Tuesday polls: Stunning toss-up in Indiana, as Obama leads in MI and CO's Udall continues to inch ahead (Updated with new LA Times poll!)

Update: Well, well, well, that Newsweek poll has company! A new LA Times/Bloomberg poll finds a 12% lead for Obama, 49% to 37%. In a four-way race including Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, Obama is ahead 48% to 33%. The key, once again, is the poll's partisan breakdown: 39% of voters identify themselves as Democrats versus only 22% as Republicans. That is simply too big a difference for McCain to hope to survive.

Original post: After yesterday's wave of good poll news for Obama that showed the Democrat gaining in swing states like New Hampshire and in traditionally red state like Alaska, today's shocker comes in the form of a SUSA poll from Indiana -- not the first state you think of when you wonder where the next exciting presidential poll will come from:

• In a state in which George Bush crushed Al Gore and John Kerry, SUSA finds a toss-up race, with Obama edging out McCain 48% to 47%.
  
• No surprise as to the reason: There is a 16% swing from the partisan breakdown of 2004. That year, 46% of voters were Republicans and 32% were Democrats. In this poll, 38% of respondents identify themselves as Democrats and 36% as Republicans.

It is increasingly evident how big an obstacle to McCain's election this shift in partisan breakdown, about which I have written numerous times before, has become. It is what explains Obama's 15% lead i a recent Newsweek poll, and what also accounts for Obama's gains in a number of red states like Indiana. Keep in mind that the Illinois Senator has chosen to run his first ad of the general election in this state which should not be dismissed: While it doesn't cost him that much to run ads in similarly red Montana and Nebraska, Indiana does have an expensive media market (Indianapolis) and the Obama campaign has to be at least somewhat confident that they can tighten the race here and force McCain to play defense.

The day's second good news for Obama comes from Michigan:

• PPP finds Obama to be ahead 47% to 38%, with 78% of Democrats supporting him versus 74% of Republicans supporting McCain.
  

This will not come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog who know that I tend to view Michigan as more dangerous for Obama than Pennsylvania, but this is the biggest lead Obama has ever posted in a Michigan poll. The state is likely to remain competitive to the end, just as it did in the past two elections, but it would be a huge boost to Obama if the state at least comes back to its Democratic leanings. We will have to wait for confirmation from other polls to see whether PPP marks Michigan's return to its more traditional role of a lean-blue state or whether it overstates Obama's support.

The third and last presidential poll of the day comes from New Mexico:

• Obama narrowly leads McCain 49% to 46% in the latest SUSA poll, based on a 54% gender gap and the support of 63% of Hispanics. The two were tied at 44% last month.

Yesterday's Rasmussen poll of the race found an 8% lead for Obama, in what is one of two Gore states to have switched over to Bush in 2004. Polls here remain tight, though Democrats are hoping that claiming an early edge New Mexico and Iowa will put them within striking distance of the White House (6 evs) before contesting more difficult red states. The fact remains that while Obama is putting states like Indiana and Alaska in play he has not been able to open a consistent and clear lead in states that ought to swing to his side more easily if he has a national advantage. And that's what keeps this race so suspenseful.

Finally, four down-the-ballot polls:

• In Colorado's senatorial race, Democrat Tom Udall has opened a 9% lead (46-37) against Republican Bob Schaffer according to an internal poll released by the DSCC.
  

• In Indiana's gubernatorial race, Gov. Daniels leads Democratic challenger Long Thompson 50% to 45% (in the SUSA poll).
  

• In Nebraska's senatorial race, former Gov. Mike Johanns crushes Scott kleeb 60% to 33% in Rasmussen's latest poll. He ld 55% to 40% last month. Johanns's favorability rating stands at 63%, versus 50% for Kleeb.
  

• Finally, PPP accompanied its presidential poll with the uninteresting finding that Carl Levin is leading 54% to 32% in his uninteresting match-up against Republican Jack Hoogendyck.

Long Thompson was unexplicably trailing big in the last 2 polls of the race, though this survey is a return to what we have seen most of the year: Mitch Daniels is a vulnerable incumbent though he has somewhat recovered in the past year, making this race unpredictable. As for the Nebraska race, it remains the Democrat's big disappointment of the year as Bob Kerrey's running would have made this one of the hottest pick-up opportunities of the year rather than a blowout which Kleeb has little chance of tightening. In fact, the Democrat himself probably views this as a resume-boosting name ID-enhancing run.

As for the Colorado poll, it is an internal survey but this is the second poll after Rasmussen's that shows Udall extending his lead a bit. Democrats have long been hoping that Udall will repeat the gubernatorial scenario of Gov. Ritter in 2006, when the Democrat unexpectedly opened a huge lead in what was expected to be a close open seat race and he never looked back. The environment is still as bad for the GOP and the state has only trended more blue in the past two years but Udall has been unable to inch ahead of Schaffer. If these latest polls are confirmed, however, it will be a very positive development for Democrats.

Obama launches first general-election ad, expands battleground to GOP states as Georgia poll confirms fluidiy of electoral map

More than two weeks after clinching the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama launched his first general election ad today, a 60-second biographical spot meant to introduce himself to voters:


What: Speaking directly to the camera, Barack Obama mentions his maternal family, his being raised according to Kansas values and his choice to help devastated neighborhoods (Obama has long ceased calling his days in Chicago 'community organizing') rather than take a Wall Street job. He goes on to tout his record in providing health care to wounded troops, cut taxes and move people from welfare to work. These are all issues that could just as easily be featured in the ad of a Republican candidate, which goes along with the non-threatening heartland imagery and non(or anti)-partisan message the ad is meant to convey.

Politico's Jonathan Martin dubs this a "task in reassurance" and there is little doubt that this is exactly the ad's goal. This election is first and foremost a referendum on the Republican Party and the Administration. That means Barack Obama will be elected President in November unless the GOP convinces Americans that Obama is an entirely unacceptable choice -- whether because of his alleged inexperience or because of whatever smears are circulating online and are foolishly repeated on Fox. In 2004, the Bush campaign managed to survive an election that was a referendum on the incumbent by convincing enough voters that Kerry was too risky (read: unpatriotic) a choice. In 2008, McCain will need to drive up negativity even more given how much the Republican brand has sank just in the past four years.

Obama will have achieved a large part of what he needs to do by simply preventing Republicans from demonizing him. Given his massive financial advantage, he will have plenty of resources to do just that by airing this type of positive ad that emphasize the parts of Obama's story that make him look like just any other American politician while also being able to attack McCain.

Where: As interesting as the ad's content is the list of 18 states the commercial will be air in (the size of the media buy is still unknown): Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

This list is the who's who of battleground states, and it gives us a good sense of which states Obama expects to contest in the coming months. Compared to my latest least of competitive states, are noticeable the absence of Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington (and perhaps also California) and the inclusion of Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota.

Obama's confidence in carrying the first set of states is due to a series of polls finding the Illinois Senator improving in what I have been calling the "Dukakis 5." WA, OR and MN appear to be returning to their longtime Democratic roots after flirting with take-overs these past two cycles. As for New Jersey, Bush considerably improved his score in 2004 and McCain believes that his support among independents makes the state a worthy target. But New Jersey is an expansive state since running an ad requires investing in both the Philly and NYC markets and Obama is unlikely to accept such investments without further indication that the state might be competitive. (A similar argument could be made about expensive California.)

As for the more unconventional states that are included in the list, they are truly fascinating: Obama has long argued that Georgia is competitive but now that push is coming to shove and the time has come for the first media buy, it is noteworthy that Obama is actually following through and spending money here. It suggests that this is no longer just spin but that the Democrat's campaign actually believes that its registration drive and the increase in black turnout will make the Southern state Bush won by 17% truly competitive. And don't forget that the Bob Barr factor could play in Georgia more than in other times. Just in time to give us an idea of where Obama is coming from, Insider Advantage released a poll from Georgia finding... a toss-up:

• McCain gets 44% to Obama's 43%, with Bob Barr coming in at a high 6%. (A Rasmussen poll taken 10 days ago had McCain leading by 10%).
  

This is obviously stunning and we eagerly await more polls from this state -- particularly more surveys that include Bob Barr, as he could really influence this election if he draws more from McCain than Obama. The Democrat's targeting Indiana can be described in the same way as Georgia: McCain's lead is narrowing there, just as it is in Georgia, but for Obama to actually take the jump in a state that has a more-expansive-than-most media market (Indianapolis) is remarkable.

As for Alaska, Montana and North Dakota, those are the real stunners of Obama's list, states George Bush won by 25%, 20% and 27% respectively! And DailyKos notes that running ads in Iowa probably enables Obama to reach the Omaha network, where one or two of Nebraska's EVs could potentially be contested. Each of these 3 states represents 3 electoral votes, but Obama is here striking at the core of the Republican base, states that never wavered in its support of Bush in the past two presidential elections. Yet, polls have shown Obama within striking distance in Alaska (there have been less public polls from MT and ND) and the candidate is less affected by racial polarization patterns in these Western states than he is in the Southern red bastions. Boosted by the fact that all three of these states are relatively cheap to advertise in, Obama looks determined to test McCain's vulnerabilities.

At the very least, this expansion of the electoral map will put McCain on the defensive, forcing his campaign to calculate whether it should play defense in Indiana and Alaska or whether it should invest that money in Minnesota and Oregon, states Obama is not even bothering to defend. Remember that the Republican's campaign will only have $85 million to spend once voters start paying the most attention in the fall and there is only so many states that he can spread that money on.

Update: Further provoking Republicans, Obama is assigning the former political director of its Iowa caucus effort to... Indiana, a state that has not voted Democratic since 1964. And the campaign is pledging paid staffers to... Texas!

Presidential polls: Tracking the bounce

The expectation that Obama would enjoy a bounce after Clinton's concession had been set for months, with the McCain campaign trying to increase the pressure by publicly stating that it expects Obama to surge ahead as he is declared the Democratic nominee. We do not yet have enough polling data to determine how high Obama will rise but can certainly start monitoring the polls. For now, today's national polls find mixed results.

The two tracking polls have found Obama gaining since last Tuesday, when he clinched his party's nod. Both Rasmussen and Gallup find him leading by 6 percent (50% to 44% for the former, 48% to 42% for the latter). This margin is the largest Obama has achieved in Gallup's tracking poll. While this is a very favorable sign for Obama, it is worth noting that Democrats expect to see more of a bounce as the level which Obama will achieve will be regarded as a sort of ceiling. As the campaign gets settled in general election mode in the coming days and as the reality of Clinton's withdrawal sets in, we will see whether Obama can open up more of lead.

At the state level, five polls were released today -- none showing surprising results though we have some interesting findings:

• In South Carolina, a Rasmussen poll shows McCain to be leading 48% to 39%.
  

• In Wisconsin, the race is very tight with Obama edging out McCain 45% to 43%. A month ago, McCain led 47% to 43%.
  
• Both candidates have a high favorable rating here, with McCain posting a particularly strong 60%. Obama is at 55%.

• In New Jersey, Obama leads 48% to 39%. Rasmussen found McCain slightly ahead 46% to 45% in late March so this is a net progression for Obama though it places him where we expect him to be.
• Here again, the candidates have high favorability rating: 60% for Obama (36% very favorable) and 59% for McCain (though only 18% very favorable).

• In Texas, McCain is ahead 52% to 39%. A month ago, he was only leading by 5%. As I will soon write about, the Senate race has also dramatically swung towards the GOP, implying that there is a sampling difference between the two surveys.
  
• 38% of Texas have a very unfavorable view of the Illinois Senator.
  

• Finally, a poll from Indiana shows that McCain starts ahead, 47% to 38%, in a state Bush won by 20%.
  

Of these five states, only Wisconsin is rated as a toss-up in my latest electoral college ratings, a status that is confirmed by this poll. Some Democrats believe Obama should be stronger than previous Democrats in one of his most crucial primary victories, but his strength with Midwestern independents should help him put Minnesota out of play before Wisconsin and we should expect that the latter stay competitive to the end.

As for the four others, they are all states that Obama and McCain want to believe they can make competitive: The Democratic advantage in New Jersey has been diminishing and, though the state has not been kind to Republicans, McCain's strength among independents could help him in the Garden State. As for South Carolina, it should be the last of the Southern states where Obama wants to increase black turnout to fall (after NC and GA). In Texas, it is possible that Obama will choose to spend some resources to force the race into single-digits and force McCain to spend a lot more than he would want to defending a must-win state for the GOP.

Thursday polls: Indiana is a rare toss-up

We have seen remarkably few polls from Indiana so far but Research 2000 sought to correct that anomaly today by releasing a survey from the Hoosier state:

• Obama edges out Clinton 48% to 47%, a slight improvement from the previous R2000 poll that had Clinton leading by 3%.
• In the general election, McCain beats both Democrats but by margins that are narrower than those Bush enjoyed in 2000 and 2004. He leads Obama 51% to 43% and Clinton 52% to 41%.

• Update: Selzer & Co (which is I believe the same pollster that conducts the Des Moines Register poll) released another Indiana survey tonight, also showing Obama up within the margin of error, 41% to 38%.
• And in truly stunning general election numbers, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41% while Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%.
  

There have been few states in which there has been genuine uncertainty as to who would win rather than suspense about the margin. Texas was certainly the last state in which we went into Election Day with no favorite, but even there Clinton had gone into it the campaign as a favorite. This is why the next two week promise to be so much fun: There will be an actual measure by which to judge candidates' performances rather than the always subjective metric of what losing margin constitutes a moral victory! That said, Clinton will need more than just a narrow victory, but this initial indecisiveness suggests she might have trouble getting there.

As for the general election, it would certainly be very impressive for the Democratic nominee to even put Indiana in play, as the state has not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964. That said, the Selzer poll does look like an outlier; there have been other general election polls from Indiana and none suggests that McCain is in that much danger here. Not to mention that if McCain is in danger of losing Indiana come November he probably will be in even worse shape in neighboring Midwestern states such as Iowa and Ohio -- not that the Obama campaign necessarily thinks it has a good chance of winning the latter. In a memo it distributed today to superdelegates and that the Washington Post obtained, the campaign lists what states Obama will concentrate on, classifying them as "big states," "traditional battlegrounds" and "new states" (CO and VA, but also TX, ND and MT). This was meant to be a memo about electability, which explains the inclusion of TX, ND and MT as there have been some polls lately in which Obama has been strong but not Clinton. But much more shocking is that Florida and Ohio have just been left out of the memo!

Two other general election surveys were released over the past two days by Rasmussen:

• In Minnesota, Obama crushes McCain 52% to 37%. Clinton is ahead by a much narrower 47% to 42%. This is a significant improvement for both Democrats; a month ago, Obama lead McCain by 4 and Clinton trailed by 1.

• In Nevada, however, another crucial swing state that is near the top of the Democrats' pick-up list, McCain is leading both Democrats, 48% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 38% against Clinton -- a rare case in which there the proportion of undecided voters is much higher in Hillary's match-up.
• Last month, both Democrats led McCain -- Obama by 4%, which was already a decline from the month before when Obama led by 12%.

Both of these states will be very disputed all the way to November. Minnesota is one of the blue states the GOP is assured of contesting; not only did it only narrowly reject Bush in 2004, but the GOP convention will be held in St. Paul this year and MN Governor Pawlenty is at the top of McCain's vice-presidential list. As for Nevada, Democrats know they must make inroads in the West if they want to survive the census reallocation that will have kicked in by the next presidential election. They have room to grow in the region and the Obama campaign clearly believes that the West (starting with Colorado) is fertile ground for the Illinois Senator.

Finally, Rasmussen also released a Senate poll from Minnesota:

• It shows Senator Norm Coleman leading Al Franken 50% to 43%. This is a second month in a row the Republican is improving his position since trailing 49-46 in February. Last month, Coleman was leading by 2%, 48-46.

This is the first time Coleman is reaching 50% in a Rasmussen poll, the vulnerability threshold no incumbent wants to fall under. Note that Franken's trajectory is going downward just as he looks to be securing the DFL's nomination. This race is probably the purest Senate toss-up along with Alaska's Senate race, as all other races more or less clearly lean towards the incumbent or challenging party. With Democrats unable to make much of a move right now in Maine and Oregon, Franken could benefit from more DSCC attention.

A bad polling day for Clinton

It is ironic that, on a day in which most state polls look bad for Hillary Clinton, the most talked about survey is Gallup's tracking poll. After 11 days by a statistically significant margin, Hillary Clinton has moved within the margin of error, 47%to 44%. That's a 4% improvement since yesterday and a 7% improvement in the past 3 days -- implying the movement started before the ABC debate.

If this movement is confirmed in the coming days and if the debate is found to move numbers towards Clinton, it would naturally be a significant development. But the most important polls released today suggest that Clinton is declining. A Newsweek survey shows Obama gaining a tremendous amount of ground in the past month, now coming in 19% ahead of his rival, 54% to 35%. If a few more polls confirm the existence of this massive a gap, it will be increasingly difficult for Clinton to hold off the superdelegate flight.

But it is the three polls from the upcoming primaries that are the most threatening to her survival past Tuesday and past May 6th:

• A Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania, taken entirely yesterday, shows Clinton leading by a tight 47% to 44%. In the previous Rasmussen poll, released on Monday, Clinton was up by 9%.

• Zogby's tracking Pennsylvania tracking poll, meanwhile, shows Clinton leading by a narrow 47% to 43%. Yesterday, she was only ahead 45% to 44%, so today's numbers are a slight post-debate improvement. Zogby adds, however, that "22% of Catholic Democrats and 18% of white Democrats choose McCain against Obama."

• Meanwhile, the most surprising poll comes from Indiana: At the beginning of the week, SUSA found Clinton leading by 16%. Today, a new SUSA poll (conducted entirely before the debate) finds Obama ahead by 5%, 50% to 45%.
  
• The two SUSA polls were not conducted with the same turnout model or for the same outlet; so the two surveys are not directly comparable. However, the poll is clearly bad news for Hillary; the LA Time's poll a few days ago also showed Obama ahead by 5%.

There have been two movements in Pennsylvania polls. First, Obama picked up ground and threatened Clinton's dominance; then, Clinton managed to rebound and create some space. Polls today and yesterday suggest that the electorate is very volatile right now and most anything could happen on Tuesday.

Complicating matters for Clinton is that she will have to immediately work to survive May 6th if she gets past April 22nd. North Carolina has been a lost cause for a while, but it looked like Indiana held premise for Hillary -- the LA Times and latest SUSA poll indicate that Clinton will not have an easy time ensuring solid results in three weeks.

Finally, we also got interesting general election polls results today:

• Newsweek's national poll shows both Democrats ahead of McCain by the same narrow margin, 48% to 44% for Obama and 47% to 43% for Clinton.
  

• In Indiana, SUSA also conducted a general election poll and found a much tighter contest than what we have been accustomed to in the state: McCain leads Obama 51% to 44%. He is ahead of Clinton 53% to 42%. Bush got 60% and 57% in 2000 and 2004.

• In Washington, SUSA (again) found both Democrats leading McCain by differing margins: Obama leads 53% to 40%, while Clinton is ahead 48% to 45%. There is a huge difference among independents: Clinton loses them by 3%, Obama wins by 21%.
  

• In Colorado, meanwhile, Obama leads 46% to 43% against McCain; Clinton is trounced 50% to 46%.

• Finally, a Quinnipiac poll of New York shows McCain too close for comfort (just as yesterday's poll from SUSA) with Clinton ahead 49% to 37% despite only getting 65% of the black vote; Obama is held in single-digits, 47% to 39%.

One of the most consistent electability results is that Obama is much stronger than Clinton among independents out West -- Oregon, Washington and Colorado have consistently shown Clinton faring much worse than Obama. In fact, Colorado is one of the first states the Obama campaign they can take away from the Republican column; it is at the top of Obama's "alternative electoral map" that does not go through states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, Obama is more in danger in some of the bluest states, with SUSA yesterday showing him leading in single-digits in CA, NY and MA -- a dangerous finding confirmed by today's Quinnipiac poll.

The electability question revisited, with new general election polls

The electability debate has been raging for months now and has served as an important subtext of the Democratic primaries. In fact, electabilty arguments were invoked far less in the GOP primaries, surprisingly so given that the polls were much more consistent in who would be the strongest Republican in a general election. And now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, we will probably no longer see general election polls from very red states in which Democrats manage a tie or even lead (a poll even had Clinton competitive in Texas some time in the fall!).

In the Democratic race, however, it has been much more difficult to find a pattern of electability. I have addressed this question many times in the past few months, the first time at the beginning of September when an Ohio poll had Clinton running significantly better than Obama and a Colorado poll had her much weaker than her rival.

Over the next few months, I attempted to find some pattern, some consistency and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that (1) Clinton polls better than Obama in red Southern states (which Clinton often looked competitive in) and in the Northeast (Obama often struggles against McCain in polls from New York and Massachusetts) and that (2) Obama is stronger in the Southwest and Northwest. That hypothesis is usually confirmed by surveys and, as we will see, this week's SUSA surveys give more evidence for that. I first stated this theory in November, after a poll of Alabama showed Clinton surprisingly strong and a poll of Oregon showed Obama outpacing her.

In the rest of the country (especially in the Midwest) it has been seemingly impossible to find a pattern of electability. That same day, I also wrote , "Hillary looked more electable in this week's MN poll, while Barack looked more solid in the Iowa poll from the day before."

Today's new polls show that it remains very difficult to judge the electability case of the two Democratic front-runners. First, there is Time's national poll that will likely be often cited in the coming days:

• Time has Obama leading McCain by 7%, 48% to 41%, while Hillary is tied at 46%.
• Commenting on these numbers, Time's pollster says, "Independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator."

We also got this week a series of three state polls from SUSA. They all tested Romney, whose results I am including as an indication of McCain's relative strength:

• A Kentucky poll has McCain leading Clinton 53% to 43% and crushing Obama 61% to 32%. Clinton manages a lead against Romney, 48% to 46%, while Romney trounces Obama 55% to 38%.


• In Indiana, the two Democrats poll equally. Clinton trails McCain 51% to 42% and Obama is behind 50% to 40%. Both also lose against Romney, albeit by smaller margins: 49% to 44% and 47% to 44%.


• Finally, in Washington state, it is Obama who does much better, as he destroys McCain 55% to 38% while Clinton is forced into a tie at 46%. Against Romney, Clinton leads 51% to 41%, but that's far weaker than Obama's 61% to 31%.

These results do not contradict my theory of which regions Obama and Clinton are strong in; Kentucky in particular has been a state in which Clinton has been consistently competitive. Despite this, the media inexplicably keeps running with the story of Clinton hurting down-the-ballot Democrats in those states.

The internals of the SUSA polls have a few other interesting clues relating to the electability question. First, on the gender gap:

• In Kentucky, Clinton runs 20% better then Obama overall. And that margin entirely comes from the female vote. Among men, both candidates are running roughly equal (Obama trails 62-30 and Clinton trails 60-36); among women, Obama trails 60% to 34% (no gender gap whatsoever) while Clinton actually leads 49% to 46%, 29% better than Obama.
• In Washington, on the other hand, it is the male vote that makes the difference between Clinton and Obama. Both candidates have a slight lead againt McCain among women, but look at the male vote: Clinton trails 47% to 43% while Obama leads 62% to 32%. That's a 34% swing.

A third characteristic that holds across those polls is that Clinton is much stronger among registered Democrats than Obama, who gets more cross-over votes from Republicans:

• In Kentucky a full 44% of Democrats vote McCain if Obama is their nominee, versus only 28% if the nominee is Clinton.
• In Indiana, McCain takes 18% of the Democratic vote against Clinton, and 30% against Obama. On the other hand, Clinton takes 9% of the GOP vote and Obama gets 19%. (Clinton does a bit better among indies).
• In Washington, Clinton does better among registered Democrats but she only takes 6% of Republican votes, while Obama gets 25%.

Obama and Clinton both will have significant strength and weaknesses in a general election. Obama is stronger among men, but Clinton causes female voters to massively vote to Democrat. Obama attracts the center and can get votes from the right, but what use is that if he cannot hold is his base? Clinton does that holding very well, but she needs to appeal to independents to get to the White House.

The Latino vote will also be very interesting to look at. They have gotten Clinton out of trouble many times over the past few weeks, starting with Nevada and ending with New Mexico and California. On the GOP side, John McCain is the only one who potentially could appeal to Hispanics given that he never fully followed the lead of fellow candidates towards nativism and immigrant-bashing. Will a McCain-Obama showdown help the GOP attract more Latino votes than they were expecting to this cycle? Can Clinton offset McCain's strength among the Hispanic community? Or will the GOP's increasingly harsh and nativist language on immigration doom any chance McCain has of winning the Latino vote? Given that immigration will be a big issue in November, it is unlikely that McCain will be able to distance himself from those in the party who Latinos justifiably will reject.