This is just one more reason that the GOP should welcome Ken Blackwell as its candidate.

Lets wait until after the primary when Ken Blackwell starts campaigning hard I think we will see similiar results in Ohio.

I would be interested in hearing from Ohio residents about why they think Ohio might show similar results as Maryland. I would tell you that Maryland is a place that has a lot of upwardly mobile highly educated suburban blacks, and that is exactly the demographic that would most likely leave the solid black voting block that has been a part of the Democrat core since at least Truman. Its my own impression that most blacks in Ohio are concentrated in Cleveland and Cincinnati ( of course Columbus and Dayton too). Its my own hypothethus that inner city blacks are not the ones "open" to Steele. If the demographics dont match why do you think that the vote will be similar?

I doubt it’s "true in Maryland."

The 44 percent current black ’vote’ for Steele, if accurate, simply represents a thumbs-up for a fellow African-American who, unlike Alan Keyes, knows how to present himself.

On Election Day, the same old same old will happen. Sure, Steele will do better than GWB, Reagan and most other Republicans among blacks. But not well enough to win.

As usual, inroads among the working-class white vote will be indispensable.

As for the Democratic party in Maryland, there is absolutely no danger that it will "wait" to knock Steele down. It is particularly vicious even by the standards of the Democratic party, and will do whatever it takes.

Steele has a chance, but it’s much less than 50-50.

"The DNC survey finds that 22 percent of black voters support Steele when matched against a "generic" Democrat."

Other than this, less than half of black voters agreed to be "open" to Steele. Had they stated otherwise, we would be reading among contributors how closed-minded and racist Black voters are in Maryland. But, luckily, only 78% of them stated that they would NOT support Steele against a "generic" Democrat.

"The 44 percent current black ’vote’ for Steele, if accurate, simply represents a thumbs-up for a fellow African-American who, unlike Alan Keyes, knows how to present himself."

Well, I hate to say i told you so. David and I wrote at the same time.

The realistic scenario for a Republican (white or black) to win
44 percent of the black vote:

1. Universal name recognition.

2. Non-controversial.

3. Outstanding, tireless campaigner.

4. Liberal or near-liberal.

5. Weak Democratic candidate, or black third-party candidate weakening the Democrats.

6. No or almost no smear campaign against him/her.

7. Good Republican year.

In short, we are watching paint dry. It’s a worthwhile project, but isn’t likely to pay off anytime soon.

Steele, Swann, and Blackwell can all win, but it won’t happen without a very strong showing among working-class whites. They aren’t sexy, but they’re crucial. Sure, let’s cut into the black vote. But let’s not be expecting 44 percent.

The Democrat Party is toast in every contest except inner city municipal elections and majority minority congress seats if the Republicans ever climb as high as 25% of the Black vote. That is a swing from currently of around 2 or 2.25% of the vote in most cases, and would be the last nail in the coffin for the Libs. They dont need 44% and wont get it. But if you are a Dem thinking obut putting a finger in the dike, 44% considering it says the dike may not hold so dont stand in front of it.

How did that white conservative win the Governors race in Maryland if this is such a huge stretch in some of you folks mind?

The real questions are how soon this 25 percent happens, if ever, and whether it can be obtained by a real Republican or only by a RINO sellout.

The black vote is now about 9-12 percent Republican, not 2 percent, so the gain wouldn’t be as huge as you think.

If other demographics remain the same, and public opinion remains the same, yes, 25 percent of the black vote would be a large boost for the GOP.
But in the meantime, unskilled (Democratic) Hispanics, many of whom start out as illegals, will keep entering the electorate. In addition, the GOP has organic problems that may depress its vote and turnout among its supporters.

the gain wouldn’t be as huge as you think

Well if the black population of the country is about 15% and Republicans get 8% usually that is 1.2% of the overall population. Now if the percentage climbs to 25% that would be 3.75% or an increase of about 2.55% or MORE than I claimed not less. I am math minor and an accountant by degree. If I am wrong I will be mortified but will admit it, but it looks like I am right. Taking 2 1/2 percent from most candidates will sure tighten up all but the hopeless run away contests.

The rest of your comments read like an exerpt from Texeria and Judis.

My apologies on the 2 percent business, Mr. Math Minor. 2 percent of the total vote -- gotcha.

25 percent of the black vote instead of 9-12 would win us a few more Senate seats and might occasionally deliver the presidency when it wouldn’t be otherwise.

However, before we get carried away, we have to look at where blacks live: In New York, Senate races now seem to be in the "hopeless runaway" category for the Dems. Illinois has been headed that way for a while. Pennsylvania is deteriorating because of socially liberal soccer moms in the Philly burbs. Michigan is still UAW country, sinking into an economic quicksand with its legacy unionists, so it’s another bad territory for the GOP. California we all know about. Blacks are obviously important in the South, but we already win there.

I can see the contemplated shift in the black vote winning us Senate seats in Ohio, Florida, and Missouri that we otherwise might not. We already have all but one of those seats right now, but admittedly these states tend to produce close elections.

As for sounding like Judis and Teixeira, sorry, chum, but even populist Democrats can be right now and then. Would you care to argue that unskilled Mexican immigrants are not a threat to the Republican party, or that the party doesn’t in fact have "organic problems" that threaten its coherence? I’m all ears ...

I live in Ohio and cannot wait to vote for Blackwell. He’s a good guy. Ohio is very heavily pro-union and they are always supporting liberals.

I live in Ohio and cannot wait to vote for Blackwell. He’s a good guy.

What in the world is that suppose to mean? Is it possible to be more vague?

Good article on Blackwell here:

https://www.dispatch.com/columnists/columnists.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/07/20060407-A1-05.html

Somehow I dont think that illegal unskilled Mexican immigrants pose any threat to anyone. Even if amnesty passes its 12 -16 years to citizenship which is almost a generation. Not something to sweat as if its looming, unless you think that Dems are getitng these illegals to vote thru fraud?

40% of legla hispanics voted Republican in the last election. Trending upward. Hardly a doom and doom scenario. I suppose Zogby could be rigth once in awhile too but sheer accident. Does not mean I wont chuckle when I hear him quoted as an authoritive source, old chum.

The mirror image of 40 percent is 60 percent. On a net basis, that’s a minus for Republicans.

And 40 percent might well be a high-water mark. For one thing, Kerry was not an appealing candidate to Hispanics. For another, Bush was. These things can be accidental and do not necessarily tell us what the "normal vote" is among Hispanics.
What gives us a better idea is the overall election returns, across the years and for a wide variety of offices. It shows a substantial Democratic margin among Hispanics.

If the population of unskilled immigrants continues to swell, this could easily cause the overall Hispanic vote to become more Democratic because such trends tend to encourage ethnic separatism (conscious or unconscious) and reduce pressures for assimilation. Separatism and non-assimilation are bad news for the GOP.

OK no argument that 60 is more than 40. Rest is pure conjecture and as you say "does not necessarily tell us what the normal vote is among Hispanics. But you want to go back to a History lesson and ignor recent results as being an aberation. We simply disagree and my bird eye view of Hispanics in Texas, is probably much more up close and personal than yours. Ignor the race baiting Commies at Intl A.N.S.W.E.R. and their deomonstrations. Most Hispanics I know came here for a bletter life and are very much family oriented. That matches very well with the Republican message.

"Most Hispanics came here for a better life and are very much family oriented."

Oh, please. Most Republicans like the idea of getting Social Security and Medicare checks. That matches very well with the Democratic message. I wonder why most Republicans vote for the Republicans? Because there are many other issues.

Concepts like "a better life" and being "family oriented" are too vague to carry much weight in politics or political analysis. You’re just saying that you like the immigrants you know.
Which is nice, and maybe I would too. But you need to do better than that.

We’re not talking about how good people might be. We’re talking politics.

Oh Please is right. Anything you say that is anecdotal is fact, but mine is just my experience? Right.
Trend is more and more hispanics voting for the GOP. But race baitng of just good old separatism is going to change that. You dont know anything about the subject except what you see on tv. Which means you know very little about Hispanics and what you think you know is coming through a lens that is highly distortional. Period. Dont bother to respond and I wont read it, its a waste of my time and your bandwidth.

You have addressed none of my points.
Your injection of the term "race baiting" is contemptible. My knowledge doesn’t come from TV -- why do you assume that? I barely watch TV. I live in the Los Angeles area and know more about this issue on a firsthand basis than you assume.