The next president will be Republican.

Possibly. You have a 50% chance of being right. Maybe more if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, maybe less if the Republicans nominate Bill Frist.

However, the next Congress may very well be Democratic.

I think what is silly about these maps (like election night maps) are that they kind of imply that as soon as you cross a border, the entire population feels one way or another. The best map I saw like this showed the US divided county by county, with the map colored from red (100% Republican) to blue (100% Democratic) and variations of all shades between. Not surprisingly, most of the country was pretty purple, with the reddest parts being the rural areas (even in blue states) and the bluest parts being the urban areas (even in red states).

We Americans have a lot more in common than the politicians and maps let you believe.

Well, heck, even this map shows that we all basically don't like our current President! See, he is a uniter not a divider!

Totally agree.

Hillary is a death sentance for Dems.

Frist is the equivalant of Hillary for the Republicans.

I believe McCain is our next president as it stands today.

I am not very good with general US geography, can anyone tell me what the redd-ish states there are? I'd guess Wyoming, Utah and Alberta?

Alberta is a Canadian province, hehe. That's all I can do to help. I shamefully do not know my American geography well enough.

PEACE, Mike.

EEEWWWW ALBERTA.

Lecter, you meant Alabama, right?

The reddest are Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming. The others are Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.

The funny (and sad) thing is that the only reason the president's approval rating is so low is because of gas prices. The media can try to attribute it to the supposedly sad state of the economy, the war in Iraq, the various Washington scandals, etc., but gas is king.

I disagree with you there. Are you saying all those people are lying to the pollsters? The pollsters don't all work for the media, you know. And why didn't his approval rating go that low years ago when prices first hit record highs?

I like this map: It shows the breakdown based on population and who they voted for. As you can see, large portions of the country are very sparsely populated -- these areas are almost always red, so when you look at a typical red/blue map, it appears that 80% of the country is Republican, when in fact in the last election, the real number was about 51%.

Oh, I'm not saying that people are lying to the pollsters, I'm just saying that people form their opinion of the president first and foremost on economic factors that affect them day to day. And the one factor that affects everybody the most (or at least is the most visible) is gas prices.

Bush's ratings did take a dive around Katrina (when the gas prices hit record highs), but that was too temporary. Since then gas prices fell back and have been steadily rising.

I guarantee you that if gas prices magically dropped to $0.80/gallon the way they were in late 90's, everyone would be in love with Bush. Sad, but true.

Yes, I did I know where Alberta is, I just knew it was something with AL and instead of thinking I just typed Alberta.

Heh. Somebody's been reading DailyKos.

Thing is, approval rating for Bush is largely moot unless the Democrats can attach Repulbican Congresspeople to Bush. All politics is local.

I like the county map too. Just from that map you can pick out the cities AND all the towns with the big state colleges.

President 2008 is up for grabs at the moment. Some liberals are shooting for the moon. They want a full-on liberal like Feingold, and some are even trying to bring back Gore. I don't think this country can handle that much of a swing so quickly becuase the polarization, fed by years of Fox News and Air America, is just too great. Everybody knows that Hillary is the kiss of death...except Hillary herself. Not sure about McCain. He's been awfully inconsistent, and he's getting long in the tooth. My money's on a mod Republican like Hagel, or a dark horse like Mark Warner.

But 2008 is a LONG way away. Let's get past the mid-terms first.

In 2008, McCain will be 3 years older than Reagan was when he was first elected. That will probably be an issue. Also, McCain has made some disturbingly un-McCain-like maneuvers lately, like embracing Pat Robertson and the religious right. What makes him somewhat popular on the left is his straight-shooting and willingess to buck the fundamentalists who've taken over the Repubs. If he starts pandering to them, then that broad support evaporates and he's left with only the base he's pandering to.

I agree that high or low approvals don't necessarily translate into votes, and if there's one thing you can count on Dems for (with the notable exception of Bill Clinton), it's the inability to capitilize on opportunities.

But I'm hoping they can get their shit together just enough to take back at least one house of Congress in the fall. We might actually be able to put a stop to the borrowing-and-spending policies of Republicans or at least restore some kind of fiscal sanity.

Honestly, I think a better solution is a Republican Congress and a Democratic president, but I'm not sure we can wait 3 more years for that to happen.

Greater persent, actually. The dems have been acting horribly. I am so pissed at how they acted over the security measure bickering for Dubai World Ports. They also have failed to make a campaign, instead being lucky on the fact that bush is losing one. That only means its still in bush's hands what the future dream will be, because its not like there's been a consistent platform and ideology to recruit.

Now, if they run Bill Richardson for preseident, just like they should have last time around for vice-president..then we'd be talking.

Yep -- a month is a lifetime in politics, and anything can change.

The Democrats need to stop ignoring the south if they want to win. The only Democratic Presidents in the last 35 years have been from the south. And another northern liberal isn't going to cut it -- the Dems can already win the northeast, we need to expand to the rest of the country and not let them think we only represent part of the country.

I mean, in many states, the Dems were not that far behind the Republicans, but if here's a fact: If only one side is giving their message in these states, they are going to win!

Mark Warner seems OK so far, and at this stage, I am in favor of him, but anything can happen by election day.

Yeah, he's a good choice. (And I agree with your assessment of the Democrats). Help bring in the midwestern and latino vote, too, hopefully.

I wanted John Edwards last time, and he's planning on running again too.

The point is this: the dems will probably win the same states they did last time. All they need is one more. So, you stupid Democrats -- nominate someone from a red state, howabout it? You already have the blue states!!!

And I hope Santos beats Vinnick next week, too.

And Alaska, but it doesn't really count.

So true.

Reverse logic can apply to Republicans as well: what if they nominate someone from a blue state? If MA, New York and California can vote for a Republican governor, who's to say they can't vote for a Republican president?

Well, I don't want to give them advice!

Yeah if they nominate Guiliani, the democrats can be in trouble.

McCain is a opportunist, like every other politician out there. He's banked so far on the "moderate" support, whatever that means. The strategy worked out well for him being elected into the Senate, but has backfired during his Presidential run. I wouldn't bank on him being the next president either.

I disagree with you on Edwards. I think its high time we forget about personalities cutting it in the South. He couldn't even pull his home state towards swing-statedom. Its all in the (still maleable) Southwest now, and the increasing immigrant populations. Whom they side with for a few elections will be who continues to get their votes long afterwards. We need to stop enfranchinsing the south and start getting them to to meet on different terms. They're not going to vote for a democrat anyways, so its best to go where party affiliation hasn't yet been solidified. Alabama is never voting blue.

Large chunks of the Southwest are libertarian, which is not the same as religious right. New Hampshire did swing the other way for the first time in ages, and there's a reason. There is also not the same history of race in that area, and it is the largest growing population region in the country by far. Its going to triple in power over the next few decades. Three of the states were already swing this time around. Go with someone from there coupled with someone, maybe, from the Northwest or a democrat from Illinois or the northwest as running mate. That's my guess. I know its being overly tactical, but at this point, at least it will keep the party in tune with the needs of those who actually support them, instead of pandering to those who don't. It seems to have done our current President just fine n his eight year stint.