Four More Years! How Republicans Can Beat HilOba

The instant that President Bush's approval rating hit rock bottom and then stayed there month after month, the more starry eyed gloated that the Democrats had the White House in the bag. That seemed plausible at the time. Bush was out, and his foreign and domestic policy bumbles would continue to draw rage and disgust, the most politically bankable GOP presidential contender was a man four years in the grave, Ronald Reagan, and the Democrats had three appealing, energetic, and well-financed contenders in Hillary, Obama and John Edwards, and they had a Democratic Party that hungered to take back the White House and would solidly unite behind whichever one emerged from the pack.

Then some funny things happened on the Democrat's march to inevitability. The first thing is that the Democrat's forgot the math, the electoral math that is. The number that counts is 270. That's the electoral count necessary for the GOP to keep the White House. In the South and the stretch of states from the heartland to the West there are 150 to 200 electoral votes. The recent endorsement by two Red State moderate Democratic senators of Obama means little. These states and their electoral votes are not in play for the Democrats. In fact, they haven't been for decades. Though Bill Clinton managed to pry four Southern states from the GOP orbit, he did it because the independent insurgent candidate Ross Perot took thousands of votes from the GOP in 1992, and in his election and reelection bids he sold himself as a Republican lite candidate and president that would eviscerate welfare, affirmative action, cut government spending, boost the military, and ramp up police power. The Republicans loathed him for that because he stole their best lines and recited them back to the public better than the GOP. Obama, Clinton and Edwards will never be mistaken for Bill in the Red States.

The second thing is that the Christian evangelicals are still vocal, very big in numbers and politically dangerous to any Democrat. They provided the vote muscle for Bush in 2000 and especially 2004. Bush was able to adroitly stoke their fury over gay marriage, abortion and their passion for family rights into an evangelical stampede to the polls in Ohio and Florida. They tipped the vote and the electoral scales to Bush in both states.

Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson never had traction with evangelicals, or they carried to much baggage to have a prayer of sparking a Bush-like impassioned dash to the polls. But former Christian broadcaster and Southern Baptist minister Mike Huckabee can fire that passion. He did just that in Iowa, and there is evidence that he stirred a significant number of them in the Michigan primary. They finally have a candidate that speaks their language, champions their issues and promises to be their point man in the march to the White House.

The third funny thing is John McCain. Once thought dead in the political water, McCain's numbers are even with HilOba. He can't stir the juices among the Christian evangelicals as Huckabee Yet, unlike Giuliani and Romney he doesn't totally alienate them. He can do something that Huckabee will have trouble doing. He can garner a significant number of independents. This is no small matter. Independents are an absolute must-win vote in the crucial swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Missouri. McCain's willingness to buck the GOP traditionalists on gun control, tougher campaign reform, and especially immigration reform, will help him make the case that he is an independent reformer and that his presidency will be a departure from the Bush years.

His touting of immigration reform when all other GOP candidates shrilly railed against it will get him a hearing among some Latino immigration reform activists. The Latino vote makes up a large and growing percentage of the vote in the equally crucial must-win states of New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. These states are very much in play for the Democrats and the GOP in 2008.

The fourth funny thing is the Democrat's seeming penchant for shooting themselves in the foot. HilOba have almost totally stopped pummeling Bush and his policy shambles, and have squandered time and heat sniping and jawing at each other on the pettiest of non-issues. This has done two things. It has further divided and hardened the Democrats into two warring Obama and Clinton camps that seem at this point virtually irreconcilable. And it has made an Obama pitch to Hillary backers if he's the nominee for unity and a Hillary pitch to Obama backers if she's the nominee in the battle against the GOP presidential nominee hard to swallow for their fervent boosters. Either one will get the overwhelming majority of youth, black and Latino voters, but the question is will enough of them show up on Election Day in big enough numbers to trump the GOP.

McCain or Huckabee, especially if they join forces, can punch the right buttons. And that makes the thought of four more years for the GOP which at one time seemed a pipe dream suddenly a horrid nightmare for the Democrats.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February, 2008).

Comments

[Tellmethetruth]

McCain can carry the West Coast hands down. All he has to do is take the South away from not Republicans but from Democrats and he is the next President.

Everyone needs a reality check.

[Querent]

Mr Ofari-Hutchinson, your premises in this article are oblivious. You seem to think conditions are unchanged since 2000.
Item: new registrations since 2006 are 70% Democratic.
Item: 70% of independents lean Democratic.
Item: Democratic turnout in Iowa increased 100% over 2004, in New Hampshire around 84%. Repig turnout increased less than 30% in each.
Item: Democrats have outdone Repigs in fundraising by large percentages in Congressional and Senatorial campaigns for the first time in at least 20 years.
Item: the Repigs have yet to settle on a candidate because large constituencies in the party hate each of the candidates virulently.
Item: we are about to enter a recession, one that cannot be blamed on the Democrats.
Item: No incumbent Democratic Senator since 2006 has been defeated for re-election.

When you begin to take into account these facts, your opinion about the election may evolve. When you reason from faulty premises, your conclusions can only be correct by accident.

[flatus]

Unfortunately JFK established a hair requirement so all points are moot.

America will not bring a combed-over dwarf to power.

[PhDcommonsense]

I disagree with you Mr. Hutchinson and get your facts straight. Obama did not start anything. It was other prominent African Americans who escalated this affair on something they did not agree with the Clintons on. But, all of the rheteric by the Clintons laid the whole affair at Obama's door. It got so bad that you have Bob Johnson, Charles Rangle, John Lewis all looking very foolish trying to slander the character of an upstanding U. S. African American Senator, one of their own, in the name of protecting the Clintons, when in fact Obama is a role model for other young African American males.
It pains me to see you writers along with the Mainstream Media to totally mislead the public for sensationalism. Can we get a little more fairness out there. I read a lot of your postings, it has become evident to me that you seem to want Obama to be this perfect candidate while overlooking the other candidates and the mistakes they are making, especially Hillary Clinton. If you don't like Obama or support him that is your right, but you can at least report the facts fairly.

[Moderato]

Excellent analysis. Democrats on the ground have been guilty of excessive hubris all year to the point where any electoral strategy was seen as a sell-out. But McCain/Huckabee is at this point going to be almost insurmountable with the way the Dems have divided themselves - what an opportunity squandered that will have turned out to be.

And in terms of the candidates let's call it out plainly: Edwards and Obama decided to play divisive winner-take-all, fire-in-a-circle politics; Hillary ignored their character assaults and trained her fire on Bush for a long time before she defended herself. Now of course it's a free-for-all. Though there were attempts to train fire on Bush at last night's debate I wouldn't for a second expect that the infighting would really let up until the nomination is sealed; these candidates simply do not trust one another at this point, there are no convincing truces.

I would never have had any problems with Obama
or Edwards winning the nomination with popular support based on their vision or their message resonating with voters, but that is not what happened. Their positive messages resonated but not enough to eclipse Hillary's appeal and experience. So, they systematically and constantly attacked Hillary on the most subjective and unfair of issues - "trust", "meaning what you say", being the "status quo", etc. - and in doing so forced a division in the Democratic party and character-assassinated one of its brightest stars.

Hillary is admired by millions of loyal Democrats who won't soon forget the winner-take-all antics of her rivals and what they may have cost us this year. As I wrote to both the Obama and Edwards campaigns when they began these strategies last year: if it works and you win you will have alienated a whole lot of Hillary supporters, but if it doesn't work and you lose you may still have fractured the party enough to keep us from prevailing in November.

I guess my letters didn't have much effect.

[sparkandy]

What a well written piece. Now if people will just pay attention to the message. A lot of people are acting like the only nominees worth discussing are HilOba, but finally along comes Mr. Hutchinson to remind us that there are Republicans out there, too, and that there are a lot of people who will vote for them. The country between the coasts, and particularly the South, are still pretty conservative, even the Democrats. If the Dems shoot themselves in the foot the way they did in '04, they'll have no one to blame but themselves. This is their big chance, but if they don't pull their heads out and nominate someone the independents and Republicans like, they're doomed once again. Mr. Hutchinson is telling it like it is, and people should listen.

[cynara]

"HilOba have almost totally stopped pummeling Bush and his policy shambles, and have squandered time and heat sniping and jawing at each other on the pettiest of non-issues."

Funny you should mention this, since a number of your recent blogs have been devoted to going after Obama instead of the Republicans:

"Obama Needs a History Lesson"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-needs-a-history-les_b_81377.html

"What To (and Not To) Expect From an Obama White House"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/what-to-and-not-to-expe_b_80437.html

"Barack Obama Exposed! GOP Hit Squads Load Up For Obama"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/barack-obama-exposed-gop_b_80037.html

"Hillary Loathe Fest Drives Obama Surge"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/hillary-loathe-fest-drive_b_77271.html

[hannitizer]

Hey Earl, The Republicans are a nightmare to all Americans whether they realize it or not. You see sir, the average Republican's ignorance of their leader's true agenda is only outweighed by the media's insistance that there always needs to be controversy between the 'chosen' candidates, whether real or imagined. Media representatives and talking heads are constantly missing the point on the issues that matter by ignoring them and pushing their agenda of controversy in order to amass the almighty dollar. When those who are called on to tell the American people the truth are more concerned with ratings and advertising dollars, the accuracy, and in truth, the very reason they exist, is bastardized.

Please sir, don't expect thoughtful Americans to fall for your depiction of what is wrong with the Democratic party and how they have a "penchant for shooting themselves in the foot. HilOba have almost totally stopped pummeling Bush and his policy shambles, and have squandered time and heat sniping and jawing at each other on the pettiest of non-issues." Your comments fully illustrate my point, the media and writers with similar viewpoints are missing what is important all the while stoking the flames of controversy long enough to fill your pockets with cash. When the media et all begin to report the truth no matter how insipid, and refuse to pander to the corporate news machine's lust for 'sellable' news, then and only then will intelligent Americans believe you.

[Tanouche]

I've been following this blogger since the OJ trial. He's quite good, has developped since then, and usually has the right take on any given situation. I'm with him. Nobody in the MSM wants to be caught dead saying what he's saying--- Obama and HRC are unelectable....Edwards can win- A couple of recent polls show it--- but the msm,dems, etc would rather continue their blather than either tell the truth, take their eyes off of the rock stars or look at the candidates records vs the crap they spout. I'm totally dispirited, and am looking forward to taking out big ads, or covering my car on Nov 4-5 with
I TOLD YOU SO".

[cheforacle]

You must have written this before last night's debate as the three Dems did not fight amongst themselves. In fact, the commentators on MSNBC and CNN appeared downtrodden as they wanted fireworks instead of substance.

I do agree with you that McCain could be formidable to the eventual Dem nominee but I disagree on Huckabee. First, he's an untested nominee and second, his brand of Christian beliefs alienate a large segment of our society and a lot of Wall Street Republicans would not vote for him.

In addition, some of the states that have been red in the past few election cycles have been trending purple so I believe your view that some states are out of play is overstated. From your posts you tend to look cynically at any possibilities that our culture is changing. The vote totals for each party in the early primaries/caucus indicate some shifts. For instance, yesterday very few young people voted in the Michigan Republican primary. The overwhelming percentage of votes camd from the 45 to 64 year-old group. Younger votes who only remember Bush (and maybe a little Clinton) will shift the balance to Dems as will the Hispanic voters who actually supported Bush fairly well in his 2 elections.

[Fairfloss]

The only other entity with a lower approval rating than President Bush, is, the Democratic lead Congress.

Of course, Rosie O'Donnell was also named the most annoying person, when Nancy Pelosi finally stopped talking and doing the stern mother act in front of the camera's.

[RDixon]

An Obama nomination means the democrats have a 50 / 50 shot of winning the white house.

A Hillary nomination means a guaranteed republican win.

Edwards is the only candidate who has a decent chance of winning the needed red states for a victory.

The select few who control the democratic party do not know how to count so.... doom, doom, doom...

Democrats will be lucky to just hold on to the paper thin majority in congress.

[paixa3]

I am an independent and will not support Billary or Obama. I will write in someone else in the general election.

I expect republicans to win the white house again. Please do not call me studpid either.

I VOTED for NOTHING in November 2006...remember all of the democratic promises.

With the neocons, they promise to screw you and I and THEY DO KEEP THEIR PROMISES.

[TellingTruth2Kooks]

The Biggest problem the Democrats have isn't Conservative Republicans, but the fact that they have fielded poor candidates, and are relying on the main street media to push their agenda in order to get their people elected.
None of the Top Three Democratic candidates have any past experience that qualifies them to be a fast food restaurant managers, much less as any kind of Administrative CEO.

Let me put it this way, these candidates have as much experience to be the President of the USA, as they have being a Doctor, and I know that I would never feel comfortable with any diagnosis they come up with, and would seriously need a Second opinion regarding their treatment options. Simply, I have No Confidence in people who claim to be able to do a Job that they have absolutely No Experience in.
All we have to do is look to Presidential history, to see that Senators make Crappy Presidents!
So either we want to just win an election, by hook or by Crook regardless of the Perils of such foolishness, or we elect someone who can really be an Effective President, because in a Couple of years we all might just be Pining for the Good Old Days when George W. Bush was President!

[sarahlane]

I had already been worried about having Obama or Hillary take on McCain. I never thought about the possibility of a McCain/Huckabee ticket, they would be able to appeal the religious right and the traditionalists in the Republican party. The only Democrat who beats McCain in head to head match ups is John Edwards. Edwards even beats him in states like Ohio and Oklahoma.