Something's going on. I thought the Repubs would win both KY and MS, but not by such big margins. I made the same mistake in CA.

ABC News published a long, interesting piece yesterday based on twenty years of polling. Basically, it showed that the Repubs have reached parity with the Dems among the general population. Since GOP voters are significantly more likely to vote than Dem voters, this means that the Repubs are this country's new majority party on election day - and not just at the presidential level, but at EVERY level.

If Jindal wins the LA governor's race, I'll start really believing in the now EMERGED Republican majority.

Casey:

The PSQ piece on 2002 suggests, I think convincingly, that what has happened is not about parity in the overall number but about the uneven geographical distribution. The Democrats are so concentrated in so few, especially urban, areas, that the country could stay 50-50 and they'd not win the House, Senate or Presidency for the duration. Rember that W carried 30 states even losing the vote by a considerable margin in '00.

Orrin:

Wellllllll, Bush lost the popular vote by a half-point in 2000, so his 30-state win wasn't SUCH an anomaly.

But you're right that the Dems are getting squeezed geographically. Their vote seems to be shrinking to white liberals and blacks, as the independents and other ethnic minorities are starting to slip away. And there aren't too many areas of the country where white liberals and blacks are in the majority.

Expect more complaints about the electoral
college if the disparity between the electoral
and so called "popular" votes are high in 2004.

Also expect a "serious look at the novel way that gerrymandering has (now) become an affront to democracy"...

Actually, forget about all of that voter driven "stuff". Expect a move to empower the judiciary (below the the supreme Court) to make the laws the stupid people who care to vote can't be entrusted to opine on.

More bad news for the Democrats. There are some signs of a trend towards black migration back into the south, as well as of continued black income growth. Both trends will tend to dilute Democratic success in their northern, urban strongholds.

Also, one of the signs of the upcoming revolution in '94 was a series of Republican victories in special elections in '93. If the Reps win in La, I'll consider this fall to be the same kind of foreshadowing. Next, I'll be looking to see if candidates for congress are running with or from their national party. If the President shows up in Rep commercials but no national Dem shows up in Dem commercials, it's a good sign. If the President starts to show up positively in Dem commercials ("In the aftermath of 9/11, Representative Smith stood firm with the President in supporting our war against terror"), then it's over.

The old guard Clintonistas won one at last. The corrupt mayor of Philadelphia was re-elected. The DNC must be very proud.

Erp - perhaps he can appoint his (Dem) replacement before they cart him away...

McAuliffe and Leslie Moonves should start a new reality TV show: VOTE, AND VOTE AGAIN (until you get it right!)!

I hope Terry stays so we can watch his tortured denial continue on Nov. 3, 2004. Wouldn't it be great to see Katie interview him after the tsunami?