I have a front row seat I tell ya, but I do think by November, we're going to be tired of ads. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer Openers blog:

With Barack Obama poised to raise and spend money unencumbered by federal campaign finance limits, the Republican National Committee says it will help remedy any imbalance suffered by John McCain -- starting with a $3 million ad campaign to run in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to an online news alert from Roll Call.

The independent expenditure ad campaign will highlight differences between the candidates' energy proposals. It will take advantage of the fact that the RNC has vastly more money than the Democratic National Committee: $53.5 million on hand for the RNC, compared with $4 million for the DNC.

"Following Barack Obama's decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations," RNC I.E. consultant Brad Todd told Roll Call in a statement. Todd's firm, On Message Inc., produced the ad, which Roll Call says will run from this weekend through July 15.

It's a nice effort, but the problem is that the average age of the TV viewer is 50. And while they may be the most likely to actually vote, it appears that there is a whole new demographic that has quit watching TV. I just hope this isn't a portent that the GOP is fighting the last war with the last war's weapons.

I'm struggling to find within myself a gut feeling for how this election is going to shake out. This is odd for me. I usually have a definite opinion and people who know that I am into politics are used to receiving a definite answer. My problem is that I like reading about history, especially political history, and this election is really close to either 1972 or 1976, and it could shakeout either way depending on which context matches best.

In 1972 we had a ton of energy on the Democratic side, rallying around an antiwar candidate and having a lot of fun pointing out the inadequacies and lack of charisma of one Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon may have been unlikeable, but he was very much in tune with the mood of the country. By 1972 he had removed almost all American combat troops from Vietnam, ended the draft. and it wasn't nearly the issue McGovern had hoped it would be.

The silent majority spoke loudly and said they were perfectly fine with Richard Nixon.

But in 1976 there was also a moderate Republican and a lot of energy on the Democratic side, huge economic unrest and it helped push Jimmy Carter into office over Gerald Ford.

My problem in trying to make a prediction, is that I can see either of these scenarios playing out. Is Obama a 2nd Jimmy Carter? Able to tap into a huge mainstream of America that is ready for something new? Or is Obama a George McGovern? Lots of flash and sizzle, but no meat. Many high energy supporters, but many, many more who say, meh, I'll take the old Republican guy, he seems more stable.

If the Republicans had nominated anyone else but McCain, I'd say 1972 in a heartbeat and the Democrats are in for a heartbreak (again), but McCain is uncomfortably close to Gerald Ford, and it might be 1976 again. What's your gut feeling?

I love me a little election strategery, and Patrick Ruffini has a lot of it here. In particular what he finds is a very compelling argument that McCain could push Ohio and Michigan together as one superstate and winning both of them makes it very, very difficult for Obama to make up elsewhere.

This suggests a McCain firewall in Virginia and Colorado, and to a lesser extent Florida, but that won't win it. Rather, the key to victory may lie in targeting Ohio-Michigan as a megastate and trying to shift both states 1-2 points in his direction by brute force. If he does this to tune of just 1%, and nothing else changes, the electoral vote is McCain 291, Obama 247 under a tied popular vote.

The intense targeting behind Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) shows that it's possible to generate one-state swings that pull "ground zero" states towards the national median. The trick this time will be to spin the Buckeye-Wolverine axis as the new Florida/Ohio, because McCain needs both. This also means we can expect to see lots of Dearborn-to-Toledo bus tours for the Straight Talk Express.

And McCain is already acting like he believes it, visiting the heavily blue and unionized parts of the Buckeye state. Ohio and Michigan together count for 37 electoral votes, or bigger than Texas, Florida, and more than half of California. McCain has always done well in Michigan, in primaries at least, and of all the blue states, Michigan is polling the best for a flip. And of course, I personally like the idea of offense, not defense, Obama really cannot afford to ignore a significant push here.

Both states have battered economies and high unemployment relative to the rest of the nation, and a good campaign plan for economic issues will be crucial. But if gas prices and heating oil continue to rise over the next few months, I'm going to give the edge to John McCain on this front, as he definitely has the more credible policy for reducing energy costs.

Either way, as an Ohio resident, I think I will again have a front row seat this cycle.

Yes, there is a little bit of a thaw, as this article at the Politico points out:

"Conservatives have been comfortable with assurances that I've given them and Sen. Brownback has given them," said Olson.
A factor that weighs heavily in McCain's favor is his Senate record. Judicial issues haven't been his trademark, but he has consistently supported conservative Supreme Court nominees. In 1987 he spoke on behalf of embattled Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, saying he supported him "without any hesitation." In recent years McCain has voted for every one of Bush's judicial nominees.
"He voted for Alito and Roberts despite the fact that he had to know they would vote to strike down McCain-Feingold," said Levey. "That addresses the concern that he might not appoint strict constructionist judges who are more likely to oppose McCain-Feingold."

While it's helpful to point that out, it doesn't do that much for me. The fact is, that supporting the president's appointments to the Supreme Court is the very least that should be expected from a Republican senator, it would be unthinkable if he didn't. Roberts was confirmed by 78 senators out of a 100 and all Republicans. Alito drew one Republican defection, Lincoln Chaffee, who later on became officially the Democrat he already was.

So yeah, no points from me for McCain's stock vote on the Supreme Court. Far more important was his service as part of the gang of 14 to derail many of the Bush appointees in trade for Democrats willingness to appoint a few. And it's exactly that crossing the aisle trademark that has conservatives edgy. Oh they'll come around, but warm is a relative term.

Unlike Justin, I think the Heller case overturning the DC gun ban has far larger impact than just Washington DC itself. Scalia and the other four conservative justices left that open for question for now, based on my limited understanding of the opinion. We'll know soon enough, when the inevitable lawsuit against the Chicago ban winds its way up.

Of interest to me was the potential political impact. Obama was clearly scared as hell that the liberal wing of the court was about to eviscerate his chances of winning in November. And yes, a decision nullifying the 2nd amendment would have done so. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton and the many, many outgoing members of the 103rd congress why they think they lost big in 1994. So yes, this was a big deal, as illustrated by Obama's lack of straight talk on the matter:

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

I'm very interested in how Obama will play this now that he has dodged this bullet, no thanks to the four liberal justices who dissented. My guess is that he will say as little as possible and again call for common sense gun laws and try to appear as not a threat to the rights of gun owners. Also of interest is that among the grass roots left there is a new appreciation for the 2nd amendment, but worrying about Dick Cheney's shadow government perhaps gave them an appreciation of what it was all about in the first place. John McCain of course, wasted no time.

"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."