Amidst the debates, the rhetoric and the constant barrage of commercials, there seems to be a reality that isn't sinking in to either party, just weeks before the election - someone is going to lose. Look at that statement and think about it long and hard. Because someone IS going to lose, and the losing party will encounter chaos not seen in a generation.

All signs point to a very, very close election. One day it's Kerry. One day it's Bush. One day it's tied. Both parties are hyping each other and themselves up as election day draws closer, and it appears that this is going to be one hell of an election. Voter registration is through the roof, there are at least five swing states that may come down to (sigh) a handful of votes, and the effect that the next president will have on the world stage, the supreme court and the economy (especially considering the rise of outsourcing, regardless of your take on it) is staggering. But neither party seems willing to concede to the idea of defeat. They both are so wrapped up in the idea of their man as president, they haven't even begun to plan for the after effects of a loss. And though it may seem like the Democrats would probably be hurting from this far more than the Republicans, the GOP should not underestimate this essentially 50-50 possibility.

Democrats have been kicked down and around for the past four years. After an embarrassing bit of hemming and hawing (and not saying anything) in 2002, they got their (no pun intended) asses kicked by a much better organized and resourceful GOP, thus giving all three branches of the government over to the Republicans. So you would think that, a loss again in 2004, would bring out more of the same. But it's actually far worse than that. After 2002, we Democrats had pretty much resigned ourselves to the fact that it looked like four more years of Bush and his control. Then Iraq, and more importantly the Democratic primaries, happened. Though I am in no way, shape or form saying that the Democrats benefitted by the chaos in Iraq and the horrible loss of American lives, it is hard to deny that without such disorder, any message about "wrong war, wrong time" would have fallen on deaf ears. Liberals had been decrying the idea of war for many reasons, and as if by some cosmic twist of fate, all of those reasons suddenly fell into the lap - with evidence - of the American public. Greed. Poor planning. Oil. All of these, plus the underlying rhetoric of the neoconservatives in the Republican party had been well known to Dems for a long time, but the public didn't pay any attention till things started going bad. Then came the primaries, and Democrats found an America that was receptive to their anti-war rhetoric, and actually craved it. Sure, it was a little over the top (Dean, Kuchinich, Sharpton), but when it came out in measured, intelligent doses (Kerry, Edwards, Clark), the public seemed to be right there behind us. Since then, there has been a feeling in the Democratic party, of almost giddy proportions - hope.

Which is why a loss on November 2nd (or whenever it ends up being decided) will be pretty damn crushing. To put all of our chickens in the basket of Kerry, a candidate who many in the party didn't like too much but ended up being the last man standing after the public spoke was a risky maneuver, something the Democrats were fooled into doing by using the easy choice of Al Gore in 2000, and we all know what happened there. But more importantly, the Kerry nomination signals a last ditch effort to cling to the Clintonism of the 90s and the moderate bridge-building that got us into the White House in the first place. If Kerry loses, the party will be in shambles. Activist liberals like Dean and others will surely come to the forefront once more (because, let's face it, the war isn't going away) and blame a wishy-washy stance on Iraq, or a bad running mate choice or whatever, on the loss.

This is incredibly critical, because losing that moderation loses some of the parties biggest stars - Hilary Clinton, Al Gore and John Edwards. If the party shifts, after devouring itself from the loss, more to the left like it was at the start of the primaries, we will see a nearly complete collapse of any hope of regaining not just the Presidency but the Senate as well. Democrats will be forced to re-evaluate themselves as a party and actually pay real heed (and not just sabotage service) to the elements that have already shown up in 2000, the "green" side of the party. While it is true that the Dems have some less-than-moderate-but-still-liberal candidates that are waiting in the wings, such as Obama and Clark, giving them a stage voice will be incredibly hard when the disillusionment sinks back in over what it is like to lose to the Republicans - again. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that a loss in 2004 means at least another eight years of GOP control (barring any scandals of course), as the Democrats spend the next four years regrouping and fail to field anyone sizable as a candidate till at least 2012.

But before all of the GOP readers here start sharpening your knives for the dissection of the donkey, keep in mind this too - people don't like Bush. In fact, he is more hated than liked, and his coalition of control over the party is starting to slip. Even a win in 2004 won't mean much for his administration. You can expect Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld all to depart shortly after the election, and if Iraq stays...well, the Iraq we have all seen, Bush may actually find himself dreading the next four years. What got him into office in the first place was an ability to reach out, like Clinton, to the many factions of the GOP and bring them under his wing. He had the evangelical background to keep the faithful, and the lineage to have name recognition. He may not have been perceived as the smartest guy around, but his gesture of multiculturalism - and more importantly surrounding himself with those much more knowledgeable than himself put a great deal of trust in his administration by the American people. Who doesn't need a big brother to ask questions to every now and then?

However, like the rallying around Kerry by the Democrats, the rallying behind Bush as of late is also more factionized than not. Both parties (admittedly, Democrats more) are more than willing to take some lumps and swallow some bad juju from their commander in chief if it means keeping control. Bush has already seen a wavering among the religious right over his failure to really push against abortion and for Israel during the past four years, and more moderate Republicans are alarmed at the way that he keeps spending and growing the government. But keeping the tent in place is critical for both parties, especially the Republicans because it will give them a second chance to enforce all of their mandates.

A loss then, would be pretty damning. All campaign long, the rallying cry for the elephants has been "protection from terrorists". This has played incredibly well, but one has to wonder what will happen if the GOP loses. Where would the priorities be come 2008? Terrorism is the new cold war of course, but the GOP is ALSO putting all their eggs in one basket by focusing so much on it. Though it is unlikely, a loss to Kerry would take some of the gleam off of future Republican stars like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Frist, who have fallen line behind Bush in the past few years. Terrorism and protecting the homeland will still be a critical issue, but if the GOP loses then it is likely that the coalition of party factions that have been organized behind it will start to unravel at least a little bit. You will see more rhetoric from more moderate Republicans who decried the spending and mishandling of the war and the economy, and a stronger push from the religious right who will inevitably be disappointed in a Bush loss. For the party to be so in command and then suddenly lose that mandate will certainly spell a reorganization that may cost the GOP a chance in 2008 as well. A Bush loss would knock out the chance of Jeb Bush running, at least any time soon, and would show that ceding control to a much more aggressive part of the party may not have been the way to go after all.

Keep in mind too, that for both parties, the Senate is a sort of dark-horse wild card. With so much focus on the President, a Kerry win (but a keeping of the Senate to the GOP) will wipe out any chance of getting a conservative Supreme Court elected for the future. And the flip-flop of that, to steal a GOP term, would mean practically the same plus the added downside of less ability to use the power of Cheney and their current majority to bully through legislation. You aren't hearing much about the Senate races in this election, and for good reason - both parties want their man in the White House. The Senate is just icing, though it may inevitably prove to be a bit bitter.

We are just a few weeks away from what is then, the most important election in at least 30 years. One party will win and the other will lose and more importantly, lose their focus on the goals that have been bandied about for the past nine months or so. A restructuring of either party is inevitable and will be costly to the loser by, most likely, the next four to eight years. And yet neither party is willing to consider this fact, or prepare in any way shape or form for it. This is going to be one hell of an election.