There are two scenarios that could help McCain win the election, while still losing the popular vote:

1) McCain will earn a great majority of undecided voters, putting him over the top in all the states that have close races.

2) There is a real and substantial Bradley effect that will keep Obama from getting many of the remaining undecideds.  One could say that this happened in 2006 to Harold Ford, Jr in the race for US Senate in TN.

I’m more inclined to believe that the undecided voters breaking to McCain is more likely.  The reason for this is the same as it was in 96 when Dole won nearly all the undecided votes and in 1980 when Reagan did the same.  With Obama outspending McCain nearly 5 – to – 1 and the enthusiasm behind Obama’s race, those who say they are undecided are not likely to vote for him.  They are afraid to tell the pollster that they are bucking the “popular� candidate, and generally break away from the race leader.

This would allow McCain to win several key states that could put him over the top in terms of Electoral College votes.  This race will be, and really has been for the past several weeks, a state-by-state strategy.  Both campaigns are looking at the states they need to win and NOT the national polling averages.  As we found out as recent as 2000, you can win the popular vote and still lose the Presidency.

States McCain is above 50% in (pollster.com regression estimate based on public polls):
UT, ID, OK, AL, WY, NE (all CDs), KS, TN, LA, AK, TX, KY, SC ,AR, WV=122 Evs

States where he has a significant advantage though not 50%:
GA, AZ, SD bring his total to 150.

Now, in the worst case scenario that’s it for McCain and Obama wins a 388 vote electoral landslide….that’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

But, if we buy one of two scenarios I listed above, then we can give McCain other states where Obama remains under 50%:  IN, MT, FL, MO, NV, NC, ND which get’s him only to 225…you can begin to see how big the challenge is.

So we have to make some assumptions about the effects of strategy and messaging.

• If there is a really big Bradley effect and the McCain “Joe the Plumberâ€� plus “Obama pals around with terroristsâ€� strategies can work, OH (where Obama leads by 5 and has 50% in the pollster.com average estimator) could go McCain.  That gets him to 245 and now we start talking a path to victory.

From there there are two paths.

1. Put it all on PA: Team McCain could be right about their ability to score a shocking win in PA.  If that’s true it puts McCain at 266 and he needs one of the following states to break his way (all of which Obama leads by single digits and is above 50% in….): CO, NM, VA, WA, MN, WI, MS

2. Swing States Strategy: If Team McCain is wrong (and it seems like their fundamental assumption about PA isn’t being borne out), then he could win by grabbing states where Obama is only at 50%: NM and MS plus adding two of MN, WI or CO (or NH plus 1 Maine CD)…all places where Obama has single-digit leads and is around 51%.

PA certainly allows them to concentrate resources, but it also seems like a real long shot at this point.  A strategy around NM, MS, and two others is more complicated logistically and that may be why they have chosen to focus on PA.  But there’s another advantage to a swing-state strategy rather than a PA strategy—McCain could contribute resources and his presence to as many as four or even five (if he includes NH) embattled GOP Senators and could help a number of House candidates with close races with this strategy.

In PA he does little for the Party other than possibly (depending on resource allocation within the state) help a couple of Congressional candidates.

I covered this briefly in my appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox News.  Also, major Kudos to Bryon Allen for his analysis:

Tomorrow, we will only be 18 days away from a landmark election.  Despite the best efforts of Republicans and their deploying the most talented operatives and employing the most effective consultants, the Grand Old Party is facing significant losses at nearly every level.

There will some surprises as several Democratic-held seats fall to lesser known Republican opponents that were outspent 2-to-1; however, the writing is on the wall for a finale square in the Dems’ corner.  But, don’t weep, because this is just the beginning.

Out of the ashes will rise a revamped and refocused Republican party.  One that aggressively reengages the electorate that has waned from it.  A party that finds its one true voice and calling once more.  The bottom-line here is that this is NOT a loss.  This is a fresh start.  It won’t be easy, but it will certainly give the party (at every level) a chance to start anew.

Defeat is where brilliance is born.  A new generation of Republicans are about to take the reins, and I can’t wait.  So, on Election night don’t be surprised or glum.  Just realize that we are about to be overtaken by a wave, but that we will float to the top with an opportunity to swim once more.

The vote on the bailout was disastrous, as leadership, those connected to leadership and those retiring voted for the legislation, but rank-and-file members, on both sides of the House, voted against the bill.

Having a vote like this so close to the election is influenced heavily by politics and a fear of losing a cushy Congressional job.  Republicans and Democrats in soft seats (those seats that lean toward the other party, or are a toss-up/target seat) voted against the bill.  In their minds, they didn’t want to endanger their re-election for this vote.  This says a lot about the leaderships’ lack of convincing.

Polling is slowly coming in on the subject, but the breakdown is clear.  Those of moderate to higher incomes are solidly supporting the legislation because their investments are directly affected, while those of lower means are opposed to the bailout seeing virtually no connection to a collapsing economic system.

There is also the problem of perception.  The liberal voters don’t want the bailout because they view it as “corporate welfare.”  Conservative voters oppose the legislation because they abhor such deep government intervention.

But, all agree (in varying degrees) - the economy is in trouble and the government has to do something.  The question is how bad does it have to get for everyone to get on the same page.