Best sung to 'What to do with a Drunken Sailor'...!

Good piece, but these guys (and gal) lost their virginity long ago.

This does happen, sometimes, and has happened before in America. It hasn't happened in a long, long time in the US for a variety of reasons including, probably, random chance. I'll toot my own horn for a second and point to my Political "Axis Shift" piece from early 2003. New groups or groups rising in power mean the potential for shakeup and reorganization (by, for example, steering the party they are in now, or defecting to a different party).

There are several possible trajectories from this point forward. The one trajectory that is not an option is a continually weakening major party which falls almost completely out of power. For example, if the Democrats would ever hold fewer than, say, 40 seats in the Senate, or, worse, less than 1/3 of the seats in both houses, they would be effectively non-existent on the federal political stage (assuming there is no Democratic president, of course). That one-party scenario can happen, but it doesn't last long, and in today's world it would probably not last past even one federal election. Though one possibility in that sort of case (a party in power freefall) would be for the dominate party to fracture into separate parties. That has happened more than once, actually, though mostly early on in the US's history. Another possibility would be for a new party to fill the power gap. Finally, it's always possible for a party (or electorate) to shift and reset the balance. All of these options involve the same action though, what differentates them is who takes the action. In each case a party takes some portion of the electorate from the dominate party, usually by offering up ideologies favorable to those voters. A splinter party, new party, or the weakening party can do that. It's all about breaking the old mold and drawing a new (hopefully self-cohesive) ideological space around enough of the electorate to compete on a national scale.

Now, normally the two major parties will do this sort of thing on a continual basis as part of the give and take of politics. The Republican and Democratic party platform of today is not the same as it was 100, 50, 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. What has happened, of course, is that the Democratic party has become ossified and incapable of bending its ideological boundaries enough to effectively battle the Republicans for the ground at the 50/50 spot.

Anywho, the thing to watch is organization and fund-raising. The ossification of the Democrats is very evident when you look at the fact that Kos, MoveOn, Kerry, Soros, etc. are the motive forces in funding and organization for the party these days. Our political parties are actually, mostly, coalitions of different interest groups, new groups means a potential for those groups to align with different parties or new parties.

...um, as far as Molly Ivins is concerned: she's an occasionally entertaining populist democrat with a bizarre fondness for leftie causes and a disinclination to consider the consequences of what she advocates.

She has never been a kingmaker in the Democratic party. Or a queenmaker. Or much of anything other than someone who likes to complain about Republicans and has a newspaper column to do it with.

I wouldn't take her as a bellweather of much of anything.

...the three top Democrats for 2008 proved themselves to have all the staying power of a nervous virgin on the set of a porn shoot.

Absolutely priceless.

Stephen, the Democrats are indeed embarrassing and inept at the moment, and don't seem to be rising to the occasion of today's historical challenges.

But I suspect many people in the country who are not engaged, interested observers of the world will continue to observe their tribal loyalties in November, or will vote on personalities or largely local issues.

I suspect the Democrats will take a few more seats in the Senate, especially given the poor recruiting year the Republicans have had in a number of states.

Even the gap in the House may narrow somewhat, but something extraordinary would have to happen between now and November for them to come close to taking control. Senate might be a very close call, however, and governor/state legislature balance could shift further to the Dems.

Lots and lots of people vote on domestic and local issues, so the curious national security and foreign policy ground the Dems occupy may not be as big an issue.

Note that Al and John are heading way, way around the left flank, and so their criticism is from the center and right. Hillary is aiming up the center (which is around the right flank of her own party) so it is the (currently) loony left that is attacking her. In this day and age, being attacked by Molly Ivins and ilk is a badge of honor.

Hillarycare is on the table again.

Al Gore did the unforgiveable after the 2000 election. He went too far with the lawsuits to attempt to put himself in office.

Gore was right to force a recount and correct to force a hand recount. It was when he filed suit to force recounts with specific rules on how 'chad' ballots would be counted and to force selective recounts in only specific precincts that he went too far.

Wayyyyy too far, because after that there was no chance of an outcome in which a high percentatage of the US electorate would not feel disenfranchised.

Bush had no good choices left at that point. He could fight with no holds barred (as Gore already was doing) or he could allow Gore to 'take' the election. Not win, take. Bush made the correct decision, because the only worse outcome would be to establish a precedent that a candidate who lost the country could 'win' in court. Al Gore should never run again.

Kerry is tone-deafness personified, though I maintain that he could have screwed the pooch even worse by phoning from a ski resort in France.....

His party wasn't much better in 2004. The 'People's Party' nominates a billionaire. Uh, right.....

The hand recount was still subjective. There was a September election in Dade(?) in which the loser lost by 15 (?) votes, mechanical recount brought it down to 11, IIRC, and $100K LaPore refused a hand recount.

Your analysis is spot-on, but your conclusion is off. It's not 1986 and second-term doesn't equal automatic scandal anymore because the mainstream media doesn't control the narrative anymore.

We do.

So, of course the Dems are going to the nutters, the story isn't going according to script and they're ad libbing and improvising. And just like a Robin Williams movie with a weak director, the Democrats are going to fold at the box office on opening day weekend.

Let's see...

Canada swings Conservative.
So does Portugal.
The Iraqis are rounding up "insurgents" on their own.
The Palestinians discredit themselves as a credible political entity (welcome to Yemen on the Med).
His successor's biggest threat in '08 polls just 16%.
The public backs him on NSA.
The media is freaking over the Libby trial.

If this was a bad stretch for Bush, can we see a good stretch?

Ballsy! I've imagined that perhaps the Republicans could in fact gain in 2006, desptie all the scandals and current conventional wisdom. It all depends on how little the Dems stand for, and as each day goes by, they stand for less and less.

The Republicans are very vulnerable. And yet, the Dems keep shrinking. I am normally good at math but suddenly feel very lost in terms of making political calculations. Paging Michael Barone...

It's entirely possible the Republicans will pick up seats. The Dems can and should slaughter them in a normal universe. But somehow, I think they won't. Kudos for having the guts to say it first.

Here's what the DNC could do with a filibuster here. Why is the DNC willing to give it all away?

Please pass the link to your friends.