Here's the problem with "right track/wrong track" polls:

I am a stalwart Bush supporter and conservative Republican, with some libertarian leanings. On the right track/wrong track poll, I would vote WRONG TRACK.

Our "conservative Republican" Senate can't get Bush's nominees confirmed.

Our borders are a sieve.

Taxes are too high and there is little hope for more cuts.

Spending is out of control.

I am CERTAINLY a wrong track person here. But that doesn't mean I think democRats will put us on the right track. On the contrary, I fear democRats will push us even further from the proper course.

Who am I going to support in the next election? As a wrong tracker, the conventional wisdom is that I would vote for change, i.e., democRats. But in reality, the best hope I have for getting us back on the right track is purging the government of liberals. Liberals control the Senate. We have about 48 real conservative Republicans and about 52 liberals, including some "so-called" Republicans who do more harm than good. The solution? Keep the Frists and Santorums, purge the McCains and Chafees.

Now, how many other people out there think like me? How many "wrong track" voters, like me, want MORE conservatism, not less?

If Howard Dean is head of the DNC in 2006 and 2008, the GOP will clobber the Democrats...because this will mean that the far left is still running the Democratic show, and the far left has been resoundingly rejected by the American people.

I think it's a bit more complex than that, Mark.

First off, if the filibuster isn't broken, we're losing senate seats next year. Maybe not the majority altogether, but the arrow will be pointing downward.

As for 2008, we pretty much know who the Democrat presidential nominee is going to be: Hillary Clinton. And, for all the denial you practice where she's concerned, she'll be a formidable national candidate.

And we'll have...whom? All 55 U.S. senators (minus our net losses next year)? Two or three green, unknown, small-state governors? And whomever it is, s/he'll have John McCain running as an "independent" spoiler, a la Ross Perot in '92 and '96.

In national politics, success is a function of the candidate, not his/her ideology. GDub won last year, and John Kerry lost, because Dubya was strong, steadfast, immovable, and even charismatic, in a folksy sort of way, whereas the Boston Balker was a pompous, dissembling stiff. But after another three years of being worn down by endless left-wing agitating, the public may not see any Republican as escaping the "controversial" label (McCain could, but he's not really a Republican). Whereas the Dems would be waiting, with their popular, born-again-faux-centrist heroine, having sidestepped any serious primary opposition, tanned, rested, ready, with a coherent message script from which she would have more than sufficient discipline not to depart, and, yes, carrying the mantle of "change" once borne by her incontinent hubby.

If it's, say, George Allen representing (as the Extreme Media would portray it) a continuation of the "turmoil" of the Bush years versus Hillary Clinton standing for a return to the "good old days" of the '90s minus the Oval Office orgies, which candidate would have the easier sell? Given the cyclical nature of presidential politics, the likelihood of "Bush fatigue," and who knows what setbacks that may or may not be over the horizon, I would surmise that Senator Allen would have to have a distinct edge in charisma and star power to make it past the Dragon Lady since his path would be so much more uphill. Otherwise, if it's a wash at best, Hillary wins.

But then, Senator Allen might not even be a senator after next year, given that his challenger will almost certainly be popular Virginia governor Mark Warner. If 2006 is a repeat of 1986, I'd almost guarantee it. Who that would leave in the GOP presidential field I couldn't begin to guess, but it would either be an unknown or a "moderate" guarantee to split the party and trigger a landslide defeat. Why else would people still be talking about the Cheney and Condi pipedreams?

I'm not making any formal predictions yet. It's always possible, if highly improbable, that the Byrd Option could yet be triggered and sustained, momentum regained, and something positive salvaged from the 109th Congress. 2006 doesn't have to be a disaster.

But 2008 just doesn't look promising to me. We've got nobody, and they've got a Clinton. That just doesn't bode well for the GOP.

Moral of the story? Just because you can't see many people voting Democrat in the next two cycles doesn't mean it won't happen.

That's the lesson the Clinton detour should have taught all of us - and what its resumption will apparently administer anew.

Hard Starboard,

1986, however, was six years after 1980...a year in which several GOP Senators who would otherwise have lost rode to victory on Reagan's coat-tails. In 2006, it is six years after 2000, which was a pretty good Democratic Senate year (I think they had a net gain of 4)...and they have two more Senate seats to defend than the GOP does; and more Democratic seats are in "red" States than GOP seats in "blue" States. Absent a GOP meltdown (always a possibility, but I don't foresee it at this moment), the GOP stands to gain two to four seats in 2006 (FL and WV are very promising, while we can't count out MD if the GOP Lt. Governor seeks retiring Democrat Sarbanes seat; our weakest links right now are RI and PA, though in PA if the Donk's go with pro-abort Heinz, Jr. then we'll likely hold the seat).

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about Hillary...come 2007, I think she'll determine that she hasn't a ghost of a chance and will withdraw herself from consideration...likely in favor of a second-tier Democrat in hopes that 2012 might prove more friendly to her chances; if she does run, then I count on her monumental stupidity (they say she's learned from the Hillarycare debacle...she only learned to dissimulate a little better...she's just as she was in 1993 otherwise) as well as her being yet another northeastern liberal to ensure her defeat (really, name the "red" State where she's going to do better than Gore did in 2000...).

That, of course, is only if she runs and by some miracle gains the Democratic nomination...she wont, in my view. The far left controls the Democratic Party and they will not tolerate anyone but a full-bore, out-and-out leftist as their candidate in 2008. They are convinced that they won in 2004 and only the machinations of Evil Bush stopped them from reaping the fruits of victory...they are not completely convinced that a more overtly leftwing candidate will roll up such a high vote total that even Evil GOP machinations wont be able to "steal" the election from them...thus my prediction that the most likely Democratic nominee in 2008 will be Al Gore...a man who certified himself a leftist through the 2004 campaign and now has their support locked up and thus really can tack right in the primaries while Hillary, et al try to explain their rightwing rhetoric of 2005 - 2007.