The media really doesn't care for policy (especially complex policy that has to be explained), but they love a good fight. They will report on one even when there isn't much of a fight anymore (and don't ever ask them to referee, because they'll not call one until it's way too late to matter).

Given the current situation, we still have an amazing amount of IOKIYAR (it's okay if you're a Republican), the thinking that allows McCain to not know his Shi'a from his Sunni and yet have his demonstrated foreign policy ignorance and indifference ignored because 'everyone knows' McCain and Republicans are strong on foreign policy, even though as it happens Biden or Richardson know more about that topic than the entire Republican party candidate list combined – but that doesn't fit the narrative, so no one talks about it). And, btw, if you think that's exaggerating, where was the press as we were getting into Iraq at the behest of another Republican who was known to be just as ignorant and indifferent to facts? And by the way, Bush is still a foreign policy moron (Bush erroneously says Iran announced desire for nuclear weapons), but IOKIYAR.

As for analysis, well, forget broadcast media for that. Takes too much time (and spoils the narrative). Print media is much better at it, but there's way too much horse race these days and not enough coverage of fundamentals (like how bad the economy really is).

Well, here are some fundamentals to chew on.

Latest House Retirement Leaves GOP Reeling In his old role as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) often cajoled wavering Republicans into running for re-election. Back home in his district Thursday afternoon, Reynolds announced that he won't be running again himself. Consider it a sign of how the House GOP views its prospects for November.

Hey, it's not just the candidates that want nothing to do with the tarnished, corrupt, competence free Larry Craig Republican party of the 21st century, it's the people. Pew has a fascinating trend poll that bodes ill for the shrinking number of Republicans in November.

The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles. In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans. The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center. The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way. By comparison, in 2004 about equal numbers of independents leaned toward both parties. When "leaners" are combined with partisans, however, the Democratic Party now holds a 14-point advantage among voters nationwide (51% Dem/lean-Dem to 37% Rep/lean-Rep), up from a three-point advantage four years ago. Despite these trends, the proportion of voters who identify with the Democratic Party outright has not increased in recent years. Currently, 36% say they think of themselves as a Democrat, virtually unchanged from 2004 (35%) and 2000 (35%). Instead, as the proportion of self-identified Republicans has decreased, the percentage of independents has grown substantially, from 32% in 2004 to 37% today.

What everyone ought to realize is that when Bush, or McCain (or Buchanan and Scarborough) play for their base, it's a shrinking base. People don't jump from one party to another. When they're unhappy with Republicans, they become proud independents. And Karl Rove's wet dream of base politics and playing only to the base is dead.

The decline in the number of self-identified Republicans is evident in all parts of the country, but is perhaps most significant in the politically important "swing" states that were closely contested in the 2004 presidential election (see "How the States are Analyzed" below). Four years ago there were about as many Democrats (35%) as Republicans (33%) in the 12 states where the voting was closest in 2004, and the balance was similar in the 2000 election cycle. But so far in 2008, Democrats hold a substantial 38% to 27% identification advantage in these states.

Now we know this doesn't predict victory in 2008.

Whether the Republican losses in these swing states will translate into an electoral advantage for Democrats remains uncertain. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the balance of party identification in a given state and the electoral outcome in presidential elections.

But it does bode well for the foundation, and it also suggests that slanting stories to favor and cover up lazy and ill-prepared Republicans (Lieberman had to teach McCain what Purim was in an Israel trip) has a limit. The viewing and reading audience isn't what it once was. Republicans are a distinct and fading minority.

And as for Iraq? As Joe Galloway notes:

Some may find cause for celebration in the partial successes achieved in Iraq, but I have a nervous feeling that those celebrating are the same people who are comforted by the knowledge that President Bush and his appointees are working overtime to contain the damage done by that little setback in our economy.

Add a recession, and Republicans like Reynolds are right to get out while they can. So what you can do is pay less attention to horse race polls and pay more attention to fundamentals. The race hasn't started yet and Obama isn't yet the official nominee. And once he is, (sorry, but Hillary can't win) the election is going to be decided by independents in November because no one wants to be a Republican.