Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Democrats: I'm Starting to Worry

Many Democrats seem to think that victory in this year's presidential campaign, plus many Congressional and Senate campaigns is a given. The only question is how big the win will be.

Count me skeptical. YES, we have many structural factors in our favor:
  • Largely because of the Bush administration's behavior these past 7 years, fewer voters are registered Republican while the ranks of the Democratic Party and of Independents are growing.
  • Voter turnout is higher in all of the primaries so far, and higher in the Democratic than GOP primaries.
  • The economy is getting worse and usually the party in power is blamed for economic problems on their watch (often with good reason). Historically, Democrats have bailed the country out of far more recessions and depressions than have Republicans.
  • The war/occupation is no longer the lead story every night on the news, but it is still a large concern. The people want it ended and every Democratic candidate is pledging to end it (differing only on how quickly and with what strategy, now) and the only GOP candidate pledging to end it is the unelectable Ron Paul.
  • The majority of people poll in favor of Democratic positions on most issues, rather than GOP ones--with gun control a major exception, but none of the Democratic candidates left are pledging sweeping gun control measures.
  • The environment, education, healthcare and saving Social Security, all issues where Democrats do better, are high concern items for the public and getting higher.
  • The GOP mantra that "government is not the answer, government is the problem" is being rejected en masse for the first time since 1980. After watching incredible government ineptitude for 7 years, people are getting the idea that one should elect people to government posts who believe in those posts and who are able to make them function. Further, people poll as now believing that government should be a major actor in changing lives for the better--a belief that clearly favors Democrats.

So, we should be able to count on many victories this Fall--not only with the White House, but also in many Congressional and Senate races.

BUT--there are reasons NOT to take anything for granted:

  • The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook is still alive and well. The GOP will play many dirty tricks to confuse voters, demonize Democrats and depress voter turnout.
  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) may be the GOP nominee. Although he is very pro-war, he is anti-torture and respected as both a military hero and as a straight talker. He polls well with moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats. That means he is the most electable of the GOP candidates. We never thought he would get this far because he is hated by the GOP rightwing which is a strong part of their base. But Republicans care about electability, too. The neo-cons will like him on the war and the Religious Right, whatever their other problems with him, know that he has always been strongly against abortion. They may put up with the parts of his profile they don't like in the hopes to keep the White House and not lose much in Congress. Unlike any of the other GOP candidates, McCain will not be easy to beat in a general election.
  • If the Democratic nominee is Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), it will be very difficult to win any Southern states or many Midwestern states. Her negatives are the highest of any Democratic candidate, even though much "Hillary hatred" is irrational and unwarranted. While she leaves the progressive wing of the Democratic party cold, especially its peace wing of which I am a part, she infuriates the GOP base. Thus, if she is the nominee, she could do more to turn out a GOP base that might otherwise stay home than she would in turning out Democratic voters--not to mention independents. If she wins, it will likely be close.
  • Pres. Bill Clinton, although very popular with many Democrats, is not popular with independents, any Republican, or new voters, who don't remember him. He must shut up! His remarks are so divisive that even if they work in securing the nomination for his wife, they could well cost us the election. Sen. Clinton's reply that all 3 candidates have "very passionate spouses who stick up for them" is disingenuous. Yes, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are strong personalities and strong campaigners. But (a) they don't get the press coverage Bill Clinton does, (b) they haven't said nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and (c) none of them is a former U.S. president who should be supporting the entire party, not just his wife! (George H. W. Bush supported W's candidacy, but did not campaign for him, nor say anything about any of his rivals in the GOP in 2000.) No former president (as opposed to nominee) has ever endorsed a candidate in the primary until Bill Clinton. Someone shut him up, before he costs us our biggest chance for both the White House and a working progressive majority in years!
  • If the race is close, the GOP has proven very adept at stealing the election.
  • Racial prejudice may still play a large part in presidential politics. The "Bradley effect," whites telling pollsters they will vote for an African-American when they won't, is hard to measure, but it seems to have been a real factor in several gubanatorial elections. So, if Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the nominee, he will have to bring in enough new voters (young people), independents, and disgusted Republicans to offset any "Bradley effect."
  • The fighting between Sens. Clinton and Obama (and, from where I sit, neither is guiltless) could split the party. It has happened before. In 1980, the primary feud between Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Pres. Jimmy Carter was so intense that it didn't heal even after the Democratic National Convention. It was one of the factors in the election victory of Ronald Reagan. (Reagan w0n in '80 by a very slim margin, although he won reelection in '84 by a landslide. A united and energized Democratic Party could have beaten him in '80.)
  • The Party CANNOT split along lines of race and gender. C'mon, people! Women are nearly 60% of the Democratic Party--which is why that witch, Ann Coulter, said she wanted to take away the vote from women: to "spare the country any more Democratic presidents!" None of our candidates can win without large female support. African-Americans are only 13% of the population, but they vote 90% Democratic. None of our candidates can win without significant African-American support. Latinos are the largest growing ethnic group in the country--by 2040, we will have no majority ethnic group (whites will be a plurality) and Latinos may pass whites as the largest of the no-majority groups before 2050. Latinos vote Democratic over 60% of the time.

I'm NOT calling for any letting up on vigorous campaigning (although I hope Edwards drops out, soon). I hope it continues to be a hard fought race--so my primary vote may actually count in May. But, let us all pledge to support the nominee and let us campaign in ways that do not make such unity difficult later. We have to be working NOW to Get Out the Vote and to elect progressives in both Houses of Congress. We don't want 2008 to be yet another year when Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and aid in our own defeat! (I swear, if we screw this up, I may move to Canada.) The stakes are too high, folks--not just for the Party or the Nation, but the world.

2 comments:

Robert Cornwall said...

Michael,

I agree, McCain if he gets the nomination will be hard to beat -- hope Romney wins!!

Obama isn't perfect, but Bill Clinton has become a major problem. My hope is that if Obama keeps things close on Feb. 5, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore will endorse him. I don't think either like the Clintons anymore. Al Gore could swing the Superdelegates, who could be the difference in the end.

Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. said...

The most recent poll shows that McCain is statistically tied with both Clinton and Obama! And, if McCain did something bold, like nominate Condaleeza Rice as VP, he could prove even harder to beat. (I think it more likely that he would nominate Joe Lieberman. Good. Then, when they lose, the Dem. governor of CT can appoint a real Dem in Liebermann's place!)

I keep telling you, Bob, that Al Gore will NOT endorse any candidate. He cannot afford to because he must have cooperation on a massive assault on climate change from whomever is the next president. If he endorses and his candidate loses, as happened in '04, then he loses any hope of full cooperation after inauguration.

Ted Kennedy might endorse, but I'm not sure it would help. Kennedy is beloved of party liberals in the Northeast, but Obama needs more Western and Southern centrist support among white and Latino/a Dems. Neither Latinos nor Southern whites nor women care much about Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

I'd like to see Obama get endorsements from Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Feinstein is already in Hill's camp), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar(D-MN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) (especially since NJ is a key state), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), or Xavier Becerra (D-CA) or Joe Baca (D-CA), or Grace Napolitano (D-CA).

He could also use more endorsements from Blue Dog Dems to be more competitive among Southern whites.

But what Obama needs more than endorsements is to ignore Bill Clinton and get back on message. His message of hope is being lost because the Clintons are forcing him down in the ditch with them.