"every faction was looking out for itself."

The Huckabee faction stood in opposition to the Romney faction, and Thompson went largely unnoticed. Conservative or not, Romney was the choice of many "real" coalition-style conservatives (at least the Laura Ingraham talk radio variety), except that the religious conservatives who had a problem with him came up with a religious socialist.

There were probably at least a half a dozen factions involved. All three leaders (Thompson, Romney, Huckabee) will get behind McCain, but there's no leading the "factions," because most factions believed they were supporting the lesser of other, more intolerable evils.

There can be no coalition unless the goal is to win.

I am still trying to make sense of this election, and it is becoming pointless to me. I will, at least, vote local issues this fall, but beyond that... my issues are not the ones the candidates are stumping around on, and that means the very few things that divide them are overwhelmed by the common items.

The Republican party is seeing the shake-up of its 1970's coalition and a number of parts of that coalition feel ill-served by the party that made promises and did not keep them. Part of coalition politics is addressing the factions in the coalition to unite to a common set of ideals... the elected members had no fealty to those ideals and drifted from them. By '96 the coalition was still warm, but had stopped breathing. This election no one *could* unite the party as no one actually spoke to all of the factions to draw up a common agenda. The default position is always seniority in party if no other uniting factors show up - GWB was able to forge a minimalist coalition via his father's rolodex and beat McCain in 2000. This year? Lowest Common Denominator - default position - seniority - McCain. Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and not a one of them tried to form a larger coalition position within the party. Political skills? None present.

The one thing that folks bemoaning the Red/Blue or 'polarized America' memes are missing is that the parties are responding to what is going on... if they are more heavily partisan and divided it is by subtraction. What the political question misses is the demographic side, and when you put that in, things get very, very scary. While part of this is the drifting back to the mean, where the parties were more polarized pre-WWI, the other part is disenchantment with the political establishment that has been developed since that era. And so there is the only vote that those feeling left out have: make things more polarized by walking away from politics completely.

Let's remember that, since 1973, big-gov't pro-life folk have been forced out of the Dems, and have drifted into the Reps.

These big-gov't Reps are the biggest faction of actual voters. Once Roe is finally overturned, they can go back to the Dems or, more likely, claim 'independence'.

Or, Huckabee can become the key GOP leader who pays lip service to the smaller gov't libertarian leanings of the Reps. When Reps had Congressional power, they did a lousy job of delivering lower gov't. Why should any believe them now?

Finally, too much hope/attention is invested in the President, not enough in Congress.

Did any one notice there is still a war on?

Oh, well.

Since the American people seem hell bent on socialism, I think winning the war cheap vs winning the war expensive (1936 vs 1939) still has some resonance for me.

And Huckabee giving lip service to the libertarians? Give me a break. He'd have to hire me a raft of live in girl friends (how is that for socialism?) to convince me.

In any case it doesn't matter. Events will take their course and who ever is running the government will have to react.

I believe that no one is truly independent because both parties pretty much cover every issue. If you are a pro life big government loving person the question is which issue means more to you, same can be said of the pro gun union member.

This may sound rather stupid, but as of now, I kind of hope Obama wins. The reasons are many but if you look at history and where we are now Obama looks like another Carter, and maybe, after four years the Republicans will get their act together and understand what it is that America needs and what Americans want.

I'll hold my nose and vote McCain, but I won't hold my breath and hope he wins.

John,

I think you are correct. The parties are no longer in any way coherent. The fact that the Libertarians are returning to their Republican roots to the dismay of the anarchists is just another sign of an electorate in turmoil.

There are no pure plays anymore. Not even of the "lip service" kind.

The fact that the Brits are going Islamic is another very worrying tendency.

What I think the Republicans need is a small "l" libertarian candidate. One who believes in a small federal government, low taxes, and less regulation. What the Democrats need is a candidate who isn't afraid to call him or herself a liberal.

Both parties need a lot more than one person that follows these ideas in order to win elections. The Presidency is only one side of the coin, the other is Congress. Most of these Representatives and Senators need to understand that their jobs rest in the voters hands, I beg for some sort of term limits on Congress. Teddy Kennedy has served in the Senate for 47 years, and John Dingell's been in the House since 1955, this shouldn't be their only jobs.

Something that the American people need to do is become more politically active. The people need to understand what it is those in Congress are proposing for the nation and why.