How many years do you think it took for the GOP to recover from Herbert Hoover?

Or will Bush's lasting influence be merely Nixonian?

That probably depends on whether the Dems come up with an FDR or a Jimmy Carter in '08.

Perhaps this is naive thinking, but I tend to think that, in spite of the war, the Fred Thompson would beat Hillary Clinton in a national election and quite possibly Barack Obama as well. All of this is centuries away in political terms, but as it stands now I see that as realistic possibilities. And, if so, the Congressional chances would largely depend upon their ability to ride Thompson's coat tails. I see Thompson as very Reaganesque...hopefully the GOP won't repeat the mistake of nominating a Ford over Reagan.

Timing the bottom for the GOP: I'm putting the ETA on that at January 2009 at the earliest.

David, is proof of having reached and rebounded from rock bottom found in a poll or series of polls or a vote or in something else?

If some combination of a change of majority status and an inauguration are seen as the bellwether as I'm inclined to infer from your choice of January 2009, doesn't that indicate that "November 2008" would be a better ETA to have predicted (at the earliest, as you note), given that November 2008 is the only election for President and the U.S. Congress between now and then? Surely if such a change occurs, the GOP will not wait until January 2009 to seem pleased about it.

Or are you saying that the relatively few local- and state-level elections this fall have the potential to demonstrate a clear turning of the tide? Or are you thinking of another indicator and I've erred in linking what you are saying to November 2008?

Note to JohnS, who says: That probably depends on whether the Dems come up with an FDR or a Jimmy Carter in '08.

It is not an either/or proposition. It is entirely possible the Democrats will instead nominate a Jimmy Roosevelt or an FDC.

thanks,
Nash

Josh

Why in God's name would ANYONE pine for Fred Thompson AND a GOP majority in congress after what this country has just been through?

Anyway, per david D's post, Novakula says that the way things stand now, Dems are likely to buck history and pick up about 9-11 more seats in the House.

Dems are feeling cocky about the Senate too. They're even targeting Mitch McConnell's seat (he's only at 54% approval rating).

If I were a GOPer, I'd be hoping for Thompson in the WH and Congress about the way it is now, and plan to slowly rebuild the political devastation in the wake of Hurricane Bush.

However, Thompson appears to be a bit of a neocon on Iraq based upon what I read of his over at RedState.org. That will be VERY problematic in the general election. As it will be for all GOP candidates. Not a one has yet cut the cord to Bush's wildly unpopular stay-the-course-strategy. On the other hand, every single Democratic candidate for pres endorses withdrawl and has renounced the idea of permanent bases in Iraq.

Nash,
I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument, so let me just say this: (1) I am extremely pessimistic about the November 2008 elections because none of the GOP contenders (except Hagel) have distanced themselves from the administration on the war, except to say that they'd follow the president's plan but execute it "better," while the public has rejected the plan entirely; and (2) I don't put it passed this administration to try something so appalling between November 2008-January 2009, such as another military adventure or a series of pardons (an end-of-term tradition that must go), that would have the public lining up outside the White House offering to help the First Family pack its boxes.

Like Josh, my favorite guy so far isn't even in the race. Help us Fred Thompson, you're our only hope....