Perception and reality

It's always kind of eerie and sometimes amusing when an ousider tries to figure out your psyche, even when it's something as transparent as the prevailing political culture. It may well be true that "understanding Indiana politics" could be "the key for national Democrats," but good luck to them on that undertaking. Articles such as this always get some things right ("What plays well here: God, country, civility, and an economy of emotion and pocketbook") and some things wrong ("Southerners focus on the social hot-button issues, like abortion and gay marriage," Linville said. "But Indiana, like Iowa or Wisconsin or Ohio, is more interested in the traditional Republican issues - balancing the budget, integrity in government. It's a much more humble kind of state").

I'd say take all this with a grain of salt and read very carefully between the lines. Note, for example, that Lee Hamilton says that Democrats, to do well in Indiana, must "disavow labels and project centrist attitudes." He did not say they actually had to be centrists. Evan Bayh gets a lot of mileage out of his so-called Midwestern conservatism and his aw-shucks, we're-all-just-Hoosiers "moderation," but if you look at his ratings, both from conservative and liberal groups, his voting record isn't exactly middle of the road.

And the last two times the state abandoned Republicans at the presidential level, it was for Lyndon Johnson and FDR, not the favorite people on conservatives' list of icons. The common theme in both of those elections was landslide -- if the whole country is trending the same way, Indiana might follow it. Otherwise, Hoosiers will stick with the way they've usually voted. That's a kind of "conservatism" most analysts don't quite comprehend. If Republicans don't rebound much from where they are now, and if Democrats can capatalize on the disaffection -- both very big ifs --a Democrat might carry Indiana in 2008. And I'm not sure it would matter much which Democrat is on the ticket.