One more "what does this mean" thing

The Schwarzenegger re-election victory in California may be signal to Republicans that California could be in play for the 2008 presidential election. I am not entirely convinced of that (after all, McClintock, the conservative candidate for lt. governor, had a good showing but still lost and Feinstein won another landslide), but if California could be added to the potential column for Republicans, this would be a major shake-up in electoral college math. Republicans may need this shake-up in view of the likely uphill challenges in Missouri, Ohio and perhaps even Colorado.

Here's the problem for Republicans: the only candidates that could put California in play are the candidates that are likely to be the most unappealable to conservative primary voters, especially in the South. Those candidates are Giuliani and McCain.

Giuliani and McCain will undoubtedly seize on the California potential (and in the case of Giuliani in particular, the New York potential as well) as an additional rationale for their candidacies during the primaries. Each of them could stake out this ground now much the same way George Bush staked out the "Compassionate Conservative" ground soon after the 1998 elections. All other candidates would then have to deal with the "California question" or show how their candidacies will have the broad appeal necessary to win the now-difficult states of Missouri and Ohio and perhaps Colorado.

UPDATE: John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics sees a McCain/Pawlenty ticket, in part based on the 2006 midterm results and the location of the 2008 GOP convention (Minneapolis-St. Paul).

Ten things to note from yesterday’s elections (and to be weary of for 2008)

1. Hatred of Bush and Republicans is sufficient for a campaign platform.

2. Republicans who act and vote and like Democrats will eventually be replaced by actual Democrats (see Lincoln Chafee and the northeast Republicans voted out of the House).

3. Democrats will ignore a candidate’s actual positions and history as long as he or she is willing to run as a Democrat (see Webb, Casey and the Southern conservatives elected to the House).

4. For blacks, party identification has become an indelible trait stronger than race or ethnicity and Democrats no longer need to pander to get their votes (see Cardin vs. Steele, Strickland vs. Blackwell and Rendell vs. Swann).

5. With the help of Democrats and the MSM, Hispanic voters are getting close to ignoring the word “illegal” when they hear or read about policies to combat illegal immigration.

6. There is no ascertainable disqualifying level of corruption for a New Jersey Democrat politician (see Toricelli, McGreevey and Menendez).

7. Republicans need to reconsider their resignation reflex (see Delay and Foley vs. Jefferson, Studds and, of course, Clinton).

8. Scandal issues work best when the MSM lends a helping hand (see the coverage of Foley and Allen in contrast to Jefferson and Webb).

9. To Democrats and, at least for now, a majority of voters, ending a war is preferable to winning a war (see Vietnam, and now, perhaps, the GWOT).

10. Blogs can have an outsized role in pushing and funding candidates, but the blog’s most incendiary comments can still be dismissed as not representative of the candidate (see DailyKos, firedoglake, HuffingtonPost).

UPDATE: A new number 11, related to number 8:

11. Dirty tricks, last minute outings and disclosures and negative campaigning are effective, but rather than the MSM helping hand referred to in number 8, Republicans using these tactics have to be prepared to deal with MSM criticism.