Some major doom-and-gloom for Republicans, from Newt Gingrich:

Senator McCain is currently running ahead of the Republican congressional ballot by about 16 percentage points. But there are two reasons that this extraordinary personal achievement should not comfort congressional Republicans.

First, McCain's lead is a sign of the gap between the McCain brand of independence and the GOP brand. No regular Republican would be tying or slightly beating the Democratic candidates in this atmosphere. It is a sign of how much McCain is a non-traditional Republican that he is sustaining his personal popularity despite his party's collapse.

Second, there is a grave danger for the McCain campaign that if the generic ballot stays at only 32 % for the GOP it will ultimately outweigh McCain's personal appeal and drag his candidacy into defeat.
The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed

The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."
Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll

A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37).

This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security.

(Bold in original.)

So, assuming the certainty of Republican defeat, Newt Gingrich -- much as I hate to say it -- makes a compelling case for Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

The problem with that is that I think it's a very poor political tactic to go into an election assuming your side is going to lose. Additionally, Hillary Clinton supplies the anti-McCain right with more of an excuse to sit the election out, while Obama forces them to vote for McCain. Obama is thus the one guy who can unite the Republicans.

But let's assume McCain loses. While Hillary might be a better president from the standpoint of national defense (and thus the country), would she necessarily be the best president from the standpoint of the Republican Party? Who would be more likely to have a second term -- Hillary or Obama? Who would inspire more people to vote Republican? Who would be more likely to foster a continuation of the current malaise?

I just don't know the answers.

I'm not that great at futuristic defeatism.

(Or is that defeatist futurism?)