I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this. It’s obviously factually absurd. Yes, 2008 will be a Democrat year (I say this as a conservative Republican who knows we’ll get hammered for our mistakes just like liberals got hammered in 1980 and 1994 for their mistakes).But what’s the point of this laughable prediction? Is it to try to frighten Democrats and the “religious left” to the polls? To prevent Democrats and haters of the “religious right” from getting complacent?

Hmmmm, resurrection? Where have I heard that before. Anyone thinking that Christians are going to become Marxist-liberals in the mold of the average Leftie-Democrat, has never learned a thing about or from history. It was these same kinds of people that cheered the deaths of the Christians in the Coliseum. And I’m not talking “just” Biblical truth. Whatever “pollsters” think they are doing, they are not fashioning a new kind of Christian no matter the smoke and mirrors they attempt to use. God is not the author of confusion.Look to the DNC for that.

If you do read the subgroup polling, the only people who have diminished their support are partisan Democrats upset at Congress not defunding the Iraq war. They’ll be back when they understand that the present situation doesn’t actually hand much power to the White House. In fact it confers the decision about American involvement to consensus of the Iraqi leaders and Iraqi actions. Domestically, no doubt Republicans will make political power their monopoly in the Deep South this November and November 2008. The conservative Democratic politicians still holding power in the region have, with a few exceptions, now fulfilled their historical role and are obsolete. And often malodorous. In the Great Lakes states, Border States, and Southwest, however, it’s nonmoderate Republicans who are in rapid retreat, of no more use to enough inhabitants as leaders or majority. Florida is now 50/50 with Democratic trend (and Charlie Crist is governing it that way). But Florida very likely won’t be where the Presidency and its mandate is decided in the general election in the Democratic view. If the Democratic nominee wins, the crucial electoral votes and definition of mandate will probably come from Ohio and an aggregate of Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. (Arizona may also tip if enough new voters get registered, but Republican appointees in INS will predictably obstruct and slow-track enough naturalization applications.) It’s evidently going to be a 1932 or 1968-type election, with a narrow end result. Which is, nonetheless, a last gasp of the declining Party that dominated nationally for the past half lifetime. If the Republican nominee wins, Republican core policies are so discredited with the political center and Left and moderate Republicans that there won’t be a mandate to govern that way. If you think Bush’s mandate and record after the November 2004 election was weak, any Republican elected in 2008 will very soon have to govern as a Democrat would or implode. Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be examples of how it’s done correctly. Those who don’t adapt sufficiently…well, Bob Taft, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Linc Chafee, Craig Benson, Bob Ehrlich, and a slew of others have tales to tell of what happens. The person to talk to about power and political resurgence of the Religious Right in Ohio, its ability to sway the center there by resentments and appeals, and its ethical esteem is The Reverend Kenneth Blackwell. He bet on it last year to rather disappointing results. And we will only touch lightly upon the extent of suppression of Democratic votes and other unethical practices on his watch as Secretary of State. I believe the present energy in the Right is not resurgence, it’s frustrated flaring up, lashing and burning out, running amok, desperate attempts to keep it together as doubt worms its way into the last big solid clutch. Reinhold Niehbuhr: “Fervent orthodoxy is not a result of certainty but of doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure.”