On the other hand, both Rudy and Romney could have "saved the senate" if they had made senate runs in their respective states. The fact Romeny would likely have lost should lower his chances. If he can't carry his home state, why think he can carry the nation.

Rudy would have been a tough fight, probably not winnable given the wave of last night. But he certainly would have made it a tougher race for Hillary and thus a tougher election season for the democrats.

Sitting on the side lines fiddeling while the senate burns doesn't win points from me for either of them.

I haven't posted here before, but I actually have to after reading this post. That is one of the most bizzare statements I've read after yesterday's elections. Romney had zip chance of ever beating Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts. Even if he was leaving office with approval in the high 70s (which he isn't) there would be no earthly way he could have been Senator-for-life Kennedy. To argue that he should have thrown his political life down the toilet so we could feel even worse for seeing one of our rising stars go down in massive defeat is absolutly insane.

I'm with you completely on Guiliani. Chances are he would have at least made it competitive and thus kept Hillary from spending money elsewhere. In a good year he probably would have taken it, this year he probably wouldn't have, but it would have been close enough that it wouldn't have harmed his interest in '08.

However, it is considered highly faux pas for a candidate to run for a seat he/she does not currently hold only 2 years before running for a higher office. Voters would feel used and betrayed, and it wouldn't score anyone any positive points. I would say it's a safe thing for both of them to have sat this one out.

Speaking from NY there's no way Hill was even going to get dented, no matter the candidate. Guiliani stumped hard and long for Sweeney in a very Republican district and he got handily beaten by an inexperienced cheerleader only capable of aping DNC press releases (pretty much word for word from what I saw - I'm not in that district) and reneging on her campaign promises (because Sweeney played the part of an even worse candidate). NYers sent a criminal back to head up the state's finances in Alan Hevesi by a huge margin...a man that spends, on the books, about a half million dollars a year on drivers and security for himself. As comptroller. A half million dollars per year. Spitzer spends half that. And that half million doesn't even count the hundred grand or so he was burning off the books that he may be impeached for. Minor candidates seemed to get no traction instead of little traction with voters. About the only surprises were Reynolds (by the skin of his teeth) and the fact that the Republicans managed to keep control of the NY Senate. I think Giuliani would have been blown away in this election climate, he's smart to have not run.

My Assemblyman and Senator choices won, so at least I've got that going for me.

Something to think about Jim: Note the massive slide leftward in the northeast and some of the heartland. Some is a result of moderate democrats running. Not around here. It's time to stop pretending the northeast reddish moderates might vote R...at this point one had better assume they're bluish and will vote largely D in a toss-up. Early advice: don't start thinking only a southern D can win in '08, in this climate a big city liberal can very likely pull off a victory riding the big city states and enough of flyover country, R's better get with it if they want to salvage any of the sorta-red states and every electoral vote they bring with them. Almost everybody is in play at the moment. I've always known NY was liberal, but last night was frightening, even upstate turned away from the party. There is essentially no state GOP in NY right now and it's starting to look like RI, NH etc are sliding that way, too. Ah-nold almost certainly can't carry CA for a republican. VA is showing troubling signs with a wobbly Warner not helping at all. Even with gay marriage on the ballot Allen couldn't hold his Senate seat?

I'd like to look for a silver lining, but here in NY it looks blue.

Gandalf,

You are missing the key point. Not that Romney could have beaten Kerry ( or given the head wind even made it a race), but if Romney couldn't carry his home state, why consider him a winner for the president. If he could win a federal election in Mass, then he should have run. If he couldn't then what does he bring to the party?

I agree that Rudy probably wouldn't have won in NY, though in a "neutral" year he could have won. I also agree that voters would likely have required a pledge similar to Hillary in 2002 (that she wouldn't run in 2004). Further, for him to have any chance he would have had to move to the left on issues which in turn would have hurt his 2008 chances in winning the republican nod.

To me one of the supposedly appealing nature of both candidates is the potential to bring in blue states to add to the red. I don't see that in Romney and its not clear to me Rudy has it either (though I grant it is much more likely). If they do have the ability to move blue states red, then the difference in the senate majority would have rested on them using that ability. Since they didn't show it, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to question their ability to flip blue states.

On the other hand, if Rudy or Romney had flipped their states senate election, they would be seen as the saviors of the party (i.e. holding the senate), able to deliver the goods in a tough election and would have walked through the republican primaries. You can say that they kept their powder dry in a thunderstorm, You can also say that they missed an opportunity to blow open the door which in turn raises questions in my mind about the real world impact of that powder.

What about Newt? Doesn't hese results benefit him? He could be the real conservative voice of the party, considering he's actually enacted conservative legislation. I wouldn't count him out.

The only one who is more damaging to Republicans and the country than Bilary is John McCain.

I have NO IDEA who will become President in 2008. I just pray that it is NOT EITHER one of them.

Romney may be the biggest winner for the GOP for the reasons described. Man, he is as articulate as Tony Blair!

For the Dems, the big winner may be Fluffy. Er, most people call him John Edwards, but ever since he ran with Stuffy (Jn. Kerry), I call him Fluffy. Anyway, he gets to tack to Hillary's left, Kerry's out of the picture, Gore's a bore, Obama is too soona. Watch for a Edwards-Warner Dem ticket in 08.

As for someone being as articulate as Tony Blair, writing as a Brit, I have to say that while Blair being articulate is one reason he was elected, it hasn´t stopped him being a disaster for his own country, for Iraq and, in the longer term, for Britain´s hitherto valuable and productive alliance with the US.

As for Osama being a too soona, as an American pointed out to me, as quoted in my (London) Times blog, he would learn more in 30 days than Bush in 30 years.

So viewed from this side of the Pond, President Obama, please.