2006 was a romp for the Democrats, and quite a bad time for the Republicans. While many Republicans went down, a large number of "Moderate" Republicans were defeated, including Rob Simmons (CT-02, Nancy Johnson (CT-05), Jim Leach( IA-02), Lincoln Chafee (RI-SEN), Curt Weldon (PA-07), and Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08). It also saw the retirement of Jim Kolbe (AZ-08) and Sherwood Boehlert (NY-24) - and their replacement with Democrats. It quite likely the decline of the moderates will continue through 2008, but beyond that, I see the seeds of a potential Democratic undoing, at least in the Senate.
The Republicans are, right now, chained to their hard-right base - a base who forms an anchor which, if they don't cut themselves loose, threatens to consign them as a hard-right regional party of the South and a few other, mainly rural, places. However, many Republicans realize this themselves. Newt Gingrich, despite being a slime-ball is a very smart man, and recently said.
Let me be clear: twenty-eight-per-cent approval of the President, losing every closely contested Senate seat except one, every one that involved an incumbent - that's a collapse. I mean, look at the Northeast. You can't be a governing national party and write off entire regions.
After another year of losses in 2008, the voices like Newt's will only get stronger in the Republican party. While the Republicans have been all but shut out of the Northeast on the presidential level since 1988, if present trends continue, the five lonely northeastern Senators would be expected to lose their seats for their party within the next decade - either when they lose an election, or when they retire. There's simply no Republican of any stature (or, in the case of PA, with any appeal) to step in.
But, as my title suggests, I don't think that the Republicans are down and out. The flirtation with the religious right is a fairly new thing for the Republican party. Their real base is money - and however they can cater to money the best will drive their future political program.
Moderate Republican governors have long been popular in otherwise left-leaning states. By my count, there are several who - while they could not probably defeat an incumbent in an open seat, stand an excellent chance of getting the seat when it opens up.
Hawaii: In Hawaii the Democratic party has two long-standing Democratic senators - both of which are 82. The Republicans have Linda Lingle, a tremendously popular governor, who is only 54, and has enjoyed popularity ratings of 70% or higher. From what I know about her, she's credited by many in the state for a strong economy and being tough on crime. While Hawaii citizens might be able to say more, my reading of the situation is she'd be the favorite over Abercrombie or anyone coming out of the state Democratic Party
California: No one is surprised that Arnold has higher political ambitions - and given that pesky constitution, the Senate is likely the highest he'll ever go. He's shown interest in running against Boxer in 2010 (as he will be out of a job then) - though I think in many ways a run against DiFi in 2012 will be a more fruitful endeavor for him. He's massively popular in the state now, and as with Hawaii, I think only the incumbency of California's two current senators is keeping him out.
Connecticut: Despite being from Connecticut, I cannot understand the massive popularity of Jodi Rell. However, to her credit she has shown her disagreements with the Republican party structure on numerous occasions, supporting civil unions, voting to re-institute the state estate tax, and supporting a lawsuit by AG Richard Blumenthal regarding the No Child Left Behind Act. There's some indication Dodd is going to retire in 2010 - or that Lieberman will end his senate term in 2012. AG Richard Blumenthal may take up the Senate seat, but word is he has been waiting for an easy shot at the Governor's post. If he doesn't run, I'd still say a Democrat is slightly favored, but if Rell ran, she'd have a strong shot of winning.
There are a scattered few other "moderate" republican governors out there, such as Douglas in Vermont and Carceri in Rhode Island, but my understanding is the former is too weak, and the latter is too divisive, to really expect either one to make much headway if a senate seat happens to open up.
So, do I think that, even if they ran a full sweep with these candidates, that the Republicans would have a path to a majority? No. However, even a few such gains will be enough to destroy the chances (otherwise quite good) of the Democrats having a filibuster-proof 60+ senators by 2012.
Further, once the republicans realize they need to embrace social moderation to win nationally, more and more candidates will be pushed similar to the three above through the national party apparatus. We might see a return to the state of politics in the 1980s, where the Republicans had a vestigial liberal/moderate wing. These folks might vote with us on a good deal of the issues - but obviously not for organizing the Senate. We could see, a decade from now, a narrowly republican senate where "RINOs" provide the organizing votes but the majority leader turns to the Ben Nelsons of the world to actually get conservative legislation passed.
All this might seem like excessive hypothesizing, but I think it boils down to something rather simple. Despite the reported demise of the Republican party, there's still a sizable class of popular Republicans who've been isolated from the stink of Washington, and could be the future key to the other party regaining the upper hand - unless it's dealt with now. We can't allow these "good republicans" to come off looking clean and non-partisan. They have to be dragged down into the mud with the rest of them if we want to see a progressive agenda enacted in 2008 and beyond.