IL: Rasmussen: Kirk now has a 4-point advantage

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who cares about internal polls?  Those aren't objective. Tend to notice how those "internal" polls are always more favorable to that party/candidate?

In the right context you can find out if a candidate has momentum or if a candidate is collapsing. Like if a GOP candidate shows a 12 point lead in a race and the dem puts out an internal that shows them down by four, you know they are likely screwed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just do what we used to do back in the good old days when we used to crush the Democrats....win the burbs and win the race.

This isn't PA. Bush won all of the Cook collar counties in 2004 and still lost by 10. His father won the collar counties by 2-1 and did better in Cook itself and won very narrowly in 1988 and many normally Republican counties in the South of Illinois voted similarily to the counties in Northern Missouri some of which went to Dukakis. So you are right to an extent. Where you are wrong is assuming its impossible to win those burb without a rino, and second that just because you have a rino you will definately win them or win them by a large enough time in every election. If the burbs become GOP base seats then some GOP seats somewhere's else will become marginal or Democrat districts. Thats what you don't seem to grasp. There are a lot of Southern districts which can be lost as we see (Bobby Bright for example) especially if they aren't satisfied with the GOP. And it depends on the district boundaries as to whether its a one for one trade of seats. Also demographic changes, have change many areas that used to vote GOP to Dem long before the GOP moved to the right or that movement to the right became a problem for the party (1992 for instance). California is a prime example. The GOP problems really began in 1986 when many Los Angeles Republicans lost reelection. The trend away from the GOP is cleary evident when comparing CA 1976 to CA 1988. This "Moderate and OMG we'lll win all 50 states all the time" is truly nonsense.

Kirk comes from the right part of the state atleast for a Republican.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

CA in 1976 was the last real horrah though for the "moderate" leading the ticket.  Although Bush 41 was somewhat moderate, he won CA because of Reagan.  Without Reagan, the pacific rim would have been solidly blue.  Ford also lost a ton of inner counties, but narrowed his losses in LA and killed Carter in Orange County and southern CA to carry the state.

The influx of illegals turned CA blue and (as I'm moving to LA within a year or two), that is a major political issue.  If the illegals get booted, the state would suddenly become very competitive again.

There is so much wrong here.

1. There was no problem of "being too conservative" for the GOP in 1988. Bush's numbers in New York for instance and CT, NJ, and ILL should prove that. CA had become more and more Dem starting after 1976. Reagan probably slowed the decline down but in 1986 LA county went from have mostly Republican officials to Dems.

Now since the early 1990's there has been declines in the Bay area and LA suburbs that can be attibuterd to the prominence of Social conservatism.

In 1996, naturalization of new citizens did double then declie by 50% the next year. One could argue that the wave of new citizens in CA helped push it more Dem.

Illegal alien voting can explain a small loss in a marginal district. But widespread illegal alien voting doesn't not account for more then .002% of CA's 20% Dem advantage in 2008.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just do what we used to do back in the good old days when we used to crush the Democrats....win the burbs and win the race.

The GOP problems really began in 1986 when many Los Angeles Republicans lost reelection. The trend away from the GOP is cleary evident when comparing CA 1976 to CA 1988.

One thing to keep in mind about LA is that it has been growing rapidly with the entire metro area being contained within the county at one point of time. By the 1960s the metro area had started spilling over into the neighboring counties but still most of the LA area suburbs were within the county. By the late 80's though, most of the high growth areas (usually corresponding to heavily GOP areas) were outside the county and even more and more of the county became inner city areas (which were former suburbs). The priorities of the residents changed (if the residents themselves didn't change) and they started voting Democratic. But was there much of a difference between how the LA metro voted between 1976 and 1988? Not really. Ford did "better" in LA county and Bush did "better" in OC and the IE. In reality most of the differences just had to do with where the affluent suburban areas were in 1976 vs 1988.

Now let's compare 1988 to 2000 or 2004. Bush won the LA metro in 1988, but did his son even get close? In 2004 I think the Republicans cut it down to a single digit margin for the Democrats out of the entire metro area, but 2004 represents a high water mark for Latino support for Republicans. And in 2008 Obama won the metro with an enormous margin. It is this trend of the entire metro that should worry Republicans, not the fact that they don't do so well in LA neighborhoods that have thoroughly changed since the 1970s.

If were to get so detailed to discover the minute changes in each period then yes of course. But for my purpose it is far easy and still correct to label them demographic shifts, which would accoutn for the changes in size of LA metro, increased racial diversity, age of voters and etc.

Ford narrowly lost nationally 2 and won CA narrowly. Bush won nationally by 8 and only one CA by a point or two. That is a definite but small trend. Especialyl compared to the changes from 1988 to 2008 and the changes there which are much more considerable.