"If the coming Democratic landslide is accurately recognized as largely originating from the netroots and the progressive movement, Republicans of all stripes will, at least briefly, try to team up with LieberDems."

It's disheartening to see you so eager to sow the seeds of the progressive movement's destruction in this way.  Whatever gains the Democratic Party makes next month, those gains will predicated on either a decline in overall Republican turnout or movement among Independents and moderates from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.  There is no data to support claims of a growth in progressive party ranks or a liberalizing of the electorate, which means it won't be progressive votes turning the tide.

I'm all for progressive involvement.  I also recognize the commitment of progressives to bettering our country and our world.  But slapping yourself on the back and claiming that you're the cause of what has in fact been a long, slow sea change, is a mistake.  You're setting yourself and people who respect your opinion up for a fall, rather than building on your current successes.

And if you think I'm kidding, ask Kos.  He's been through the entire process you're going through right now, and he learned some tough lessons along the way.

We have the opportunity to run a large number of congressional committees without making compromises to conservative (ie Southern) Democrats.

Chris, I think you're exactly right about what the power shift could represent.  But it occurred to me this morning just how important it is that if the Democrats take the Senate, they do so by more than one vote.  Lieberman may not defect, but the price of having to placate him will make us all nostalgic for the "good old days" of Zell Miller...

remember all the tricks the GOP used in 1993 to throw Clinton off track.  What sorts of things might they have this time, and how might we counter?  I for one feel that having a democratic majority in the house and a popular wind at our backs would at least allow us to push some legislation through a narrowly divided senate, and Bush might even sign it to avoid pariah status.  

An interesting point, but this premise relies on those who are the makers of the common wisdom recognizing it...  The DLC could just as easily find a way to analyze the results to prove the "3rd path" is still nirvana.

I think it would represent the first real break with conservatism this country has seen since the days of FDR.

I think all options are open: quite likely, 2006 will resemble 1946: both parties shambolic, but the GOP is better able to rebuild in time for the next presidential election, and sustain a long period of dominance across the Federal elected branches.

My suspicion, though, is that we're entering a period of short cycles - after 1868-1932 and 1933-94 - of alternating party control and predominantly divided government.

But - let's suppose that the Dems are in for a sustained period of control: what difference will that make?

To take two key areas, one process, the other substance:

The fundamental cause of the extent and depth of corruption in the Federal government is the wall of money that pols have to raise. And it's a curse that afflicts pols of both parties.

Clearly, the solution must lie in public funding; but how can the voters be persuaded to give taxpayers' money to said pols? And how can the constitutional objections be met without an amendment? (We've seen how effective McCain-Feingold has been!)

And - the top priority in domestic policy must be a system of universal health care which both ensures a high uniform standard of care (no doughnut holes!) and curbs the spiralling costs.

With the ghastly experience of Hillarycare and Harry and Louise haunting their dreams, how can pols be brought to believe that the risk is worthwhile? (A first-rate scheme - and where is that? - is only the start.)

Now, neither of those reforms is particularly radical, as viewed from outside the US political system. They wouldn't be seen as socialist, for instance, in most European countries. Universal health care, in particular, is supported by parties across the spectrum in those countries.

Yet, looked at right now, there is no chance at all of either reform coming to pass in the foreseeable future, even assuming sustained Dem success.

     Certainly there was a decisive break from conservatism in the years 1964-66, when the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and the Voting Rights Act were passed. The really productive progressive era of the New Deal didn't last much longer than that, and almost nothing was accomplished in FDR's second term.

Check out this article in TIME.  This is extraordinary.  Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz is throwing in the towel on the GOP.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1543860,00.html

If you want credit, this is the one--and goddamn near only one--thing you have to do.

If Kos is the kingmaker, name the king.

You need one word answer. A living breathing symbol in the club. Then, and only then, have you crashed the gate.

Believe me. I know about this shit. Ask around. See what people say about me.

Even if the Dems do not take either house, which remains a possibility, beat Holy Joe, and you've done something you said you would do.

Otherwise my friends, you are feather merchants.

Beat Holy Joe.

Beat him bad.

Am I missing something?  The Democrats are probably going to win 12-18 seats and this "wave" will bring 25 tops.  While that's huge considering a 98% re-election rate for incumbents, its a far cry from a revolution.  As others have mentioned, Ken Lucas, Heath Schuler, Baron Hill, and others are not progressive.  It will be nice to have people like Lois Murphy in the House but this election is about two things.  Stoping the tide of Republican destruction and setting the stage for 2008.  2006 isn't even going to be another 1994 and 1994 was no 1932, 1964, or 1980, perhaps the three most important elections of the 20th Century.  To compare this to a revolution shows the true naivete of the "netroots" movement.  1980 and Ronald Reagan still define the political environment.  Most Americans want lower taxes, less government, and more defense.  Until we win the Presidency with someone who can change the frame of mind, and not just the agenda, we aren't going to have any revolutions in America.  Let's take this election for what it is, taking back one or maybe both of the houses of Congress as a consquence of the Hubris and failed policies of the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans.

My favorite college professor, an old friend of Sam Rayburn, was fond of the 36-year realignment theory of American politics:

1788 (ok, '89): Washington, Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans era to begin soon

1824: Splintering of the Democratic-Republican Party into Jacksonian Democrats vs. Whigs

1860: Birth of Republicans, election of Lincoln, enough said.

1896: McKinley defeats Bryan in a recasting of the GOP as the business establishment party and the Dems as the populists

1932: FDR. Enough said.

1968: Nixon wins, realigns the South for the GOP.

Here's where it breaks down, as obviously 2004 was a disappointment for any positive bounceback from the Nixon realignment. But Nixon's realignment was a slow-motion event, with Congress remaining fully Democratic for another 12 years, and with no full Republican control of government for 32! I think Watergate had something to do with this, as well as the slow speed of local realignment in the South. Whatever the cause, the sluggishness of the previous realignment is also slowing down the current one.

That said, I think Chris makes an important point about the new Democratic majority: no hegemony by entrenched Southern conservatives. Congress hasn't been been run by liberals (or non-conservatives, at least) since Reconstruction. This is a truly momentous development and one which is likely to fuel the flames of Southern rightwing paranoia again, so our side has no room for self-congratulation or complacency of any sort. But it's possible that without that historical barrier to reform, some major changes may finally become possible in this country if we fight hard enough. We can do this.

I think a minimum of 25 House seats & 5 Senatorial seats are neccessary for a "revolution". Although I'm much more partial to 51 seat revolutions.

Funny that you should mention that this will be the first time the Democrats have ever had a House majority without holding a majority of seats in the South.

Being a resident of the South (but decidedly not a Southerner), I've always thought that the South plays a much bigger role than it deserves in our political process.  The South essentially controls the nominating process for President in both parties.  By controlling the dialogue on "faith" in this country, the South has essentially made sure that both parties will attempt to nominate candidates who "speak their language."

But I digress.  John Kerry, who had nothing in common with the average Southerner, very nearly was elected President in 2004 without winning a single electoral vote in the South.

Now, if this takeover of the House happens, it will be without the South.  Sure, there are a few remaining Democrats from the South -- most of them elected from black-majority districts -- and a few key races for us are there.  But this election will be about shedding the past of the Democratic Party and embracing the future.

What is the future of the Democratic Party?  Here's a key: If Ed Perlmutter and Bill Ritter's leads hold up, Colorado will have a Democratic governor, a Democratic Senator, and a majority of their House members will be Democrats.  And Colorado looked lost to the Democratic Party in the late 1990s.

In his classic, "The 100 Days", Joseph Alsop describes FDR's court packing attempt.  In the aftermath of the 1936 election, Roosevelt had gigantic majorities in both houses of Congress.  There were only 16 Republican senators.  One of the points Alsop makes is that a goal FDR had -- in the wake of what he saw as a massive mandate -- was to purge the party of its southern conservative Jim Crow wing.  But his monumental loss on packing the court so sapped FDR's power that he had to give up on his plan to purge conservative Democrats. (And FDR never got another major piece of New Deal legislation passed either.)  

One way to look at Democratic Party history post 1964 is that the Party slowly ditched its southern racist Confederate wing.  In a sense Democrats have reluctantly accomplished what FDR set out to do in 1936.  It's been a long time in the wilderness.  LBJ said the south was lost to us for a generation. It's already been more than a generation.

So to a large extent, you're right, Chris.  If the Democrats take power and can hold onto it for a cycle or two, American politics will have been transformed in a very fundamental way.

Too bad that with global warming, it's probably too late to do any good.