The issue that will help Republicans, and perhaps make it a tight race, is immigration, which is why I have a hard time imagining John McCain as the nominee.

Giuliani makes McCain look like Tom Tancredo, yet he is the leading candidate in the polls. It's shaping up to be a blowout next year.

The thought of saying President Clinton again scares me to the core. I sure hope that doesn't happen and people come to their senses...

If libertarian leaners or business Republicans win, especially if they’re graceless victors

Only the libertarian leaners would be graceless. The business Republicans have won this battle year in and year out for the last 40+ years, and they have been very very graceful about it (stealthy is perhaps the more correct term.). The average conservative has just in the last few years begun to realize that they are not in control!

The business Republicans have won this battle year in and year out for the last 40+ years, and they have been very very graceful about it (stealthy is perhaps the more correct term.).

I don't think that keeping all the spoils of victory for yourself and making sure your allies get nothing is either very graceful or very smart.

Harmless Fun. I hope this was just a joke.

Do you think there is any truth to the rumors that Rudy may pick Sarah Palin as his VP? I would almost vote for Rudy if Palin is his VP. For purely political reasons, of course. :-)

The criterion of "earning" a congressional majority, or the presidency, is a red herring. It is a moralistic detour that pointlessly complicates the process of analyzing the real choices we face. Parties rarely earn victories. We almost always have, rather, a choice between a flawed option that (at best) hasn't proven itself, and an unacceptable option. Also: Premature predictions of a Shrillary or a Democratic presidency are misleading -- giving precision to something that simply cannot be known. They are also demoralizing and accomplish absolutely nothing positive. We conservatives would be better off, both scientifically and politically, if we'd stop talking about the supposed probability of another Clinton presidency and just focus on how to prevent this. Which CAN BE DONE. Passively sitting back and calling a race that won't conclude for another year is the way to increase our odds of losing -- and nothing more.

What about Duncan Hunter on a Giuliani ticket? Since part of what Rudy claims can give him the electoral edge are his odds in California, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that. And if it set Hunter up as a G. successor, I'd like it. Of course, Rudy can expect enthusiastic support from Arnie out here and that will mean something. A red California is not impossible in '08, in my view, though it would be very difficult. How a Rudy/Hunter ticket dealt with immigration would be interesting and key. Hunter could bolster him in a spot where he appears to be the weakest with conservatives and his own flexible views on the issue would do much to reassure voters who are more squishy there that he is not some kind of crazed racist. Let me be clear, I am not saying that Hunter's position is either crazed or racist--I agree with him--but that is the caricature and, for better or worse, it is believed by a significant number of people. If it is possible to bring together conservatives and moderates on the immigration issue, this may be the way to do it. The combination of the two would probably be a palatable alternative to many who are not comfortable with Hillary. It's a long shot, but it may work. Still, I think he'd be better off focusing on Ohio and Pennsylvania.

soon after the election, the real battle for the heart, soul, and mind of the Republican Party will begin.

I recall the same prediction being made in 1992, when it became increasingly apparent that Bill Clinton would be elected president. In fact, the day of reckoning never came. Mutual dislike of Clinton pushed the libertarians, traditionalists, etc. back into the big tent. I suggest that the big battle for the GOP is going on now, and has been for the past four years at least. If anything, a Hillary election will temporarily bring it to an end.

A more modest prediction than the others. Hillary will NOT be elected president in 2008.

Hunter as veep could bring in some social (anti-abortion, pro-gun, immigration restrictionist) conservatives. He would also be a very good man to have at the side of any president. But no Republican will carry California in '08. If we want to play the favorite-son game, Ohio would be the best place to do it. It's not clear whether any Ohio figure would be a plausible veep AND win us that difficult state. It is clear that California is not in play -- or, to be more precise, in the very unlikely event that it is in play, the Republican already would have the national election locked up.

I lean toward agreeing with you, David. But one can always hope. As far as I can see, there's no one emerging from the mess of Ohio GOP politics.