other Democrats on the ballot.


18. New York (31): Obama 54%, McCain 45% — The New York Post endorsed McCain more than a month ago. The Jewish Press, a weekly in New York, supports McCain as well.
    
    The Jewish Press and the New York Post also endorsed Bush in 2004, as did the New York Daily News.
    
    But the Daily News has endorsed Obama this time.
    
    A few days ago, the New York Times added its name to the list of papers recommending Obama. No surprise there.
    
    Obama also has the support of the Buffalo News, which endorsed Kerry in 2004, and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and the Albany Times Union, neither of which endorsed anyone last time.
    
    And, while it represents a national readership in spite of its name (which, rightfully, implies an emphasis on culture in New York City), The New Yorker also has endorsed Obama. Although politically liberal, The New Yorker broke its eight-decade tradition of not endorsing presidential candidates in 2004 when it supported Kerry.
    
    I don't think endorsements will affect the outcome in New York. In recent (and even not-so-recent) memory, the state has seldom voted for the Republican ticket.


19. Oregon (7): Obama 52%, McCain 47% — The Portland Oregonian has endorsed Obama.
    
    Only the presence on the ballot of a centrist Republican senator seeking re-election will keep Obama's share of the vote down in Oregon.


20. Pennsylvania (21): Obama 51%, McCain 47% — Obama has the support of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, all of which endorsed Kerry in 2004.
    
    But Obama also has been endorsed by the York Daily Record, the Erie Times-News and the 44,561-circulation Express-Times of Easton, Pa., all of which endorsed Bush four years ago.
    
    The Harrisburg Patriot-News endorsed no one last time, but it recommends Obama in 2008.
    
    It hasn't been completely one-sided in Pennsylvania, where McCain has made such an effort in recent weeks. The 100,000-circulation Philadelphia Bulletin has endorsed his candidacy. The Bulletin endorsed no one in 2004.


21. Rhode Island (4): Obama 59%, McCain 41% — Rhode Island has supported the Republican nominee only twice in the last 12 presidential elections. In both cases, a Republican incumbent (Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984) was seeking re-election and wound up winning in a 49-state landslide.
    
    Nothing like that is going to happen this year.
    
    The Providence Journal has endorsed Obama. It supported Bush in 2004.


22. Vermont (3): Obama 61%, McCain 39% — In previous generations, Vermont was a reliably Republican state. But it has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections and should do so again.
    
    The Burlington Free Press has endorsed Obama; it endorsed Kerry four years ago.


23. Washington (11): Obama 55%, McCain 45% — Many of the newspapers in Washington state — including both of Seattle's papers, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer — have endorsed Obama.
    
    The Democratic nominee also has been endorsed by the Tacoma News Tribune, the Tri-City Herald, The Olympian and the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin — all relatively small newspapers that endorsed Kerry in 2004.
    
    But Obama also has received the blessing of the Vancouver Columbian, which endorsed Bush last time.


24. Wisconsin (10): Obama 49%, McCain 46% — The Wisconsin State Journal (circulation 138,276) endorsed Bush in 2004, but it supports Obama in 2008.
    
    Will that endorsement help Obama's cause? He also was endorsed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a Kerry supporter last time.
    
    Wisconsin has voted for Democrats in the last five elections, but Gore and Kerry won narrowly there. In fact, the final outcome has frequently been close in Wisconsin.

---

When all the votes have been counted and all the winners and losers are known, it is my belief that America will still be a divided nation.

I think that what will change will be the nature of the identity of the most prominent division.

All the old divisions still exist, to a certain degree, and they will continue to exist after the election.

Some people will vote for or against Obama because of the color of his skin.

And some people will vote for or against McCain because of his age.

But I think that what will be clear from the results in the presidential election will be that voters in small, rural states tend to support Republicans and voters in large, metropolitan states tend to support Democrats.

It's been one of those rare elections when the Democrat has received more newspaper endorsements than the Republican — so far. We still have a week to go, and it's possible that the endorsements that will be published in the next seven days will overwhelmingly support McCain's candidacy.

But even if that is not the case (and I'm inclined to think that it won't be), it's clear that most of the metro newspapers support Obama. He also has received the endorsements of many small newspapers, but small newspapers clearly make up the bulk of McCain's constituency in the Fourth Estate.

Clearly, the only endorsements that matter are the ones expressed by every American voter in the polling places across the nation.

In my projection, McCain wins more states than Obama, 27-23. But two-thirds of McCain's states have less than 10 electoral votes apiece while half of Obama's states have at least 10 electoral votes — and many of them, like California, New York and Pennsylvania, have considerably more than 10.

Future campaigns may well be waged over the needs of small-town America vs. big-city America, perhaps leading to general public acceptance of modern versions of stereotypes that go beyond the basic elements of race, gender, age, religion or economic status.

If that's what awaits us in the future, the battle lines have been drawn in 2008.

And the bottom line in 2008 is ...

Obama — 284 electoral votes
McCain — 254 electoral votes

What's your prediction?