Proponents of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy have for months suggested that the Democratic contender might be able to compete in Kansas, a state that has backed Republicans in every national election since 1964.

Obama has played up the theory, traveling to the state and celebrating the fact that his mother's roots were there.

But a new Rasmussen poll of likely Kansas voters has Republican John McCain leading Obama by a 52-32 margin.

It is doubtful that even the selection of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, an early and ardent Obama backer, as the party's nominee for vice president would be enough to move the state into the Democratic column.

There was never all the much chance that Kansas was going to be a presidential battleground state in 2008. But it was true that, when Obama was pushing the margins, breaking the rules and campaigning as something other than a conventional Democrat, it was imaginable that he might be able to "do something" in the Jayhawk State.

However, as he has made predictable moves toward Washington-defined "consensus positions" -- like Al Gore and John Kerry before him -- Obama has foreclosed the prospect that he will rewrite the rules, or redraw the electoral map.

The Rasmussen poll confirms the turn this race has taken, not just in Kansas but -- if a number of other recent polls confirm -- in most of the red states that Obama's camp once suggested would be competitive. (One interesting exception is North Dakota, where McCain's got the edge but Obama is competitive.)

Kansas was always the symbolic state in this race, however. If Obama could make it there, he could make it anywhere -- or so the theory went.

As it happens, Obama is not making it in Kansas.

So perhaps now we can acknowledge the limitations that Obama has imposed on his own candidacy and get serious about the contest that is beginning to take shape -- a contest that will end, predictably enough, with most red states backing McCain, most blue states backing Obama, and a handful of purple states tipping the balance.

Comments (27)

1. Bleeding Kansas.

   Ever was it such.

   Posted by sloper at 07/17/2008 @ 01:45am

2. Who cares about kansas,leave them to the Nut. That what they seem to like,one after another, except for the Governor. That was a surprise ,never seen a smart woman before. Maybe the economy is starting to smart.Deregulation another word for lawlessness. McCains economic plan might sound appealing to kansas.So leave them to their misery.

   Posted by legion at 07/17/2008 @ 09:34am

3. Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/16/2008 @ 11:11pm

   Hi Rio. recognize your writing anywhere.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:18am

4. So leave them to their misery.

   Posted by legion at 07/17/2008 @ 09:34am

   Another perfect example of the very tiny leftist fringe I wrote about in Nichol's impeachment thread.

   They hate average Americans as much as they hate Bush. Darladoon and Frosty eagerly await your arrival in Canada.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:21am

5. Hi Rio. recognize your writing anywhere.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:18am

   Nice catch!

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/17/2008 @ 10:56am

6. Any pro choice candidate who thinks that the code words of the pope "life begins at conception" doesn't play in Kansas is smoking some really strong stuff. This is the same crowd that refused Kerry communion. It's O.K. to blow away thousands of Iraqis and displace 4 million off them but you shouldn't save a women's life. What always astounds me is that Fundamentalist and Catholic women are the first to vote "pro life" regardless of the consequences or situation. "Pro Life" is really a poor choice of words. a better choice be pro misogyny.

   Posted by julien38 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:23am

7. Posted by julien38 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:23am

   Typical radical feminist BS. So tell us julien, how many babies did you help murder this week?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:42am

8. Typical radical feminist BS. So tell us julien, how many babies did you help murder this week? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:42am

   Ehh. Probably no more than they have killed in Iraq.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:31pm

9. >>>So perhaps now we can acknowledge the limitations that Obama has imposed on his own candidacy and get serious about the contest that is beginning to take shape -- a contest that will end, predictably enough, with most red states backing McCain, most blue states backing Obama, and a handful of purple states tipping the balance.<<<

   Come on, Nichols!

   What about Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, or Nebraska?

   Look at the polls from THOSE states, and then come again!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 12:32pm

10. AND...South Carolina!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 12:33pm

11. I love hearing pro-life/pro-war people talk about baby killing. When the baby is the child of a civilian in a country we are bombing their lives are nothing but collateral damage. Not to be worried about. When the baby is so undeveloped it can't breath, eat, poop, or really do anything, not even have a heart beat, off of a sudden it's a travesty. Tell LVL, why is it when a born baby is bombed into oblivion it is only collateral damage, but when something that is not even recognizable as a baby is killed it is a travesty? I have yet to have that question answered by the pro-life/pro-war group.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:35pm

12. Still, I would go for Kansas if I were Obama. I'm not suggesting that John Nichols was one of them, but how many writers and pundits as recently as last January thought Obama could ever beat the Hillary "machine?" Of course there is a difference battling across party lines but as strategy I think it will put pressure on McCain to spend money and time in Kansas if it's closer in the polling. Make them sweat. Tire them out.

    Posted by hrayovac at 07/17/2008 @ 1:05pm

13. Also, what sort of bump in the polls in Kansas would you expect, Nichols, if there were an Obama/Sebelius ticket?

    A bump of 10-15 points is not unreasonable, and this would put Kansas and a number of other states in play.

    When you see big 16% undecided numbers in states like Kansas, that can be seen as an opportunity depending upon your strategy.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

14. I love hearing pro-life/pro-war people talk about baby killing. When the baby is the child of a civilian in a country we are bombing their lives are nothing but collateral damage. Not to be worried about. When the baby is so undeveloped it can't breath, eat, poop, or really do anything, not even have a heart beat, off of a sudden it's a travesty. Tell LVL, why is it when a born baby is bombed into oblivion it is only collateral damage, but when something that is not even recognizable as a baby is killed it is a travesty? I have yet to have that question answered by the pro-life/pro-war group.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:35pm

    I find it beyond sad and almost barbaric that you find some immense and perverted joy in ridiculing those who believe that a child in the womb deserves the opportunity for life.

    I have answered this question many times but I will be glad to repeat.

    All loss of life is a tragedy. The critical difference is obvious except to those in the pro abortion side.

    Innocents who die as so-called collateral damage did not deserve to die and no one in the military that I have ever known thought it was a good thing. Nor do we treat it lightly. That is pure hyperbole and is offensive. I don't take anyone's death lightly.

    Those you are speaking of as collateral damage were not purposely targeted for death. No soldier is seeking purposely to kill innocent people, especially children. Soldiers grieve over these deaths.

    Furthermore, we here at home who support this war effort place the blame for those deaths precisely where it belongs; with the jihadists and others whose tactics usually involve hiding as cowards behind women and children while firing at our troops.

    And the overwhelming number of innocents killed in Iraq, have not come as so-called collateral damage, but as direct targets of jihadists and insurgents who care nothing for human life.

    Conversely, every aborted child purposely had their life and opportunity for life ended as a direct and targeted act of violence.

    As long as abortion supporters continue to consider children in the womb to be not even worthy of human respect until they breath outside of the womb, they will continue to be treated as murderers of the innocent by people like myself.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:20pm

15. Please don't use "pro-life" in describing anti-abortion nuts. Once the fetus is out of the womb and actually IS a baby, they lose all interest in its life. They're opposed to feeding it, clothing it, educating it, providing health care for it...... As far as Kansas goes, I have to agree with those who feel it's so backwards it's just pointless to do much there. It's kind of like the ignorant redneck southern states, only without the more intelligent black populace.

    Posted by mrpoizun at 07/17/2008 @ 2:23pm

16. Conversely, every aborted child purposely had their life and opportunity for life ended as a direct and targeted act of violence.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:20pm

    What about all those soldiers who DO purposely kill people. Like the ones who killed innocent women and children execution style?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

17. What about all those soldiers who DO purposely kill people. Like the ones who killed innocent women and children execution style?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

    Anyone who does so should be prosecuted under military law just as our govt provides. You say "all those soldiers who do purposely kill people". Yet investigations who shown that there are only a few incidents where that has taken place and those soldiers have been convicted.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 3:04pm

18. I lived in Kansas for a long time, and I lived there when the governor was elected. Kansans are not completely nuts and I don't understand the strategy of giving up on the South and most of the midwest. Barack could win there. Even the Evangelicals could go for him. obamahears.blogspot.com is based out of Kansas and these are serious evangelicals, two time Bush supporters seriously considering Obama.

    The comments on this blog really illustrate that the far left is alienating moderates. Turning the comments into an abortion debate is not going to win over moderates. Realistically, neither candidate is going to do anything about abortion, so what is the point.

    When you talk about the economy rather than polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortions, Kansas can be quite liberal. Why don't we make the election about that and see if we can win some of those red states?

    Posted by brianatron at 07/17/2008 @ 3:34pm

19. When you drop bombs and send soldiers into a country, civilian deaths are an unavoidable part of the equation. That means that Bush, Inc. new very well that there would be many innocent civilian deaths. Putting blame on a few individual rogue soldiers serves to alleviate, even if by just a small amount, the level of blame and guilt that belongs on Bush's shoulders. How many deaths directly linked to the war have occurred in Iraq since the start of the war vs. how many deaths at the hands of Saddam? Supporter's of Bush in the beginning can use hindsight and admit they were mislead into supporting this atrocity. Those who continue to support Bush's war policy have truly turned delusional thinking into an art form... And these "artists" tend to be the staunchest "anti-death" anti-abortionists you can hope to meet. Very interesting, no?

    Posted by ADHD at 07/17/2008 @ 3:58pm

20. And New Hampshire!

    -------------------------------------------------

    Three others wrote:

    >>>So perhaps now we can acknowledge the limitations that Obama has imposed on his own candidacy and get serious about the contest that is beginning to take shape -- a contest that will end, predictably enough, with most red states backing McCain, most blue states backing Obama, and a handful of purple states tipping the balance.<<<

    Come on, Nichols!

    What about Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, or Nebraska?

    Look at the polls from THOSE states, and then come again!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 12:32pm #

    AND...South Carolina!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Posted by RevDoLittle at 07/17/2008 @ 4:04pm

21. Anyone who does so should be prosecuted under military law just as our govt provides. You say "all those soldiers who do purposely kill people". Yet investigations who shown that there are only a few incidents where that has taken place and those soldiers have been convicted. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 3:04pm

    When I said all those soldiers don't try to misconstrue that into saying all soldiers or most soldiers. When I say all I mean all the ones that have. Also NOT all the cases have been prosecuted against by the way. Many have been let off for murder.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:06pm

22. There is nothing wrong with Kansas.. ...and I would only think there was something wrong there if Obama won the state... I believe the Obama supporters are going to be surprised after the election tallys come in... I, myself, will not be surprised if Obama wins by a hair,although, I will be stunned if he wins by a landslide...and I will not be surpirsed if McCain wins by a hair or a landslide.... In any case...I vote Libertarian. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/17/2008 @ 3:40pm

    Well jom. You predictions have been wrong so far so I will bet with you on this one.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:08pm

23. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/17/2008 @ 3:40pm

    I say Obama wins. I would say by more than a hair too. I think right now his group has lost direction. I think it will be regained. I think McCain is going to continue being lack luster at best. I think once the issues start being discussed instead of the current media sensationalism we will see the difference.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:11pm

24. When I said all those soldiers don't try to misconstrue that into saying all soldiers or most soldiers. When I say all I mean all the ones that have. Also NOT all the cases have been prosecuted against by the way. Many have been let off for murder.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:06pm

    Cite one case. As with civil prosecutions, military personnel are entitled to the same constitutional protections as civilians. Unless prosecutors have sufficient evidence for a conviction, accused people are deemed not guilty before the law.

    Or are you saying that are military personnel should have less rights than as civilians?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:43pm

25. Or are you saying that are military personnel should have less rights than as civilians? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:43pm

    Didn't a Black Water merc shoot a presidential bodyguard? See I consider black water to be apart f the military as long as they work for that branch. Or how about the cases of rape on female soldiers that go unanswered. Did those soldiers who shot a carload of men, a pregnant woman and some children ever get prosecuted either?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:33pm

26. McCain can't buy the coverage and adoration form the MSM Obie is getting...if that does settle down and average people actualy listen and learn the differences...Obie will lose big. They will see the increase in taxes comong during a time of energy price jumps and manufacturing slow down...higher taxes are a death nell to anyone who works for a check. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/17/2008 @ 4:53pm

    Can you show me examples of negative press for McCain? Because you are one of the few people I have heard say the Obama is getting all the good coverage. From where I sit McCain has the MSM in his pocket and he is still losing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:34pm

27. I can't believe that the prolife, prochoice, for abortion, anti abortion etc. debate still limps along. The argument has been the same so long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. The question is, whose rights trump. The woman or the fetus. Some say the woman gets to decide if she wants to produce a baby; some say the impregnated woman must produce the baby regardless of the circumstances.

    Here's my take. What my neighbor does is none of my business. If she wants to have a baby, that's her business, not mine. If she wants to have an abortion, that's her business, not mine.

    If you are against abortion, then don't get an abortion; if you are against divorce, don't get divorced. But mind your own business. Leave others alone and let them govern their own lives.

    Posted by jsens at 07/18/2008 @ 5:13pm