Ras. already has a poll for '08 with Rudy leading. There seems to be no Conserv on the horizon. Not one. Some looked at Barbour in Miss. Newt is alread a baggage goner. Allen is gone. Jeb Bush , well the name alone for a few years is a goner. McCain is not going to win the Pub primaries. RINO's are not going to be welcomed now that so many of them contributed to the RNC defeat. 4 good conserv Senators went down while some RINO's are still around, it was their policies and politics, Gang of 14 which already has hurt the Party. W has no power or influence and his ties to conserv. was tenuous at best. Romney will not win the nomination so that leaves Rudy to face Her Highness. That is not good odds for our side resurrecting a GOP in the EAST and Northeast. Or even in the mid-West. Sadly , some 3000 plus Pubs voted for Webb in VA. Is that a theme to come if Pubs do not get their act together?? And how did Evangelicals come out for the BASE? Will Rudy bring them out in '08??? UGH/ I see bad days ahead.

Alexander,

I inadvertantly misposted this on DJ's post, I meant it in response to your comments.

Like many I have been very angry with the Republicans and how unconservatively they have governed. With that said, I still got out there and gave time at the phonebanks and putting stamps on mailers and voted "R" straight down the line. I, too, would have liked to teach the R's in congress a lesson - but not at this cost and not at such a crucial time.

Now, to my point on your post. While I could vote of either Rudy or Mitt - I don't think I could ever vote for McPain. I think that may be asking too much and would suggest that somehow we make sure that is not the choice we are left with.

Keep up the great writing, I think this is the first time I've actually disagreed to the point I had to write you.

If McCain runs as our nominee I just wont vote no matter who is running from the dems. Plus McCain will be close to 70. He may run but it is EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL due to his age.

Romney I can buy.

Guliani even with his social issues is a million times more acceptable than McCain.

Again Bush could throw a wild card at '08. Have CHeney resign for health. Nominate Guiliani, Romney, Condi, or even Gingrich as VP. That gives them a heads up for '08.

The region has been going, steadily, since the '60s.

OTOH, the south was pretty solid blue from Jefferson's first race in 1796 until 1964. I think only Coolidge, Hoover, and Ike won a single southern state besides Florida for the GOP in that time. But since then, the south has been pretty solid red unless a southerner like Carter or Clinton is nominated.

Regions have switched. It happens over time.

Now I notice we're all experts again. Just like the week before the debacle.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/204375.php

As always, Ace nails it in his own way.

Alex notes in an email that the Whigs carried Southern states several times in the 1840s, particularly Tippecanoe and Zach Taylor. This is true.

My intended point was simply that the Democrats miss the Solid South more than we have missed New England and NY state.

Oh, and despite the GOP dominance in the south, it remains true that the Democrats have elected exactly ONE non-southern Presidential candidate since their border-state ticket of 1948, and no Democrat has EVER won the Presidency without at least three states of the old Confederacy - and I believe Clinton was the only one elected with as few as three. So, the problem, at least in Presidential races, is theirs.

You should run the numbers for the west coast. I assume it is just as bad. The worst part is that there is nothing that can be done to make the "two party system" viable again in the New England states.

People will have to vote with their feet instead of with their ballots. If they want something other than high taxes, high regulations, nanny state, they will have to move. The same can also be said for NJ, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois.

Actually it is the death of New England. There is now way anyone can live under the tax structure and laws of a total liberal government. The only differnece in a liberal government and Nazism is the lack of death camps, to this point. That may change also. It is definetly on their (liberals) minds since the hyped it as something President Bush would do, he didn't and never had the thought, so it's still on the liberals mind and in their nightmare's. What is that called when you try to make your plans sound like the oppositions plan, Projection?

Jeez what a bunch of whiners.

Us liberals have had to cry in our soy milk for the past six years with almost ZERO representation in the federal government (with the exception of Chafee that is). And even before that, we'd had six years of a seriously emasculated Clinton (well, politically emasculated anyway).

Now, here you are, with a republican president, two very narrowly divided houses of congress, and the most conservative supreme court in sixty years, and y'all are squealing like Mark Foley at an NSYNC concert.

So buck up soldiers!

While the senate is a safe bet to remain DEM through the next two cycles, but a LOT of the pickups in the house were gimme's in safe red precincts. My guess is it goes back REP in 08.

You've also got two shoo-in options for president. Either McCain or Guli would eviscerate Clinton in a battle for the center.

And Obama? Please! I really like the guy, but he'd be lucky to win ten states.