GOPWars: Who Survives --> What The Party Looks Like

To the extent that geography correlates with ideology among congressional Republicans, a major sweep by the Democrats could really be in a position to completely break the gluons that bind the broader party together. The GOP will lose a disportionate number of seats in the Northeast, Midwest and West and keep a disrportionate number of seats in the South. So the remnant of the party, as it were, will be right-wing Southern conservatives.... even more so that it is now.

Additionally, if there's an enormous Democratic sweep, the odds of a reverse sweep two years from now are slim. 2010 won't be like 1994, where Republicans allegedly punished a Democratic Congress and president for the health care debacle and gays in the military. (Would the nation dump 70-80 Republicans over two years only to return them to power two years later?)

Comments

It's hard to believe that a few years ago there was so much talk about redistricting making it impossible for House seats to flip. Now we're looking at two straight wave elections in the favor of the Dems.

2010 will be owned by the Democrats though. If there isn't real progress on their legislative agenda, with the kind of Dem majorities and very probably an Obama presidency, there definitely could be some blowback. Not saying that the Republicans could retake the House, but picking up 15 seats certainly isn't out of the range of possibility.

The main problem for the Republicans, though, is that their brand is in complete disarray. The Class of 1994 had a message--it's going to take some serious hashing out to get a real message together.

What 2008 also does is limit the field of candidates to go after Senate seats in 2010. The House is the primary "bench" for the Senate.

Posted by gaucho | October 24, 2008 3:48 PM

Worth thinking about on a much more ominous level is the effect that a complete Dem rout is going to have on our permanent political system. Just as Bush stocked the Federal government with his cronies, BHO is going to stock it with his buddies from the ChicagoMachine. It's going to be like giving the ChicagoMachine - including their links to criminal figures - a one-way ticket to Washington. Who knows what level of corruption is going to result?

If anyone wants to actually defeat BHO, read my name's link. There's still time, but people have to get off their couches.

Posted by Here's how to defeat Barack Obama | October 24, 2008 3:54 PM

The GOP will be a regional christianist/racist party 2 weeks from now. Thank Karl Rove and George Bush for me.

Posted by Hieronymus Bosch's Poodle | October 24, 2008 3:57 PM

@HHTDBO

You can say a lot about Obama, but saying he's just going to put a bunch of Chicago cronies in high positions is laughable.

You don't win a national campaign without a lot of support from your party nationwide. Moreover, I don't see a bunch of South Side precinct captains running offices around the country. Obama has grown a national presence pretty organically--read any of the "ground game" stories that are out there. It's not Mayor Daley's peeps in charge of things.

Besides, Obama lost a Congressional Dem Primary to Bobby Rush in 2000 because he didn't get the Chicago Democratic machine on his side. So to say that they're somehow pulling the strings here is pretty obtuse.

Posted by gaucho | October 24, 2008 4:04 PM

Regarding the SC invitation below, I had a related experience today. Somebody affiliated with the Senate campaign of Saxby Chambliss was at an Athens, Georgia, shopping center canvassing and asking for votes using the line that "Obama has the Presidency, so let's keep Saxby in the Senate." Caught me off guard to hear it from a man in a suit rather than just on blogs.

Posted by Rich | October 24, 2008 4:13 PM

It seems that a Republican Senator or representative are unwilling to campaign on their record. Their campaign strategies are to create gimmicks to justify their public employment. They must be feeling lonesome.

Posted by Lou R | October 24, 2008 4:24 PM

(Would the nation dump 70-80 Republicans over two years only to return them to power two years later?)

Uh, no. The Republicans need to be prepared to spend at least as long roaming the wilderness as the Democrats did from 1994-2006.

Posted by Shaun | October 24, 2008 4:29 PM

The Republican party since the Reagan election has been as artifically united as the Democrats were by 1960.
Fudementalists are concerned with social engineering, not governing, just as racial seperatists were. The only difference was that Democrats delivered on a promise to ignore Jim Crow until Johnson, while the Republicans never delivered on the promises they made to the fundementalists.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | October 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Depends, doesn't it? I mean, if Obama spends the next two years presiding over $1 trillion + deficits, which he will, and if he focuses on divisive social issues, which he will, and if there is an international crisis that he doesn't handle well, which Biden predicts, well, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans came back. If Obama presides over a deep recession, with unemployment at elevated levels and incomes falling, why would Democrats be rewarded?

But I'm sure the Dems will do their best to prevent that. Make more union members, and use their dues. Make the civil service more emphatically a part of the machine. Naturalize as many noncitizens as possible. Restrict free expression, formally and informally. Require states to allow same-day voter registration. Require states to further liberalize absentee voting. Use the IRS to investigate opponents. Shut down the FEC. Use the FCC to harass radio stations hosting right wingers.

Posted by Thomas | October 24, 2008 4:48 PM

The Republicans need to watch the film The Deal. Right now, they are the Labour Party, 1983. I'm sure they'll just want to wait out what I'm sure they think is just a short-lived liberal phase and pick up the pieces afterward (what Labour termed "one last heave"), but it ain't going to happen. The culture war stuff has sputtered out. The Hispanic population is growing. Younger voters (i.e. the next generation) is much, much more liberal than the past few generations. And, ultimately, a nation not facing the red menace doesn't really need a right wing party.

I figure they'll eventually find their Tony Blair (or, I should say, Dave Cameron) and reorient themselves as a center-right party. It won't happen at once, because the GOP is very conservative now, and will be more so in a few years, but the human condition is such that people like winning more than losing.

Posted by Lev | October 24, 2008 4:48 PM

As an independent, I'd like the GOP to go off into the wilderness and purge the crazy Christianists, and the neo-cons, and the money people who have no larger grasp of the economy than lookin' out for number one. A party of social moderate, fiscal conservatives would be a good counterbalance in the new center-left country. Sign off on gay marriage and adoption but emphasize a limit to state assistance for those messing up their lives with stupid choices, for example.

But they may go the other way and purge the reasonable people who are already streaming through the exits; I don't know what happens then. A new third party from those who like Culture 11 and don't get a Rich Lowry when Palin speaks, which eventually absorbs enough disaffected Dems and independents to replace the Republicans?

Posted by Deborah | October 24, 2008 4:51 PM

Lev:
It ain't happening anytime soon. Just look at the Ambinder post below this. Does the GOP really need more Christianist Southerners in charge?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 24, 2008 4:58 PM

I'm a center left Democrat and I agree whole-heartedly with Deborah.

I am very hopeful that Obama will be a pragmatic, centrist leader who will enact the specific policy goals that this election has been a referendum on. A slight shift in tax policy; a smarter, more agile foreign policy to include eventual withdrawal from Iraq; some form of universal healthcare; a comprehensive energy policy; a comprehensive education policy; infrastructure investments.

I think it will be very important that he actively seek to reorganize and modernize various government agencies, set standards for the employment of nonpartisan officials, and reign in executive powers. Maybe his background as a legislator might help with this last, but no president in history has ever reduced presidential power and I am not hopeful.

Beyond that, I do not see a resuscitation of the Culture Wars because they do not appear to interest Obama or the American people.

A smart, effective Republican party is absolutely necessary to counterbalance the Democratic majority. Any party in power for too long will calcify, corrupt, and suffer a deficit of ideas.

Posted by Courtney H | October 24, 2008 5:10 PM

gaucho forgets to note that 2000 was eight years ago and nowadays BHO backed and is backed by the Machine. A very basic search will show BHO's long list of links to the Machine, at the top levels of his campaign. And, of course, he's basically moved the DNC to Chicago.

As for "Courtney H"'s comment, BHO will have no need to govern as a centrist since the Congress will be Dem and the MSM will continue lying for him.

If anyone wants to prevent this disaster, see my name's link in this comment or the second comment above.

Posted by And, here's how to defeat the MSM | October 24, 2008 5:24 PM

I think the writing is on the wall -- apparent when one reads conservative blogs and publications -- the party is going to tack hard to the right, explaining that McCain wasn't conservative enough, that Bush wasn't a real conservative, etc. There will be no real reckoning with the fact that the party's decision to become a southern evangelical party has been a demographic disaster and that [fill in the blank here -- young, gay, non-religious, black, feminist, pro-choice, hispanic, muslim, asian, urban, northern, coastal] people, by and large, want nothing to do with this ideology.

I expect that the GOP will be cast into the wilderness as the party of the deep South, bits of Appalachia, the central plains states, Texas, and the small interior Rocky Mountain States. Not a winning coalition by any means. It's message will not resonate with the more dynamic parts of the country.

Posted by Sir Charles | October 24, 2008 5:30 PM

Two weeks from now the Republican Party will begin to resemble the Donner party.

Posted by mars | October 24, 2008 5:32 PM

if you want a hint of where the situation is going look to past realignments, first question is whether the Republican party will survive, the Whigs didn't survive the pre civil war realignment and were replaced by the Republicans, we could see a breakup of the party and even the destruction of the Republican party as a group.

Secondly if they survive, which faction will dominate, if they become more rightist, as its looking now, well they will probably spend decades as the minority party, running as a conservative party in a more leftist period will not serve them well, on the other hand if the centrists take over and run as a moderate party they could have some success in the coming years, much like centrist Dems had some success in the 80's and 90's.

Posted by axt113 | October 24, 2008 5:40 PM

Particle physics analogy FTW!

Posted by mark | October 24, 2008 5:47 PM

Very astute points, Sir Charles. I also don't think the GOP wants to open its tent; I believe they will stick to divide and conquer.

Posted by smith | October 24, 2008 6:53 PM

This is going to come off as flip, and possibly snarky, and perhaps even hypocritical...but what I think the Republican party needs to do is to stop being so transparently *mean*.

I'm a mainly non-political Catholic democrat. My take on politics is really very simplistic: it seems to me that, on the face of it, Democrats appear to want to help folks, and Republicans appear not to want to help folks.

Overly simplistic? You bet. Ignoring all the how-tos and what-are-we-able-to-affords and real-politik? Definitely. Glossing over all the crap that the real people in my party do? Yes.

But, like I said, I'm a Catholic. I'm pre-set to want to help folks. Hell, if I had a stronger belief and less of a fear of public speaking, I'd probably be a priest. So when I look at the two parties and I see Obama apparently giving rousing speeches on unity and compare it to the mean mouths of the Rushes and Hannities and the neo-McCarthy-what's-her-names from Minnesota...

Democrats, to me, at least *seem* to want to help people out. Republicans, to me, don't even make that pretense.

*That's* what needs to change. IMO.

Posted by 0whole1 | October 24, 2008 7:47 PM

You have to laugh at these Republicans predictions that Obama is going to stack his admin with Boss Daley's or implode. Two observations. Firstly Daley has been in power for twenty years and is enormously popular in Chicago because basically he's like Bloomberg, a pragmatic centrist who is highly competent. Secondly, based on how we've seen Obama run his campaign does it seem likely he's going to be totally incompetent. Not really. Remember all these bozos predicting implosion have been applauding for years and no doubt voting for one of the most incompetent presidents in US history. This simple thought never seems to intrude in their minds assuming they have minds. I'd be interested to hear from one of them how they square this circle. I won't hold my breath, they prefer bumper stickers.

Posted by John | October 24, 2008 7:47 PM

Discussing all the problems with "John"'s comment is not worth it, but let me suggest that someone putting a smiley face on the ChicagoMachine probably isn't a trustworthy source. For some background, read John Kass's columns. And, while no one knows what he's going to do, the idea that someone linked into the Machine wouldn't install people from the Machine in many of the underling spots in order to back him up is beyond ludicrous.

Note also that Axelrod owns an "astroturf" company, and in one memorable case I saw several self-identifying white women around fifty in one Ambinder thread all declaring their sudden support for The One. That doesn't mean that "John" is fake, but take comments from unidentified posters here with a big grain of salt.

As for 0whole1's comment, where the GOP fails is in pointing out that many Dem attempts to be "nice" are either counterproductive when meant well, or are simply a cynical attempt to gain money or power and looking good at the same time.

Posted by Here's how to defeat Barack Obama | October 24, 2008 8:20 PM

Here's what I don't get: taking the leaked GOP "death list" as a source, you see them giving up plenty of seats in Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina. All told, 15 out of about 60 seats up for grabs are in what you could loosely call the "south." And as it is now, the Democrats are far from a minority in the southern states, controlling several governorships and with a substantial number of house seats. Democrats will win Senate seats in Virginia and North Carolina, with sleeper races in Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas all looking at least competitive. Obama may very likely carry a number of southern states. And yet, it seems to be consensus among folks like you and Andrew that the GOP is becoming a "southern" party.

If there's any part of the country which is still deep red by its elected officials and presidential voting patterns, it's the mountain west and western plains outside of Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona are still dominated by the Republican party. Furthermore, the GOP is still clinging to some degree of power in Ohio and Indiana.

There may be slightly more support for the GOP down here than, say, Pennsylvania, but to say that the GOP is going to become a regional party is just nonsense. The GOP is becoming a rural and suburban party, with its support in urbanized areas almost disappearing completely.

But there's every bit as much GOP support in rural Minnesota as there is in rural Alabama. In Alabama, though, the support isn't counterbalanced by the Twin Cities and Duluth.

Posted by Michael Bacon | October 24, 2008 8:32 PM

This is the death knell of the Party of Lincoln. The D's may not win veto-proof majorities outright on Election Day, but the few remaining principled conservatives left on the other side of the aisle will likely cross over in a final terrible repudiation of Bush/Rovian Republicanism when Congress reconvenes after the election.

This would be a preamble to either the outright dissolution of the Republican Party, or its splintering into two parties, possibly more, one moving center-right to become an intelligent, pragmatic oppostion that could one day return to the political limelight, the other spiraling from far-right into a likely violent insurrectionist movement.

Posted by Broadway Joe | October 24, 2008 9:05 PM

@HHTDBO,

I've seen your schtick on other sites. Oi. Your website is not insightful.

But you do obviously get pleasure from it. I'm glad!

It probably feels good to type your repetitive, confident, non-insightful ramblings ("Machine, Machine, Machine!") gleaned from endless hours on the bad side of the web... But when we take just a quick look at your output, we see that you show so many of the symptoms that have doomed the GOP. Congrats, wingnut.

Poor HHTDBO: Standing athwart history, yelling "Does not compute!" What. Ever.

I do hope you enjoy a lot of quality recreation while going crazy during eight years of the most talented and even-keeled Democratic politician in living memory. If you go fully over the loony edge, there will be health care waiting for you.

You may well deserve it, not that I wish it... But then maybe you're just going through a rough patch... One that happens to coincide with an extremely involving election. It's been tiring, I know! In which case, I wish you more calm in the future. To start, take a deep one.

(Now, buddy, I'll even go ahead and type out an outline of your reply: "Indignation! Indignation! Indignation! Machine! Machine! Machine! Overreach! Overreach! Overreach!")

Good night, sir. I said good night.

Posted by Jeremy Noble | October 24, 2008 9:18 PM

"Here's how to defeat Barack Obama":
Just as Bush stocked the Federal government with his cronies, BHO is going to stock it with his buddies from the ChicagoMachine. It's going to be like giving the ChicagoMachine - including their links to criminal figures - a one-way ticket to Washington. Who knows what level of corruption is going to result?

"ChicagoMachine [sic]"?!

What year is it in the world that you inhabit? Just ballpark it for us...

Posted by LOL @ HHTDBO | October 24, 2008 9:42 PM

If Obama presides over a deep recession, with unemployment at elevated levels and incomes falling, why would Democrats be rewarded?

It's always best to get the recession out of the way as soon as you take office. You could ask Ronald Reagan about how the deep recession of 1981-1982 just killed off his reelection prospects.

Posted by Pug | October 24, 2008 10:04 PM

So the remnant of the party, as it were, will be right-wing Southern conservatives....

I know that scenario.....and so does everyone that has read Richard Morgan's Thirteen knows that scenario.............

Jesusland

Posted by matoko_chan | October 24, 2008 10:38 PM

Permanent Republican Majority (tm). Hahahahahaha. Rove is an idiot.

Posted by Jay | October 24, 2008 11:03 PM

"If there's any part of the country which is still deep red by its elected officials and presidential voting patterns, it's the mountain west and western plains outside of Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada." MB

Exactly. Although in population terms Texas might be the main state to remain fairly Republican. Although technically it's on the Plains.

A "Plains, Mormon, and Appalachia" oriented social conservatism might be closer to the kind it once had. (Tennessee largely went Democrat, but it did like Ike and Nixon) The kind more linked to conservative Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans. In our era you can add Catholics and Mormons. It was under Eisenhower that "Under God" was added to the Pledge. If the "Religious Right" meant a calmer, and more moderate, kind of social conservatism it might be less upsetting. The kind that has well-educated people not proned to condemn others to Hell. Granted that's likely idealistic of me.

Posted by Thomas R | October 24, 2008 11:27 PM

...Oh Please ... Oh Please ... Let the new face of the Republican party be... PALIN.

...That ought to insure 40 years in the wilderness.

Posted by Blue Shark | October 24, 2008 11:39 PM

With regards to 2010 senate races, go to wikipedia and check out whose terms are up. I don't know whether it is an anamoly, but it is another horrible year for GOP. If things go smoothly these next two years, the Dems will have a non Lieberman filibuster proof majority.

Posted by ken | October 25, 2008 3:49 AM

First of all, BHO has run an incredibly consistent and disciplined campaign founded on the concepts of inclusion, unity and hope. What evidence is there that he is going to change Dr. Jekyll-like into a Chicago poll? None. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary in the form of published comments by his former Chicago associates who are pissed because Barack IS staking out territory as the Uniter we never got with our Moron in Chief and is NOT being the radical, angry black guy they wanted or hoped for.

Second, today the GOP is, as others have said, the party of social engineering. The GOP of Rove expects to win elections by "feeding the bread of hate" to use Dr. King's words. The hate is directed at non-fundamentalists, people of color, immigrants, gays and lesbians, intellectuals, scientists, educators, artists, and people who have a sense of humor. It is very possible that the party will become a kind of extremist falange or regional neo-Nazi fringe in the model of Haider's (RIP) Bavarian "unity" party. Being poor white trash may have its attractions if you are at a tractor pull but that's not what this country is about. The entire Rovian scheme was with W and would be with Palin to install a cardboard cut-out front man or woman while the Kristols, Cheneys and Roves, the He Man Woman Haters Club, runs things for the benefit of the Best People. The genius of our system is that maybe the majority has finally seen through this flim flam, or maybe their gay son or chemist brother in law or fourth grade teacher sister or web designer vital employee has sat down and read them the riot act: "If you don't stop this shit, we are never coming here again- I disown you as a parent- I am never talking to you again- I am going to walk out the door and you can figure out how to process orders on your goddamn web site yourself: how's your HTML Mr. Patriot?"

Posted by PJTramdack | October 25, 2008 7:30 AM

Back in 1964, Lyndon Johnson stated that "we have lost the South for a generation" in response to signing the Civil Rights Bill. Perhaps this election is beginning to show that the gap LBJ stated has ended. Sure, Democrats are doing well in House elections across the district. However, this is the first time since Civil Rights that a Democrat who is not a Southerner is competing for Southern states. Though Republicans still control the Deep South at a national level, this indicates a shift that is occuring.

Posted by WCS | October 25, 2008 11:15 AM

PJTramdack: thank you for standing athwart tractors, preventing them from being pulled.

However, BHO's moderate face has simply been painted on by the media. If the MSM had another favorite, they would have completely torpedoed BHO by pointing out his long series of links to extremists, the ones he only discards as they become a liability. Someone would have to be extremely gullible to think that BHO is everything he's been portrayed as.

If anyone wants to do a public service - and get millions of Youtube views - go out and ask BHO a tough question on video. Details at my name's link. Please contact major bloggers and urge them to back that plan.

Posted by Here's how to defeat Barack Obama | October 25, 2008 1:14 PM

Re: However, BHO's moderate face has simply been painted on by the media.

Come now. Obama has painted that face on hismelf-- and he's hardly the only one to rebrand himself. Romney painted himself as a solid conservative when he definitely didn't govern MA as one. and Mccain, disastrously, has painted George Bush's head on his own body.

Re: they would have completely torpedoed BHO by pointing out his long series of links to extremists

Oh, good grief, ALL major politicians have links to extremists. John McCain palled around with Ted Hagee, a religious nutcase par excellence-- and let's not get started on his tete-a-tetes with Godon Liddy.

Re: If anyone wants to do a public service - and get millions of Youtube views - go out and ask BHO a tough question on video.

Now running auditions for the next Joe the Plumber! (But please make sure you've paid your taxes). But in reality Obama does really well with answering difficult questions. Remember, he actually turned the Wright flap to his advantage, and the "Joe the Plumber" soap opera has achieved nothing more than to make Joe himself look like an idiot. You may not want to throw Obama any more fast balls-- he has a record of either hitting them out of the park, or at least bunting his way to first base.

Posted by JonF | October 25, 2008 1:44 PM

Quote "There may be slightly more support for the GOP down here than, say, Pennsylvania, but to say that the GOP is going to become a regional party is just nonsense. The GOP is becoming a rural and suburban party, with its support in urbanized areas almost disappearing completely.

But there's every bit as much GOP support in rural Minnesota as there is in rural Alabama. In Alabama, though, the support isn't counterbalanced by the Twin Cities and Duluth." end Quote.

Excellent post Michael Bacon. You summed up the situation exactly. The shift in voter support is not regional countrywide. It is urban vs exurban; city vs rural. States that are growing at rapid rate are going from RED to PURPLE. While some states that are losing population are going from BLUE to PURPLE.

Posted by Marie | October 25, 2008 1:59 PM

haha, Marc.....I think...
it will be more like the extinction event at the K-T boundary.
The conservative dinosaurs are doomed.
Everyone else has already evolved.

Posted by matoko_chan | October 25, 2008 4:50 PM

I guess that is what happens when you reject ToE in favor of "intelligent design".
lol
;)

Posted by matoko_chan | October 25, 2008 4:53 PM

If this happens, Obama and other far-sighted Democrats will deserve a lot of credit for running campaigns - both this year and two years ago - that define their party as the alternative to the kind of right-wing, largely Southern conservatives who are increasingly dominating the dwindling number of Republicans who don't fit that description.

Posted by Seth Knoepler | October 25, 2008 5:07 PM

The Dems historically invest in good government. So did the Republicans until they elected George Bushs' son. It didn't used to be "normal", at least at the national level, for Horse Show judges to head large, important government agencies or a presidents personal council being suggested as a Supreme Court judge. John Bolton would never have become the Ambassador to the UN in any other administration nor would USAs' have been fired because they wouldn't pursue political prosecutions. They don't have a record of torture, secret prisons or "rendition".
I don't think you'll see Dems using ideological qualifications for employment with the federal government except for political appointments.
They don't really have a history of it (beyond conservative urban myth).
That's why they are back in charge. They know how to run the government. Republicans just despise it and use it to their own ends.

Posted by dijetlo | October 25, 2008 9:05 PM

I get a real laugh from these hypocritical Democrats calling the GOP outdated.

Nobody in the DNC has re-examined their basic beliefs EVER. Not since they were programmed into them by their Communist professors.

Democrats: Nazi tactics from 1933, Communist tactics from 1917.

Posted by Democrats are Nazis | October 26, 2008 12:53 AM

"founded on the concepts of inclusion, unity and hope."

Yes those concepts are important to his campaign. He's going to include all kinds of people, regardless of background, who basically agree with him or will eventually do so. The rest will mostly be marginalized unless they're very very rich.

So no he's not going to turn into something new. He's going to be the same 90% Lifetime Liberal Quotient, going by ADA, guy that he is today. A guy who'll work with Republicans on matters where they mostly agree with Democrats anyway. (Bribery bad, genocide is mean, terrorists shouldn't have nukes, etc) A guy who can tolerate "Blue Dog Democrats" better than the Huffington Post or Daily Kos crowd can.

Yeah, yippie skippy for that.

Posted by Thomas R | October 26, 2008 8:24 AM

Re: While some states that are losing population are going from BLUE to PURPLE.

Huh? Which states would those be? Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are all losing population, but they have become bluer, or in Ohio's case, bluish-purple.

Posted by JonF | October 26, 2008 1:57 PM

Marc,

Get a grip.

Coming late to this, but no commenter appears to have made the point-- unless I missed it-- that the relevant year is NOT 1994, but 1964.

Compare apples to apples, please: presidential level turnout, weak opponent, and long coattails yield possession of seats D's have no right to hold. Which makes chances of a 2010 reversal far from slim-- especially given 2010 is the year the Bush tax cuts expire. 1964 = 2008, and 1966 = 2010.

As badly as the national GOP brand has been damaged by Bush/McCain, there are thousands of state and local R activists who will fill the national vacuum and go after those seats (and, honestly, SHOULD go after them).

If the deservedly vaunted Obama field operation can be made to keep functioning on behalf of health care reform, energy policy, and tax policy-- and against the inevitable culture war stuff (this time overlaid with some dollops of racism)-- then maybe the odds can be improved, but they surely won't be eliminated.

PS--and let's not forget the state legislatures that will STILL be controlled by R's going into a backlash year of 2010, and so can redistrict if they maintain control as a result of Nov. 2010.

Posted by nogoatee | October 26, 2008 4:43 PM

> As for 0whole1's comment, where the GOP fails is in pointing out that many Dem attempts to be "nice" are either counterproductive when meant well, or are simply a cynical attempt to gain money or power and looking good at the same time.

My point is made for me, if you see what I'm saying. I'm not belittling this viewpoint, although I don't share it. However, if the GOP's public face asserts that "acting nice" is either cynical nonsense, doomed to failure, or both, then a) it's setting itself up to be seen as hypocritical re: the "Christian" values espoused by it's "base," and b) it comes off as -- at least to folks like me -- distasteful.

Posted by 0whole1 | October 27, 2008 3:24 PM