There is an interesting interview with electoral analyst Michael Barone in this month’s issue of the LIMBAUGH LETTER. Conducted a week after the 11-7 elections, Barone postulates that the Democrats received more of the popular vote "based on assessments of competence, not on ideology." I think any honest Democrat or Republican would agree with that. The fact is that even Americans who voted Republican are not 100% happy with how the war on terror is being fought in Iraq – although I would argue that the war is going better than most Americans think, an opinion I base strictly upon what our soldiers over there are saying – and how the federal government reacted to Hurricane Katrina – which I agree could have been better, but I would also add that state and local governments and the effected citizenry failed to react as best they could, too.

What I really found interesting in Barone’s interview, however, is his opinion that, because of the 11-7 results, "we’re going to enter a new era of politics." Neither the Democrats nor Republicans will have an incumbent running for President in 2008, and Barone thinks, "Going into the ’08 election voters will be presented more squarely with the question: ‘Do you want a Republican government, or do you want a Democratic government?’ – with the Parties personified in large part by their Presidential candidates."

Barone states, and I agree, that what worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 or George W. Bush in 2000 will not work for any candidate in 2008. Most of these two President’s platform issues have either been enacted or rejected, so if the Dems want to win the White House, and if the Repubs want to keep it and win back Congress, one of these parties is going to have to present the American voters with solutions to problems challenging our country today, not back in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, or the 1960s.

The good news for both parties is that they both have a solid base to work from. According to Barone, "Historically we used to see huge swings between the Parties. Barry Goldwater got 38 percent of the vote, I believe, in 1964. Eight years later President Nixon got 61 percent … We don’t see shifts like that anymore. Bill Clinton got 49 percent of the vote; Al Gore and John Kerry got 48 percent of the vote." What happened this year is not that the Republicans did not turn out their voters. By all accounts, the Republicans did a good job of turning out the vote, but, as Barone opines, "I expect that some of the people the Republicans turned out decided to vote for the Democratic candidate – not a very large number, but enough to make a difference in a close race[.]" This is crucial for both parties, because as Barone points out "of the 28 House seats the Democrats won, 22 were won by 2 percent or less – and of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes."

Keep those numbers in mind as candidates from both parties begin to announce their intentions to run for the White House, beginning this weekend as campaign commercials for Illinois Senator Barack Obama start running in New Hampshire. It has been fun watching Obama turn up the pressure on New York Senator Hillary Clinton to announce her own intentions to run sooner than she would have probably wanted. All fun aside, if Barone is correct, Dems will soon be asking themselves, "Do either of these candidates offer any new ideas? Do either inspire the kind of competence American voters were seeking on 11-7?"

What will happen when voters begin to realize that Senator Clinton has accomplished very little during her first term in Washington, and that Senator Obama has not only done nothing but has only served in the Senate for two years? Without a track record, Senator Clinton remains best known for her amateurish (and arguably illegal) attempts to ram "Hillary-care" down Americans’ throats during her husband’s first term. Senator Obama, meanwhile, has written a book whose naivety of politics may come back to haunt him, as will childish moments like his recent attempt to put journalist Maureen Dowd "on notice" for making fun of his ears in one of her columns.

Republicans will also be asking themselves the same question. So far former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is ready to run, and it appears is Arizona Senator John McCain will make an official announcement soon. Neither are perfect candidates for Republicans. Giuliani is a social liberal and Senator McCain will have to deal with being a member of the infamous Gang of Fourteen and campaign finance reforms. Barone correctly points out, Giuliani "has got one thing going for him, which is that we usually ask of presidential candidates, we wonder: How will they handle a crisis? With him you don’t have to ask the question, you know the answer." McCain also has the fact he is a Vietnam War vet and prisoner-of-war to help him with this. Still, that may not be enough for an electorate hungry for leadership in these uncertain times.

The 2008 elections are a long way off, and we all have a lot of living to do before then. There is no telling what events – beneficial and tragic – will occur in the interim that will shape the decisions we voters will make when we finally can cast our ballots again. As the coming months unfold, it will be interesting to see if any candidates do offer new ideas and if these candidates will be the big winners on America’s next election night.