Will 2008 Be A Ho-Hum Election?

Conventional wisdom (or at least the self-proclaimed sages of political conventional wisdom, the Washington punditry) has been telling us that the 2008 presidential election is going to be The Most Important Election In Modern Times (if not actually In History), and that (of course) the electorate is More Polarized Than Ever -- which explains not only how incredibly early the contest started, but also the fierce battles for the primaries now being waged.

But what if this conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong? What if the 2008 election is a real snooze-fest, and voters are barely motivated to go to the polls?

Now, I'm not predicting this is going to be the case, but I found two things interesting in the past few weeks. The first is an fascinating essay here at Huffington Post by RJ Eskow. He writes of a danger to Hillary's campaign that I hadn't previously heard espoused: What if Hillary doesn't energize the Democratic base and her biggest problem is getting voters excited enough to go to the polls next November to elect her? What if the hard leftists, the anti-war types, and the unionists aren't all that impressed with Hillary as a nominee? While they may not vote for a Republican, they could indeed stay home in droves.

From the Republican primary race comes a very similar story of the Christian right threatening to vote for a third-party if the GOP nominates someone they deem not sufficiently attuned to their agenda (while they don't name him, they're talking about Rudy). This may turn out to be an empty threat from the Christian right base (unless Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian and they decide to throw their weight behind him); but even if they don't actually vote for a third-party candidate (or -- the horrors! -- a Democrat), they may also decide they have better things to do on election day than go down to the polls.

Also contradicting the convention wisdom, the primary campaigns on both sides have been unbelievably tame and boring. Can you name a single difference between any of the top four Republicans in the race, about how they'd go about tackling foreign policy, domestic policy, taxes... anything? Can you explain to me the difference between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards' stance on Iraq? Or health care? In one sentence? While there are differences between the frontrunners and the second tier, the frontrunner group in both parties have almost identical language (barring small differences) on the major policy issues of the day. Democrats, for the most part, are content enough with their field of candidates, but (tellingly) Republicans are talking in the same worried tones about the same worried subject that was on the lips of all Democrats last time around -- "electability." They're getting on board with Giuliani because he'd be the "best chance" to beat Hillary, not because they're particularly enthusiastic about Rudy.

So while national polls are not how the nomination process actually works, poll-watchers are beginning to talk openly of a Clinton-versus-Giuliani race for president next year. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but you've got to admit it's certainly within the bounds of possibility. Both Clinton and Giuliani have topped the nationwide polls by a fairly comfortable margin for a fairly long time now. While this doesn't guarantee success, it does show that both their respective campaigns have enjoyed a large degree of success at courting voters up until now. While many other matchups exist for the 2008 general election, Clinton v. Giuliani is the strongest possibility so far.

So could it become a race for who depresses the vote the least? There's already a large group of "the base" from both parties actively dissatisfied with both Clinton and Giuliani.

Hillary's problem is with the anti-war crowd and from the anti-DLC crowd in the Democratic Party. Voters put off by the Clinton mantra of "triangulation" and voters upset that Hillary seems to be hedging her bets on the war (and almost every other issue she addresses) may decide they simply can't vote for her. They will be torn between feelings that ANYone would be better than another Republican, and feelings that they didn't get as strong a progressive candidate as they were hoping for, so why bother?

Rudy's problem is with the churchgoing set. He's had several divorces (the last one quite public and messy), he's on his third wife, and his children barely speak to him. Not exactly "pro-family" -- but if that were his only problem, the religious right might still be OK with Rudy (Saint Ronald of Reagan, remember, was the first divorced president ever). Unfortunately, there's all that history of Rudy supporting gay rights (he lived with a gay couple while having aforementioned messy divorce problems, while he was still mayor), gun control laws, and abortion rights. This is the Republican Christian Conservative trifecta of God, guns, and gays -- and Rudy scores zero-for-three. This may be too much for the religious base of the GOP, and will cause the same anguish Democratic voters may be feeling with Hillary: ANYone would be better than Hillary (shudder) Clinton; but he's not even a real conservative... he's barely a Republican, so how can I vote for him?

The conventional wisdom in any presidential election is that the candidates preach to their base during the primary season, and then once they've locked up the nomination, they tack back to the middle and court the undecideds and people who don't pay much attention to politics, since that's where the race is won or lost.

This election cycle, though, Hillary seems to be running as a centrist already in the Democratic nomination race. Rudy is less obvious about his centrism, but he hasn't completely flip-flopped on every issue in a bid to win the nomination (as Romney has so obviously done) -- he still admits that his record in New York City is what it is. He speaks in coded language about judicial appointments in the hope of convincing the anti-abortion wing of the party that he would continue the tradition of packing the Supreme Court with staunch right-wingers, but they may not be completely convinced of his sincerity. When you add in his marital problems, it may mean an extremely light turnout in the areas where "family values" (as defined by the GOP) reign.

If this scenario actually comes to be, I have no idea who would win such a contest, although I'd probably bet on Hillary to pull it off. But what if today's conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong? Wouldn't it be strange if both nominees' biggest problem turns out to be energizing their base? After years of talk of "how polarized and divided" each election has become? What if all the partisans stay home, and the election is completely decided by the big squishy group in the middle of the American electorate?

 

[Technical note: I refuse to use the term "CW" for "Conventional Wisdom" as some are wont to do. For me, personally, "CW" means something else entirely. Sorry about that.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Dandy12]

Newt termed the Republican candidates "pygmies", a term perhaps better than calling them "turds". This collection of prospective candidates have nothing new to say with the exception of Ron Paul. So, I believe many Republicans can't wholeheatedly get in back of anyone in the field. Most candidates seem to not distance themselves from the administation or their failed policies. Voting Republican represents a continuation with little deviation from all this failure.

Hillary seems to understand the middle of the road, and appears to be a good bet. At least she asks questions, and addresses issues. This election will be an election for change, and putting things (more or less) back together again. The Dems offer the best potential to rectify the situation.

[TheQuestion]

This election is about so much more than Hillary - it's about stopping the conserative onslaught. I'd easily vote for any democrat nominated over any republican, and with that goes all of the other democrats canidates running for lower office - all the way down to town level.

Don't forget the supreme court.

[OrangeSam]

"I refuse to use the term 'CW' for 'Conventional Wisdom' as some are wont to do. For me, personally, 'CW' means something else entirely." A TV network? Country western?

But seriously, I can't see myself skipping an election. I may not vote for President or I may go away from the two major parties (especially if the two candidates are almost indistinguishable), but there are other races and issues I will have an interest in.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

See Chris Weigant's Profile

Orange Sam -

I was wondering if anyone would notice that. What does CW mean to me? I leave it for you to figure out.

-CW

[OrangeSam]

I had quickly figured it out but was out to pull your leg with it.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

See Chris Weigant's Profile

Here's a big hint - scroll down to "The Blog's Name"

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/about-this-blog/

-CW

[tombollocks]

I had decided that I was done with voting, due to the fact that the Constitution is nothing more to America than ass paper, and Lady Liberty has been repeatedly raped, while no one blinks an eye.

Reading a comment the other day changed my mind (I think). The poster was calling on us to vote out incumbents-ALL incumbents, as they refuse to listen to the people, due to being in Washington for so long.

So maybe I'll vote. It will not be for any incumbent, though.

[Nonamnesiac]

Of course it's going to be a ho-hum election. The anti-war American electorate is going to be given a choice between two pro-war candidates, one mouthing anti-war rhetoric while refusing to commit to getting out all troops by 2013. 2013?????????????????????

And despite the current polls, the Republicans will win, as the Republican candiate WILL commit to be being out of Iraq by 2013, if not earlier based upon a secret peace plan.

It's deja vu all over again, except this time the liberal Dems did not start the war.

[AmandaM]

What I don't understand is why everyone focuses so much on the trifecta of Clinton-Obama-Edwards when some of the so-called second tier candidates are so much more qualified. Why people seem to ignore Bill Richardson in particular is beyond me. He's not exciting like Barack Obama can be or like Howard Dean was during his campaign, but Richardson is steady and experienced. He's been a Governor, an Ambassador, a skilled negotiator and a member of Congress and the Cabinet. We need a President who can hit the ground running without alienating members of the losing party. Bill Richardson is the only Democrat running who has the skills necessary to do that. It's time we got away from the corporatists at the DLC and embraced a candidate who can lead us through the hard times, who can push for the changes we need to make, and who has the experience to get the job done. Vote with your head. Vote with your conscience. Vote for Bill Richardson.

[Doofus]

Could be that the Demo strategy is to have
Repo voters totally confused about conflicting
ideologies among the Repo candidates so that
they'll be too demoralized to vote in Nov 2008.
Who's pro-evangelical? Who's anti-cross-dressing?
Who's pro-abortion? Who's anti-flag-burning?
In other words, a 'values-focused' strategy.

Could be that the Repo strategy is just to
get some Demo or other nominated.

Our best hope...

Paul/Kucinich - Tag Team 2008 - The RepoDemo 9/12 Candidates!

[BadChristian]

Great post.

Those two candidates could freakin' trade party affiliations and Bill would probably be the only one who noticed.

It's exactly what you'd expect from a battle of the burbs.

[esl]

My senator, Evan Bayh, and congressman, Brad Ellsworth, have both gotten earmarks for millions of dollars for Ameriqual. Ameriqual is a company that makes MRE's for the military. The business started up around '88-89(just in time for Gulf War), and is owned by Steve Chancellor, good friend of Bush. He also owns coal mines. I wish someone would check into this. Why would a company that already gets all kinds of tax deductions and incentives from the city and state and should be rolling in dough from military contracts need earmarks? Someone please check this out.

[MrLion]

Why? The fix is in. The Republicans realize that their chances of winning the 2008 presidential election are slim and none, and slim is about to board a train out of town. So they've decided that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the least objectionable alternative to another GOP president. Why, you ask? Because she'll leave large chunks of the Bush Doctrine in place, go easy on the media and financial services industries, and hand the House of Bush a free pass rather than investigate war profiteering and an accumulation of other misdeeds.

[Doofus]

If this is 'true' (but I doubt it!), the Repos are
giving the Demos the task of getting US out of
Iraq, win or lose. Just as LBJ did for the Repos
in 1968 & Vietnam. Sometimes, politics is
all about who can come up with the better
practical jokes.

[Doofus]

'I doubt it' because I think the Repos would
much prefer to win in Nov 2008 & continue on for
'final victory' in Iraq. How much longer could that take?

However, if that's not to be, let Iraq be lost by a Demo president.

In other words, a Repo 'win-win' situation.

[eddiestardust]

As so many "progressives" post here, I would think someone would comment on our draft efforts..let's just say that you shouldn't count us out at all...

And you will see why in a few weeks!:)

[therealredstateblues]

According to the MSM a Hillary win is all but a done deal. the fix is in.

its funny how all these "polls" keep showing her in a comfortable lead, yet NONE of the lifelong democrats I speak with can stand her and pretty much echo the same sentiment - if the democratic choice is her it will be a write in or third party vote from me. These pollsters must not be talking to labor democrats - only DLCers.

I might have been able to hold my nose for Hillary depending on who the republicrits put up, but like others have said, no way after Lieberman-Kyl.

[Bilboo]

I suspect you underestimate the Repugs. They often run a low-expectations strategy that helps them win offices where they really shouldn't be competitive. On the other hand, complacency and dimbulb Naderite types are a real problem for the Democrats. The Democrats have an awesome talent for machine-gunning themselves in both feet.

[WigWamWag]

The Democrats have an awesome talent for machine-gunning themselves in both feet.
Yes, just look at the sorry mess they are promoting as front-runners. There are many people in the political machinery who have very vested financial special interests that they want to protect and promote.
They just want to public to ride blindly along with the controlling elements. Mushrooms (keep them in the dark and dump...) are what they want.
In that aspect Democracy is DEAD.

[SensibleAmerican]

Bilboo, appreciate your sentiments but if I were you, don't sweat it. For one, Hillary has been warding off the right wing slime machine for over 15 years now. If there is ONE person amongst the Dems who will pulverize the fascists, it is Hillary

Secondly, the Nader-herd was always fringe but managed to screw Gore in 2000. Nevertheless, since 2004, all they can do is rant, nothing left there except the usual baying and howling ...

[TheDoomed]

Hilary excited me even less than Gore did in 2008. I wish they'd stop trying so hard to court the living dead vote.

[RumiSouth]

ya know, this scenario rings true for me. Americans are politically exhausted, and all their institutions seem to be in breakdown. Could it be that the American people are ready to move into a "post-political" period?