My take is that both parties suffer for different reasons.  The Republicans have to deal with multiple camps of thought (as you pointed out) but Democrats have, at least, as difficult a problem.

There are two types of Democrats: intellectuals (the far-left base, that you usually see), and the consumers (those who benefit from the Left's policies, but have little loyalty to anything else).  The intellectuals are all united in thought (which is why saying Obama is a typical Liberal and a radical is not a contradiction), but the majority of people who vote Democrat only do so because it benefits them (almost always in an economic sense).

Naturally, this loose coalition of dependents is tough to hold together, and as far as I can see they only have two strategies: promise more stuff (increasingly becoming more difficult) and smearing Republicans as crazy/evil/etc. (also, increasingly becoming more difficult).

Personally, I would not want the Republicans to have their problems.

Oh sure, Southerners, you'll keep out the Liberals from the North, but you won't be able to keep out the Liberal that hides in each and every one of you!  Eventually Southern states will adopt a statist view, and then you have to build another fence, and then another, until you have divided the country out of existence!

Called It!

While it is a bit different from the PD (more up close and personal) it still does come down to the same thing: predict what the other person will do, then act accordingly.  Once that guy played his hand, the girl had two choices: settle for 50,000, or take it all.

Wisconsin might turn red (they certainly have been voting rather Republican recently).  New Mexico, I think, will stay blue.  They swayed a bit red in 2010, but that was more heat of the moment.  It'll be close, but I think it will go Obama.

Iowa, on the other hand, I think will go Romney.  As for Florida, totally agree: very close.  But they have Rubio, and I think he can help pull them over the line.

All in all, I predict Obama to keep doing what he does best for the next few months, leading to good odds in Romney's favor: 70-75% chance of success.

You raise a good point with the Mass voters part.  Romney or no-Romney, Massachusetts would have its health-care law.  Romney could easily make the case that he simply made sure they wore their seat belts while driving off the cliff (a sentiment Deval Patrick does not share).

In the end, I think the problem is Romney painted himself into a corner.  He reversed himself on so many issues, that he believes he has to stick by something, and so he chose Romneycare, which is an unfortunate hill to choose to die on.  My guess is, he believes it better to be seen as a moderate with some convictions, rather than a "conservative" with none.  Personally, I'm not sure he's wrong, but we'll know in seven months.

One theory: since our free will is our most important characteristic, God will never provide proof of Himself, so that we have the freedom to not believe in Him.  As such, no miracle cannot be explained away.  This means faith (an illogical state) is the only relevant factor in determining miracles, as all evidence will be inconclusive.

This may sound like cheap attempt to waive away the argument, but it is internally consistent with the Christian system.

One does not often get to use the phrase "beg the question" (correctly that is), since it is such terrible logic few are foolish enough to do it, but Alf Lamont has indeed begged the question.

He is correct, though, that subversiveness is funny.  As Jonah Goldberg noted, when the Democrats are in control John Stewart, and other Lefty comedians, will either mock the Democrats or not be funny.

One of my pet theories is a take off of Dinesh D'Souza's argument about inherited values: that socialism eats up the stored belief in democracy, and the longer you have a socialist movement the more blatantly oppressive it becomes.  

Russia and China had no inherited democracy, so immediately turned totalitarian.  Germany and Italy had some, so they formed fascism.  Britain and the US have more, so the process takes a while.

My belief is that, after over 100 years the progressives have removed a good bit of the appreciation for democracy the US people had.  Within a few years (less than two decades) it will be gone and someone will be elected dictator, and a few years later (less than five) there will be virtually no more elections in this country.

That's actually an interesting point.  The "Scottish Enlightenment" of the 18th century was a sort of fluke.  Before and after that, Scotland was mainly filled with, for lack of a better term, white trash.  In fact, Scotland was one of the main sources of the US's redneck population.

Mr. Delingpole,

     While I may agree that the law is a bit gimmicky, considering these tests will happen anyways, it's far from a horribly invasive measure.  Comparing this to the killing of thousands of people is quite extreme, and really just seems to avoid the issue.  Quite seriously, I ask you the following question (which I hope you answer)?

What legal actions should pro-life people take (remembering the failure of previous bills) to prevent the murder of around 3000 children a day?

I don't see the line in the sand.  To prove criminal wrong doing (I doubt civilian court will be involved much) the people must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of the miscarriage was a deliberate attempt to kill the fetus.  If not, as in all homicide/manslaughter cases, the event is ruled an accident and no one is at fault.  Done.

Well, judging by Obama's statements on the War on Terror, your rights include access to a quick death via a missile.

Personally, I am both shocked that the Obama administration is doing this incredibly stupid move, and at the same time not surprised at all.  I also agree with Tim Groseclose: this will end badly for Obama.  As DocJay says at #5, this is going to hurt him among the independents, and it could possibly hurt the Democratic party in general.  Obama might not care that he's stepping on the toes of the conservative Protestants, who probably won't vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of Catholic moderates who will add this to the "cons" side of the calculation on whether to vote for him again.  It also gives ammunition to moderate Republicans running in blue states.  And in the end, it is so obviously un-Constitutional that it won't happen anyways.

I did like how he refuted the whole evictionist argument, which, in living up to its "third way" claim, is just the same policy as Left but with a different name.  If a parent says "I don't want this noisy newborn and so am evicting it from my house, as I have a right to do as it is my private property", and the baby freezes to death, that ex-parent will then be charged with murder.  While the unborn baby may seem like a trickier matter, it is effectively the same situation.

While I share in the the general dreariness of this election, I think it needs to be pointed out that, quite frankly, South Park had it right about presidential candidates, i.e. that those with the ambition to seek it are not the greatest of people.  As the old saying goes, no politician was ever made a saint.  Now, certainly there are some good politicians, and even a couple good presidents, but sadly modern presidential cycles seem designed to thin out the wise, humble, and good people, from a set that is already not known for those policies.  Mitch Daniels could have been a great president, but the meat-grinder would have ruined him, as it would so many other ideal candidates.

INMO, the best we as conservatives can hope for is a Romney with a TEA party congress.  No president, i.e. no one who will get elected these days, will constrain congress, but a Romney will allow a congress to constrain itself.  Fortunately, I believe this to be the first step towards a better country, because a conservative congress that has constrained itself will then move on to constraining the presidency.  Hopefully.

Effectively, yeah.  Since tradition is used to supplement the limitations of people, it reflects an acknowledgment of their imperfectability.  Those who disregard tradition do not share that acknowledgment.