Steve,

And the GOP's convention will be in Manhattan in late August. I don't know if New York is winnable by the GOP, but it's definitely in play, much as Schwarzenegger's victory puts California in play as well.

Ed

Half of my circle of friends - half - have never voted for a Republican but will vote for Bush this year.

One friends says she wants to vote for Democrats down-ticket and "none of the above" for president.

We aren't in New York, but still.

The NY is in play, if, an only if, there is Mondale style blowout.

Michael-

It's going to suck for you personally when rightward leaning bloggers forget about you. Today you may the the rights favorite "liberal-hawk-turned bush supporter" but that won't last.

Would you and yours friends consider voting for a Democratic hawk like Gep, Edwards, or Lieberman?

Drew,

Why would right-leaning bloggers forget about me? I am not left-wing anymore. I'm done.

Michael's a good writer, intelligent, has a lot to say, says it quite well, and is not afraid to think outside the box. This "right-wing" blogger won't forget about those things.

It's funny how Democrats write this stuff off, but Koch is on record as saying he has never before voted for a Republican.

If Koch is going to vote for Bush, how many other people who identify themselves as Democrats are as well?

And drew, good writing is good writing. The people who appreciate that will continue to read Michael's weblog and his published work, and that includes me.

Heck, I would consider voting for Joe Lieberman, but it seems as though the Democratic party is content with suffering their worst defeat since 1988 on the coattails of Howard Dean.

I wonder how many voters Hillary will cost the Dems come November? Judging from the comments of New Yorkers who voted for her, plenty. If Guliani campaigns for Bush, fuggedaboutit.

(hey, how about Guliani for VP?)

Well, I consider myself moderate-to-right, (sort of "Whiggish") and I would consider a Lieberman vote. My congressman is Martin Frost, who has been re-district'd out of his safe seat. I'd pick him for my senator over the Republican incumbant, Corwyn.

But the Sharpton/Braun/Pelosi/Daschle/Jackson-Lee/Feinstein/etc caucus of the Democratic party leaves me stone cold. That is, I presume a candidate who self-identifies as Democrat shares more policy opinions with Pelosi than with me. I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.

The ire that Michael Totten has drawn upon himself is startling.

Drew's comment, frex, sounds half like the jilted girlfriend ("You know, she's just gonna dump you for somebody better, and then you're gonna come CRAWLIN' back to me!!") and half like someone from the Thirty Years' War ("For the sin of heresy, not only will I have thee cast out, but cast down into the Lake of Fire!")

If people read Michael Totten or not, why in the world is this of drew's concern? I get the impression, reading Totten's blog and comments around the blogosphere, that he has a life that goes beyond his politics, and if the blogging phenomena peters out, next week or next year, it will make darn little difference to him (or to our esteemed host).

The dire effects seem more intended to corral folks into their proper "place" than anything else---amusing in a world where, as someone once put it, no one even knows if you're a dog.

Isn't that, ooo whats the word I'm looking for...? Ah yes, a total hypocrite. And my friends wonder why, above other reasons, I'm a republican

Jethro

Joy Nordingler at NRO used the term "9/11 Democrats" as sort of the modern day Reagan Democrat. Makes sense to me, anyway.

There will be a number of Dems who will cross over and vote for Bush. There will be hardly any Republicans who cross over and vote for the Dem candidate. Do the math:
it adds up to landslide.

If W does win, and Steyn already wrote about this, I wonder if the Zeropeans will ask themselves why we hate them so to foist him on them for another 4 years, especially by the win margin.

Hey, I told people I was going to take back the streets of my fair city. ;)

All kidding aside, it's not surprising. NYC has two problems: Amiable lefties who pull the Dem handle because they never bother to actually look at the issues at hand, and historically pathetic voter turnout.

While those two things don't bode well for city council elections and what not (they're all loons), I doubt those will hold true in the first Presidential election since 9/11.

It's going to be decidedly interesting if Giuliani gets into it, and the party would have to be out to flipping lunch not to get him to do so.

fw,

Yes, but you are also describing the historical reality. Traditionally, the Republican party has been able to count on significantly more party loyalty than the Democratic party--although the Democrats made up for this by being a larger party. The real news is that Republican registration nationwide has drawn almost even (within 5%, I believe), and if the previous party loyalty trends hold true, that's bad news for the Democrats.

Sam Barnes --

You're right: historically there has been a larger Dem crossover vote than Republican.
I suspect, though, that if you had looked at the issue on Sept 10, 2001, you would have found very little Dem crossover, along the with usual very little Republican crossover.
After Sept 11, though, the tide has shifted considerably. Ed Koch would not have endorsed Bush on Sept 10th, and he is just one of many who has made the leap from Dem to Bush (if only for this election).
So....the Dem's weak approach to the WOT has demonstrably hurt their electoral chances, no matter whom they nominate.
Bush gets 46 states, regardless of whether he faces Dean or Clark.

As you say, I'd be cautious about conflating Bush's personal popularity with general approval for the Republican party as a whole--after all, Clinton got elected twice, but he had beans for coattails. On the other hand, 2002 demonstrated that Bush can have a substantial positive effect on down-ticket races.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, 2004 looked like a disaster down-ticket anyway. Not only is Bush likely to exert a general pro-Republican trend, both houses of Congress are heavily slanted to go further Republican. We're up to, what, five Southern Democratic Senators retiring? Also, the Democrats have 19 Senate seats to defend to the Republicans' 14. The House isn't looking much better--the overwhelming majority of seats are safe for the incumbent, with the exception of post-redistricting Texas. Expect the Republicans to pick up 5-10 seats in the House, at a minimum, and that's before factoring the Presidential race into the mix.