After yesterday’s post looking at Giuliani’s chances in Connecticut, a reader asked what I thought of the electability argument; would, in fact, Giuliani effectively put so many blue states in play that he would make winning exponentially harder for Hillary Clinton?

My first reaction was that the polls showing Hillary getting 48 percent against everybody – even Ron Paul – suggests to me that electability might not be a huge difference between the GOP candidates.

Does Giuliani appear to have a better shot in some states in the Northeast and West? Sure. In a better issue environment for Republicans, one might expect the former mayor to put New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, and maybe some of the upper Midwest in play. But of that list, right now I can’t find a blue state that I would bet the house that he wins in 2008.

I’m sure you saw the McCain camp’s argument that their man’s electability numbers are as good as Giuliani’s where it counts, and that Rudy’s only ahead of their guy in longshot states like New York and California..Thompson and Huckabee can’t point to many blue states that look like natural, easy pickups, but they can pretty easily argue that they can keep the red states red..Romney’s the odd question for now. His name ID is surprisingly low — 31 percent have no opinion on him from yesterday’s Post poll. But if he wins Iowa/New Hampshire, maybe he’ll quickly jump to where the rest of ‘em are. Massachusetts looks like a tough challenge for even a home state governor to put in the Republican column, but Team Romney seems confident they could seriously challenge in Michigan.. One of Romney’s rivals is pointing to a Rasmussen poll that has him trailing Hillary Clinton in Texas, 42 percent to 43 percent.