James E. Campbell: Democrats could still lose in 2008
[James E. Campbell is a professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY.]
For all political junkies, and I am assuming that you are one if you are reading this, we are now well into the presidential nomination entertainment season. After a slow start of uneventful debate events, the play has begun. Democrats are smuggling questions into the Republican YouTube debates. Even Oprah has jumped into the fray.
Still, despite wide open fields for both parties, there seems to be a pall over this election season—almost an anticipated buyer’s remorse. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem all that thrilled by their choices or prospects. The problems are different, though, on each side of the fence.
On the Democratic side, there is reason for some enthusiasm. President Bush is unpopular and is presiding over a war that, despite considerable good news in recent weeks, remains unpopular. Out of office for eight years, the old Clinton scandals from the bimbo eruptions, the Whitewater investigations, the Lincoln bedroom campaign-fundraising rentals, and those controversial last-minute presidential pardons seem like ancient history. The public seems to have only a faint recollection of the lack of seriousness with which the Clinton administration seemed to take the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, more than eight and a half years before 9/11. Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate in 2006. Prospects would appear pretty bright for Democrats.
Despite these reasons for optimism, one gets the sense that Democrats are not very optimistic about their prospects. Maybe it is the steady dose of pessimism about the nation that they feed each other. Things are bad and getting worse from the economy and the war to the weather. Not much inspiration here. You can almost hear Howard Dean rant that we are going from doom, to gloom, and then it’s on to despair and hopelessness. After so much of this, it is amazing that any of them can get up in the morning.
Maybe it is just uncertainty about who should be leading the Democratic charge this November? Despite years as the presumptive frontrunner, Hillary still has not captured the support of half of her own party. This is a pretty clear indication that there are more than a few doubts among Democrats about the wisdom of having her lead the ticket. With Bill, a bundle of dough, and years of preparation—including fashioning a Senate record for the run—Hillary ought to have been a lock by now. Odds are still good that she will be the Democratic nominee, but she won’t enter the general election unscathed.
On the Republican side, there is a good deal of gloom. Much of this is based in President Bush’s anemic approval ratings. As one Republican political scientist wrote to me recently, “a Republican is a long shot in ‘08 unless the opposition is just plain incompetent.”
The flawed field of Republican hopefuls adds to these woes. Rudy is too liberal on social issues and has too much personal baggage for a general election campaign. Besides the religion issue, Romney did too much of a turnaround on social issues. It is not like Mitt made some youthful indiscretions. He made liberal pronouncements in a statewide debate with Ted Kennedy. Come on. Get serious. He’ll get hammered by these in a general election campaign, and he’ll deserve it.
McCain has always been every Democrat’s favorite Republican, but Republicans just don’t take to him. Maybe it’s his being so sanctimonious that attracts Democrats and puts off Republicans. He’s just too self-consciously earnest to stomach. He feels your moral duty the way President Clinton felt your pain.
Then there is Governor Huckabee, undoubtedly soon to be known as The Right Reverend Huckabee. Whether his appeal can broaden beyond the Christian Right base is a real question. Finally, there is Fred Thompson, the great conservative hope who has yet to generate the fire that many had hoped he would. Right now he looks like more of a Bob Dole than a Ronald Reagan. There is a place for dry wit in American politics, but the campaign trail is not one of them.
The dark clouds hovering over Republicans these days are not entirely warranted. Sure, President Bush’s record is a liability at this point. But open seat elections are not a referendum on the in-party to anywhere near the same degree that an incumbent-defending election is. Just ask Nobel Prize winning, non-president Al Gore. Moreover, Democrats haven’t won a majority of the popular vote in the last seven elections (while Republicans won majorities in four of the seven) and open-seat presidential elections have a history of being closely decided. While only three out of 21 (14 percent) of incumbent elections since the Civil War were near dead-heat elections (the winner receiving less than 51.5 percent of the two-party vote), six of the 14 (43 percent) of open-seat elections were this close.
Elections are decided by performance and by values. Republicans have some defending to do on performance—but not nearly as much as Bush’s low approval numbers suggest. President Bush took a big hit, dropping into the 30s, because his immigration proposal upset most of his own party. Few of the current Republican candidates would be stuck with this liability. Added to this is the turnaround in the War in Iraq, when even John Murtha pronounced that things are improving. Still, on a performance basis, Republicans will be fighting an uphill battle.
If the election is decided on values, Republicans should have an edge. Many more Americans count themselves as conservatives than as liberals. In fact, in recent elections, the number of voters calling themselves conservatives has rivaled the number calling themselves moderates.
Republicans need to clearly reaffirm that they are party of conservative American values and that the Democrats are just plain too liberal for America. If this is the way that the campaign is framed, Democrats may yet again end up on the short end of the stick.
Read entire article at Britannica Blog
For all political junkies, and I am assuming that you are one if you are reading this, we are now well into the presidential nomination entertainment season. After a slow start of uneventful debate events, the play has begun. Democrats are smuggling questions into the Republican YouTube debates. Even Oprah has jumped into the fray.
Still, despite wide open fields for both parties, there seems to be a pall over this election season—almost an anticipated buyer’s remorse. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem all that thrilled by their choices or prospects. The problems are different, though, on each side of the fence.
On the Democratic side, there is reason for some enthusiasm. President Bush is unpopular and is presiding over a war that, despite considerable good news in recent weeks, remains unpopular. Out of office for eight years, the old Clinton scandals from the bimbo eruptions, the Whitewater investigations, the Lincoln bedroom campaign-fundraising rentals, and those controversial last-minute presidential pardons seem like ancient history. The public seems to have only a faint recollection of the lack of seriousness with which the Clinton administration seemed to take the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, more than eight and a half years before 9/11. Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate in 2006. Prospects would appear pretty bright for Democrats.
Despite these reasons for optimism, one gets the sense that Democrats are not very optimistic about their prospects. Maybe it is the steady dose of pessimism about the nation that they feed each other. Things are bad and getting worse from the economy and the war to the weather. Not much inspiration here. You can almost hear Howard Dean rant that we are going from doom, to gloom, and then it’s on to despair and hopelessness. After so much of this, it is amazing that any of them can get up in the morning.
Maybe it is just uncertainty about who should be leading the Democratic charge this November? Despite years as the presumptive frontrunner, Hillary still has not captured the support of half of her own party. This is a pretty clear indication that there are more than a few doubts among Democrats about the wisdom of having her lead the ticket. With Bill, a bundle of dough, and years of preparation—including fashioning a Senate record for the run—Hillary ought to have been a lock by now. Odds are still good that she will be the Democratic nominee, but she won’t enter the general election unscathed.
On the Republican side, there is a good deal of gloom. Much of this is based in President Bush’s anemic approval ratings. As one Republican political scientist wrote to me recently, “a Republican is a long shot in ‘08 unless the opposition is just plain incompetent.”
The flawed field of Republican hopefuls adds to these woes. Rudy is too liberal on social issues and has too much personal baggage for a general election campaign. Besides the religion issue, Romney did too much of a turnaround on social issues. It is not like Mitt made some youthful indiscretions. He made liberal pronouncements in a statewide debate with Ted Kennedy. Come on. Get serious. He’ll get hammered by these in a general election campaign, and he’ll deserve it.
McCain has always been every Democrat’s favorite Republican, but Republicans just don’t take to him. Maybe it’s his being so sanctimonious that attracts Democrats and puts off Republicans. He’s just too self-consciously earnest to stomach. He feels your moral duty the way President Clinton felt your pain.
Then there is Governor Huckabee, undoubtedly soon to be known as The Right Reverend Huckabee. Whether his appeal can broaden beyond the Christian Right base is a real question. Finally, there is Fred Thompson, the great conservative hope who has yet to generate the fire that many had hoped he would. Right now he looks like more of a Bob Dole than a Ronald Reagan. There is a place for dry wit in American politics, but the campaign trail is not one of them.
The dark clouds hovering over Republicans these days are not entirely warranted. Sure, President Bush’s record is a liability at this point. But open seat elections are not a referendum on the in-party to anywhere near the same degree that an incumbent-defending election is. Just ask Nobel Prize winning, non-president Al Gore. Moreover, Democrats haven’t won a majority of the popular vote in the last seven elections (while Republicans won majorities in four of the seven) and open-seat presidential elections have a history of being closely decided. While only three out of 21 (14 percent) of incumbent elections since the Civil War were near dead-heat elections (the winner receiving less than 51.5 percent of the two-party vote), six of the 14 (43 percent) of open-seat elections were this close.
Elections are decided by performance and by values. Republicans have some defending to do on performance—but not nearly as much as Bush’s low approval numbers suggest. President Bush took a big hit, dropping into the 30s, because his immigration proposal upset most of his own party. Few of the current Republican candidates would be stuck with this liability. Added to this is the turnaround in the War in Iraq, when even John Murtha pronounced that things are improving. Still, on a performance basis, Republicans will be fighting an uphill battle.
If the election is decided on values, Republicans should have an edge. Many more Americans count themselves as conservatives than as liberals. In fact, in recent elections, the number of voters calling themselves conservatives has rivaled the number calling themselves moderates.
Republicans need to clearly reaffirm that they are party of conservative American values and that the Democrats are just plain too liberal for America. If this is the way that the campaign is framed, Democrats may yet again end up on the short end of the stick.