If Bush Could Run For a Third Term, He'd Win
Sound outrageous? It shouldn't. Sure, he only has a 28% approval, but keep in mind that at least 15% of those who disapprove of Bush are doing so because they deem him insufficiently conservative. If Bush were to go up against an opponent to his political left in the year 2008, the vast majority of this group will return to the Bush fold. Combining his 28% approval rating with, say 14% of the the 15% of the electorate who consider Bush "too much of a liberal", and you're at 42%. But how does Bush get the other 8% of the vote? That's where Bush's secret weapon would come to play. He's a Republican who would be facing a Democrat in a national election....and Democrats do not, cannot, and will not win national elections unless there's a crazy anomaly.
And this is not an indictment against either Obama or Hillary, even though those two Democratic candidates probably have more national election liabilities than the average "sure loser" the Democrats quadrennially nominate. It's not even a matter of "nominating better candidates". There are incredibly few Democrats capable of winning national elections in the modern era. Whether the Republicans run John McCain, Willard Romney, Mike Huckabee, or hypothetically George "28% approval rating" Bush, the electorate would invariably be so terrified at the caricature of whatever Democrat they run against the GOP that they would opt for the "safe" choice....the devil that they know....even if that devil is George Bush or his geriatric 2008 proxy John McCain. There's only one Democrat I know of who would certainly be able to George Bush or John McCain. This Democrat is named "generic Democratic challenger", and as was the case in previous election cycles, he's not on the ballot in November.
It's the same routine every four years. Democrats have a clear advantage on nearly every issue and in party affiliation. The media and party leaders admire the various political strengths exhibited by the nominated Democratic candidate, but just as quickly turn on them once the inevitable Republican caricature is volleyed and, with increasingly rare exception, the smear sticks. Come November, the Democratic nominee loses by either a small or large margin, forcing party leaders to "soul search" and the media to echo amongst themselves what a truly horrific candidate the Dems nominated, even though the same people have been acclaiming the losing nominee's sharp political acumen for months up to that point, with the addendum that "surely the Democrats will do better next time". Three years later, the process begins anew with the same trajectory of high early expectations and devastating campaign-ending disappointments....followed by the same Monday-morning quarterbacking of how the Democrats need to do this, that, and the other better heading into the next election. Rinse and repeat.
Nixon perfected this hallmark of the modern GOP Presidential campaign back in 1972 and the Republicans have successfully deployed it almost every election cycle since, caricaturing their opponents with a close variation on the same sturdy boilerplate. And with only one exception (Bill Clinton), the caricature has worked like a charm every time. And you can set your watch by the fact that the media and Democratic party leaders will inform us of "the lessons to be learned" from their latest disaster....that if only they handled the attack differently, they'd have deflected the controversy. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret is that when the Republicans attack, the candidate's response will always be deemed "the wrong one". Dukakis and Kerry's attempts to rise above the morass and not even address the smears against them were wrong because they "made them look weak". Kerry's fiery 2006 rebuke of the GOP's accusation that he called the troops stupid was widely condemned for being too angry and forceful. Any Democrats who questions the motives of those smearing him/her are accused of "whining". Barack Obama's speech following the Jeremiah Wright debacle, after receiving early adulation, is now being retroactively dismissed as "attempting to change the subject" while his apology and attempted explanation of the ridiculous "Bittergate" are also falling on deaf ears by the media and his critics, the very people who will continue beating him over the head with these comments until enough people are convinced to be "offended" that he becomes unelectable. If there's a proper response to inevitable Republican character assassination, almost no Democratic nominee or his/her staff has been able to come up with it.
But, you say, some Democrats have won in recent election cycles despite the MVP-quality batting average of the Republican slime machine. True...but all three victories in the last 40 years have been anomalies. In the extremely un-Republican year of 1976, Jimmy Carter was in the unique situation of being able to forfeit 18 points of his early lead and still squeak by with a two-point victory, winning about a dozen states that no Democrat will be able to win in a national election in the foreseeable future. In 1992, Bill Clinton was fortunate to run against an unpopular Republican incumbent splitting the anti-Democrat vote with a nutty right-leaning populist in a time of global peace where the GOP was unable to effectively exploit the national security card. The 1996 election had some of the same variables as the 1992 election, but comes closest to being a Democratic victory that one can take seriously of any election in the last 44 years.
And as America's median age continues to increase, the Republican Presidential election advantage is likely to get even worse. Therein lies the fundamental miscalculation of Barack Obama's campaign message. Voters do not crave "change"....they fear it. This is especially true of older voters, who have long been the demographic most likely to buy into the caricatures that Republicans paint of Democratic Presidential candidates. It doesn't matter how strongly poll numbers indicate that the "country is heading in the wrong direction", the Republican Party offers voters a policy agenda they are familiar with no matter how much they claim to despise it. And the more dramatic the message of "change" coming from the Democrats, the more likely that American voters will circle the wagons come the first Tuesday in November when choosing a Commander in Chief. That's why John McCain will be the 44th President of the United States....and why George W. Bush would continue to be the 43rd President of the United States if he was poised to the Republican nominee yet again.
Thankfully, the Democrats' inability to win Presidential elections has not, at least not completely, trickled down to the Congressional level. Hopefully it stays that way. For whatever reason, the GOP has not been as successful to caricaturize Democratic Congressional challengers to the point of rendering them unelectable as they always do with Democratic Presidential challengers. But as a bunch of devastated Kossacks will learn again this November, America is for all intents and purposes a one-party state when it comes to Presidential politics.
And this is not an indictment against either Obama or Hillary, even though those two Democratic candidates probably have more national election liabilities than the average "sure loser" the Democrats quadrennially nominate. It's not even a matter of "nominating better candidates". There are incredibly few Democrats capable of winning national elections in the modern era. Whether the Republicans run John McCain, Willard Romney, Mike Huckabee, or hypothetically George "28% approval rating" Bush, the electorate would invariably be so terrified at the caricature of whatever Democrat they run against the GOP that they would opt for the "safe" choice....the devil that they know....even if that devil is George Bush or his geriatric 2008 proxy John McCain. There's only one Democrat I know of who would certainly be able to George Bush or John McCain. This Democrat is named "generic Democratic challenger", and as was the case in previous election cycles, he's not on the ballot in November.
It's the same routine every four years. Democrats have a clear advantage on nearly every issue and in party affiliation. The media and party leaders admire the various political strengths exhibited by the nominated Democratic candidate, but just as quickly turn on them once the inevitable Republican caricature is volleyed and, with increasingly rare exception, the smear sticks. Come November, the Democratic nominee loses by either a small or large margin, forcing party leaders to "soul search" and the media to echo amongst themselves what a truly horrific candidate the Dems nominated, even though the same people have been acclaiming the losing nominee's sharp political acumen for months up to that point, with the addendum that "surely the Democrats will do better next time". Three years later, the process begins anew with the same trajectory of high early expectations and devastating campaign-ending disappointments....followed by the same Monday-morning quarterbacking of how the Democrats need to do this, that, and the other better heading into the next election. Rinse and repeat.
Nixon perfected this hallmark of the modern GOP Presidential campaign back in 1972 and the Republicans have successfully deployed it almost every election cycle since, caricaturing their opponents with a close variation on the same sturdy boilerplate. And with only one exception (Bill Clinton), the caricature has worked like a charm every time. And you can set your watch by the fact that the media and Democratic party leaders will inform us of "the lessons to be learned" from their latest disaster....that if only they handled the attack differently, they'd have deflected the controversy. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret is that when the Republicans attack, the candidate's response will always be deemed "the wrong one". Dukakis and Kerry's attempts to rise above the morass and not even address the smears against them were wrong because they "made them look weak". Kerry's fiery 2006 rebuke of the GOP's accusation that he called the troops stupid was widely condemned for being too angry and forceful. Any Democrats who questions the motives of those smearing him/her are accused of "whining". Barack Obama's speech following the Jeremiah Wright debacle, after receiving early adulation, is now being retroactively dismissed as "attempting to change the subject" while his apology and attempted explanation of the ridiculous "Bittergate" are also falling on deaf ears by the media and his critics, the very people who will continue beating him over the head with these comments until enough people are convinced to be "offended" that he becomes unelectable. If there's a proper response to inevitable Republican character assassination, almost no Democratic nominee or his/her staff has been able to come up with it.
But, you say, some Democrats have won in recent election cycles despite the MVP-quality batting average of the Republican slime machine. True...but all three victories in the last 40 years have been anomalies. In the extremely un-Republican year of 1976, Jimmy Carter was in the unique situation of being able to forfeit 18 points of his early lead and still squeak by with a two-point victory, winning about a dozen states that no Democrat will be able to win in a national election in the foreseeable future. In 1992, Bill Clinton was fortunate to run against an unpopular Republican incumbent splitting the anti-Democrat vote with a nutty right-leaning populist in a time of global peace where the GOP was unable to effectively exploit the national security card. The 1996 election had some of the same variables as the 1992 election, but comes closest to being a Democratic victory that one can take seriously of any election in the last 44 years.
And as America's median age continues to increase, the Republican Presidential election advantage is likely to get even worse. Therein lies the fundamental miscalculation of Barack Obama's campaign message. Voters do not crave "change"....they fear it. This is especially true of older voters, who have long been the demographic most likely to buy into the caricatures that Republicans paint of Democratic Presidential candidates. It doesn't matter how strongly poll numbers indicate that the "country is heading in the wrong direction", the Republican Party offers voters a policy agenda they are familiar with no matter how much they claim to despise it. And the more dramatic the message of "change" coming from the Democrats, the more likely that American voters will circle the wagons come the first Tuesday in November when choosing a Commander in Chief. That's why John McCain will be the 44th President of the United States....and why George W. Bush would continue to be the 43rd President of the United States if he was poised to the Republican nominee yet again.
Thankfully, the Democrats' inability to win Presidential elections has not, at least not completely, trickled down to the Congressional level. Hopefully it stays that way. For whatever reason, the GOP has not been as successful to caricaturize Democratic Congressional challengers to the point of rendering them unelectable as they always do with Democratic Presidential challengers. But as a bunch of devastated Kossacks will learn again this November, America is for all intents and purposes a one-party state when it comes to Presidential politics.
posted by Mark at 5:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home