Which West Coast state is least likely to vote Republican in 2012?

[Alcon]

I would say Washington, very barely.  Obama's biggest Achilles' heel is probably potential backlash from ineffectual large-government ventures.  Right now, California is relatively fertile ground for that.  Oregon and Washington -- less so.  I would say that Obama's support in Oregon is probably softer, but he rode personal popularity there to perform near his probable ceiling.

Obama won Washington by 17% and California by 24%.  My bet is that California is more Democratic in 2012.  But I can see an easier road to a Republican eking out those last few percents in California.  The Pacific Northwest is a tough nut for a Republican to crack, especially against Obama, who would need to botch things super-royally to see a crash in the PNW suburbs.

[Alcon]

So, to those who think California could vote Republican ahead of Washington or Oregon...

...how exactly is the GOP going to flip 1.6 MILLION voters from 2008 from the Democrats to the GOP?.... because that is what would have to happen.  On the contrary, the GOP would have to change 150,000 minds in Oregon and 260,000 in Washington to flip them. 

This is a completely nonsensical argument in the day of mass media.  Would Obama have had an easier time flipping Wyoming than Georgia?  You don't get voters by talking to them one at a time.  Barnstorming helps, but does not account for giant swings in raw votes.

I mean, why is it easier to convert voters at a higher rate just because a state is less populated?  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't convert people clustered into a small geographical area with super-remarkable ease.

[Alcon]

So, to those who think California could vote Republican ahead of Washington or Oregon...

...how exactly is the GOP going to flip 1.6 MILLION voters from 2008 from the Democrats to the GOP?.... because that is what would have to happen.  On the contrary, the GOP would have to change 150,000 minds in Oregon and 260,000 in Washington to flip them. 

This is a completely nonsensical argument in the day of mass media.  Would Obama have had an easier time flipping Wyoming than Georgia?  You don't get voters by talking to them one at a time.  Barnstorming helps, but does not account for giant swings in raw votes.

I mean, why is it easier to convert voters at a higher rate just because a state is less populated?  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't convert people clustered into a small geographical area with super-remarkable ease.

Raw numbers matter, that is all

That doesn't explain anything.  If you run a good national campaign ad, maybe it switches 1-in-10 people.  Why would those 1-in-10 people more likely to be in areas with low raw vote totals?  Sure, you could gear your campaign to a specific geography.  That might work to flip a county, but a state as large and diverse as Oregon or Washington?  How?