I think the difference would look a little bigger if the numbers were expressed as percentages of GOP primary voters. But what I had in mind was to distinguish states like Iowa and South Carolina from states like New Hampshire, which are also early voters but low in evangelicals.

In my second comment I meant to say Bill O’Reilly instead of Sean Hannity. I got my blowhards mixed up.

What makes anyone think that Palin wants any elective office?

I don’t. I think she wants to run, lose, and write another book. That’s why I wrote ‘maintain the fiction of a viable candidacy’. I don’t think Palin is in any danger of winning the presidency, and probably not even the nomination, and I doubt she herself believes otherwise.

She’s in money making mode now. She realizes her 15 minutes of fame are now. Strike while the emotional irons are hot. And the social conservative base is her target audience. Palin does not need to, or even want to appeal to a wider audience.

Rush Limbaugh proves that someone can get plenty rich playing to a relatively small ditto-head audience. Palin has her niche and shes’ going to stick with it.

Nothing wrong with that I suppose. I mean it’s a free country.

Iowa isn’t actually that much more evangelical than Arizona (12% versus 9.5%, data from http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_64.asp).

However, my impression is that evangelical dominated organizations (e.g. NRL) are far more powerful on the ground in IA vs AZ. And of course ground game matters more in a caucus than in a primary (so goes the CW, anyway).

If we assume that sectarian affiliation will matter a great deal in the early GOP primaries and caucuses, Arizona should be good for Romney if he’s still running (he came in a strong second in 2008 at about 35%; though AZ is only about 5% Mormon, it’s still far more than any other early state except NV, which of course Romney won).

From what I’ve read about Palin’s book and associated interviews, Palin herself sharply distinguishes between McCain and his staffers. In the Sean Hannity interview she said she didn’t complain to McCain about the staffers because he had more important things to deal with.

I think Palin’s strategy for 2012 would be to maintain the fiction of a viable candidacy for as long as possible. That means focusing on early primaries and caucuses where she can count on evangelical support – Iowa, South Carolina, Florida. Arizona wouldn’t be a high priority under that theory.

Her supporters need not have any coherent or intelligible reason to include McCain on their list of Stuff White People Don’t Like. As with returning tax rates to their levels of the booming economy of the 1990s, he simply happens to be on that list, whether deserved or not.

But–I think your correspondent is right: Palin’s cult following would see a tepid, pro-forma McCain endorsement, phrased in terms of loyalty rather than ideological affinity, as the cost of doing business. Palin’s fans would rightly see that her failure to endorse McCain would be the biggest media firestorm since she resigned the governorship. So that’s how this games out: she endorses McCain, in a manner somewhat like I’ve described, and her fans let it go.

As all paths lead to failure for the Republicans, the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state where the Democratic Party is the only real election?