The Dems deserve a representative body that reflects their core constituency: they are not really a National Party anymore, so what is wrong with California, New York, ten other urban centers, plus a couple of odd enclaves representing them in the House?

AS the Republicans move left to fill the void,what will replace them as the conservative alternative,I wonder?

Know-Nothings

That's an illuminating answer,OJ,in ways you might not have anticipated.

Thanks to the way the Republicans drew the lines in Texas, the Democrats had to argue in court that the new districts, which basically attacked the state's remaining white congressional Democrats while leaving the minority districts alone, was a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Didn't fly, since unlike Bill Clinton, Martin Frost, Lloyd Doggett and the rest were never annointed as honorary black men, though the Supreme Court still could have a final say on the redistricting issue before the primary is held.

However, what you are seeing in Texas right now is a bit of inter-party political warfare in the Republican ranks -- Gov. Rick Perry vs. Comptroller Carole Strayhorn and (possibly) Perry vs. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006, which I'm afraid is a harbinger of what's going to happen at the national level during the 2008 GOP primary campaign between moderate and hard-line conservatives, given the reaction to Bush's school, Medicare and immigration plans. That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself -- a party needs to decide what it stands for, other than winning elections -- were it not for the fact that Hillary already has the 2008 nomination wrapped up, save for a senatorial re-election loss to Rudy Giuliani, and I'd hate to see that primary season play out as the reverse of the current campaign.

John:

Perry can't run in the primary against Hutchinson if W opposes it.

John:

Perry can't run in the primary against Hutchinson if W opposes it.

If Dean makes it,and crashes in a big flaming ball,a civil war in the Republican party is very possible.
I can think of at least 4 different groups that might get jumpy.

I am not sure John is predicting an actual primary battle between Perry and Hutchinson for W to arbiter. I agree with him that there are 2004-2006 scenarios which could led the GOP intoxicated with success and without a coalescing focus for 2008. And the flip side of that, is that it looks very much like the Dems will be so ready for victory that egos will be sacrificed at the altar of a very cunning and disciplined (credibly deceptive) Hillary. (By the way, Hillary would have nothing to gain and much to lose from running against Guiliani, does not need to, and that is why she will have very credible reasons not to run to focus on the WH. By the same token, that's why Guiliani should announce, even if uninterested.)

If you believe, like oj, that 2004 will be a banner year of sorts for the GOP, what 2004-06 scenarios and what GOP leadership can help the party avoid loss of focus, and even achieve the same levels of 2000? Probably not many scenarios aside from an escalation in the government by super-majority that the Dems have toyed with in the Sebate. This could leave the GOP very unfulfilled and pissed off even if in control of all of government. (Especially as a "wild card" SC and an aggressive judiciary continue to grow its mandate.) A wake-up call in the 2006 mid-term elections would only be positive if it were clear what claused the disappointment. (As opposed to each faction pointing fingers at each other.) I would rather hope that the War against Terrorism not need be the unifying factor into the second-half of the decade.

As to leadership, everybody knows it would be too early to guess. The question is whether there is a roster from the Guiliani/Arnold Left through the Owens/Frist center to the Santorum/De Lay Right that can all live with each other.

M:

The nativist wing could certainly make common cause with industrial Union members. It's not hard to see the Democrats trending that way, especially considering that border closing would be a massive federal boondoggle.

OJ

The Perry-Hutchison rivalry has only been hinted at under the surface, while the one between Strayhorn and Perry is real. Both ran with Bush as Republicans in 1998 (and won primary fights with candidates to their right), but Strayhorn balked at certifying Perry's budget initially last spring and in retaliation he and the leaders in the legislature took away some of her office's responsabilites.

Strayhorn has threatned a primary run against Perry, and I doubt he would then challenge Hutchison, since it would look like a case of "cutting and running" from a primary fight and there really hasn't been a credible reason given to the public on why KBH should be replaced in Washington. But outside of ex-comptroller John Sharp, there are really no credible Democrats in Texas who can mount a statewide challenge in 2006, which is why the main battle focus will be on the Republican side, and why the Texas GOP can pretty much afford to fire a few shots at each other and still be assured of controlling almost all of the state government come 2007.

But on the national level, so long as the left wing of the Democratic Party is willing to give Hillary a pass on her votes with Bush on the war on terror and Iraq rebuilding aid, no matter how much of a train wreck the Democrats make of the 2004 campaign the Republicans can't start going for each others throats in 2008 over the soul of the party. But with no heir apparent to Bush (unless Cheney is not the VP this year), I've got the feeling there's a chance '08 for the Republicans could look like 1992's primary season when party divisions let the other Clinton slip into the White House.

John:

I think you're wildly overestimating how formidable Hillary is and the degree to which America is up for grabs--remember, even so feeble a candidate as Harry Truman trounced Dewey fairly easily once America became Democratic--but I could be wrong.

Truman was feeble? He took a dispirited, splintered party (which had been badly beaten in 1946) and not only won a big personal victory, but won back Congress. Dewey was a prima donna, an elitist prima donna to be sure, but Truman's victory was achieved against the media and against expectations.

2007 will be a very interesting year for 43 - he may be in the uncomfortable position of having to choose someone to support from an unflattering group. While we have our fun now watching the Democratic echoes blather, pander, and preen, be sure that the press will be ready to savage any candidate who is too conservative, and the various sub-groups of the GOP will savage any candidate who is too unconventional (liberal). And whoever is seen as the anointed candidate will surely have angry challengers (as Dole was in 1988).

But Hillary will not waltz to the nomination in 2008, either. Much of the party will be jealous, bitter, and just plain tired of her. And her husband is still the big fat albatross hanging around her neck. Her main advantage will be the money she can raise without lifting a finger.

jim:

He'd just won the war and his party fixed the Depression, how could he ever have lost the election?

OJ --

While I don't see Hillary as an electoral juggernaut, I can see her getting 43 percent of the vote, as hubby did in winning in 1992. And one of the things Bush (and Rove) learned from that election is that the press treats Democratic scandals and disunity like a trip to the dentist -- nessecary to take care of, but unpleasant to deal with and repressed from the memory as soon as possible. Republican scandals, in contrast, are like a trip to the beach -- greatly anticipated, tremendously enjoyed and fondly remembered (unless you get sunburned like Jayson Blair and Howell Raines).

That's why Bush at times since hitting the national scene has seemed to many overly-passive in responding to attacks both from within and outside his party. He remembers Reagan's speech at the 1992 RNC convention was completely submerged by the media and the speech given by Pat Buchanan was turned into their official face of the Republican Party for presentation to the nation.

If Democrats go at each other like a WWE cage match - or if Howard Dean turns three shades of purple and verbally lambasts a voter as at Sunday's debate - the press will cover it, but they'll quickly drop it as an onging topic so long as the people involved do the same. Republican disunity on the other hand is focused on obsessively even after there's nothing new to report (I expect see Paul O'Neill's face on TV more than Paris Hilton or Mark Geragos for the foreseeable future touting his book about Bush, unless he starts doing an Admiral Stockdale impression on live TV in front of Katie Couric).

That's why the GOP can afford a inter-party battle in 2008 less than the Democrats can, though with the increasing number of news source options, the threat may not be as severe as in 1992. (And as far as Jim's comment about Hillary's challenges in the party, he might be right, but for now, I don't think the majority of people on the left really believe Hillary believes in her own votes with Bush on Iraq and the terror war. They think she's just doing what she has to do as senator of the state that is home to Ground Zero, and will show her true beliefs once elected to the presidency. As long as all but the very farthest left of the party are willing to give her a free pass on that, she's in great shape for 2008.)

But there's no wing of the GOP that would take 8% away from a nominee. Isolationists and anti-immigrationists and libertarians each dream they could, but they're kidding themselves.

Check your numbers - if Guiliani is somehow nominated, he will need to get probably 10% of the typical GOP vote somewhere else (which HE might be able to do). For the GOP to be strong, it needs to choose the 'rightward-most viable candidate', otherwise, it might as well run George Pataki. Rally around that flag, and see what it brings (hint - 38.5%).

The GOP 'coalition' has one weak spot - the religious right (for lack of a better term) has the capacity to offend. And the press will fan that flame as hard as it can. The analogous Democratic weakness (race-baiters like Sharpton) get a free pass. Unions don't really offend, although as time goes by, the only unions left are the bureaucratic ones. If only we could energize the electorate against the quality of government service.

I don't think a third-party split from the Republicans would do much if anything in terms of attracting votes, but the stay-at-home crowd could be critical in closely-contested states if X number of Republicans are more miffed at the eventual 2008 nominee not agreeing with their beliefs than they are at Hillary's potential presidency (hard to imagine right now, but in four years some memories of the 20th Century may grow hazy).

oj:

Not necessarily a wing of the GOP, but another Perot could easily spring up.