Why 2008 will be a Perfect Storm for Republicans
In hindsight, we can see why incumbent parties have been blamed and creamed in federal elections, like Republicans in 1974 after Watergate and Democrats in 1994 after the failure of health care. Looking ahead, with 13 months to go, a perfect storm is gathering force that will likely decimate Republican strength in federal and state races.
There is no one earthquake producing a political tsunami but rather four separate seismic events that together--short of another terrorist attack or a new war against Iran--will alter the electoral terrain of America.
*Iraq: Consider the numbers: when asked who can best end the Iraq war, only 5 percent of Americans in a recent poll said President Bush; consistent majorities of 70 percent want the war to end soon and 60 percent believe Bush misled us into this conflict. Claims of progress may momentarily quell public anger over this monumental blunder--say, General Petraeus's putting a happy face on the war. But such optimism is now as convincing as General Westmoreland's expecting "light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam or Baghdad Bob's denying American troops were anywhere near the Baghdad airport while those troops were seizing it.
What exactly can GOP candidates say next fall in the face of no WMD, no link between Saddam and 9/11, no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, no flowers for "liberators," 5 million refugees both out of and within Iraq, Administration approval of torture, over 30,000 American dead and wounded as well as over 100,000 Iraqis killed ?not to mention an increase in terrorism world-wide? "Give us more time" for a war that's lasted longer than World War II?
None of this worked in 2006 and will be even less pervasive in 2008. As Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) recently acknowledged after a Senate vote on the war, the public knows this is Bush's and the Republican's war and will reward or punish candidates accordingly.
*Economy. Most economic forecasters are predicting a one in two chance of a recession due to the foreclosure crisis leading to a credit crisis. Nor can Republican candidates convincingly cite Bush's eight-year record if '08 goes flat. Average monthly job creation and economic growth under Clinton was 237,000 and 3.6 percent; under Bush, it's 53,000 and 2.6 percent. Even if there's no recession but merely a slowdown, incumbent parties historically still lose seats and the White House if economic growth falls below 3 percent in the election year, as now seems inevitable.
At the same time, this Administration's record on spending and deficits--turning a projected $5.6 trillion surplus into $3 trillion in deficits--is dividing its own business base, according to Wall Street Journal last week. Now when asked which party would better maintain prosperity, it's Democrats by 54-34 percent according to Gallup.
And for the first time in several generations, the economic debate may include not only growth but also distribution. Static median income over the Bush years combined with winner-take-all increases in wealth by the top 1 percent have not gone unnoticed. A Pew Poll in 1988 found that by 71 to 25 percent, Americans thought themselves "haves" rather than "have nots"; by 2001, it was 48 to 48 percent. Any such data or arguments provoke Republicans to shout, "class warfare." But this is blaming the mirror for the image. Can conservatives explain how ExxonMobil's Lee Raymond earned more per hour in 2005 than his average employee earned per year?
*Intolerance. The GOP claiming to the ?party of Lincoln? is a pretense long beyond its expiration date. During the Cold War, Republicans could successfully run against Reds and Blacks. Yet with the decline of Communism and the Southern Strategy, GOP strategists have instead turned to targeting terrorists, immigrants and gays. Hence all those terror alerts and anti-gay referenda in 2004, and strident anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2007. But can the GOP rely simply on white men to win, blowing off racial and other minorities in a country increasingly minority? Bush's small gain in the black vote from 8% in 2000 to 11% in 2004, including a pivotal 16% in Ohio, helped cement his narrow victory.
The recent refusal of leading Republican presidential candidates to attend key black, Latino and gay debates prodded former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp to complain, "We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us. What are we going to do--meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?" It won't suffice any longer for 2008 convention organizers to put every minority delegate on the stage, hoping pictures will substitute for policy.
*Children. President Bush made good on his threat to veto the expansion of the SCHIP program to extend health insurance to another 4 million children, notwithstanding the bi-partisan support of 43 governors and an 84 percent majority in a CBS-New York Times poll. He complains that such a move would federalize, even socialize, health care. So will he now end Medicare and Medicaid?
Yes, it would cost another $35 billion annually, but that would be entirely covered by a proposed increase in the tobacco tax. It's revealing that an administration which didn't veto any spending bills for six years and didn't sweat $50 billion in oil subsidies and $10 billion a month for Iraq now draws the line against providing health care to children at no-cost to the federal budget. It approaches political suicide for the Bush Administration and four top GOP presidential candidates to elevate the rhetoric of free-market fundamentalism over the reality of millions of children lacking health insurance.
Pro-war and anti-growth, anti-minorities, anti-children. Not a good way to run for election.
Beyond these four problems, a variety of other realities combine to dig Republicans into an even deeper hole. Recent polls show Democrats are more trusted on every domestic and foreign policy issue: education, health care, environment, economic growth, fiscal discipline, even terrorism. The number of Americans who self-identify as Republican is at a seven year low. While Americans believing the country is ?on the wrong tack? was 50 percent in 2002 and 2004, it's now 67 percent. National Democratic committees and presidential candidates are outraising their Republican counterparts better than 2 to 1. And then there's the fact that Republicans are defending 22 Senate seats in 2008 compared to 12 for the Democrats. Nine Republican Senate seats are now considered vulnerable (Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Virginia).
Adding it all up: look for Democrats to end up with a near filibuster-proof 58 Senate seats (up from 51) and 260 House seats (up from 213 in 2005 and 233 in 2007). The 2006 and 2008 elections would then be the equivalent of a rolling realignment, comparable to the 51, 49 and 53 House seats that switched hands in 1958, 1974 and 1994 respectively. For when there's a tidal wave of sentiment, it doesn't tip some close contests but nearly all close contests. What John Kenneth Galbraith said of Black Monday 1933 is true for the GOP today: "The end had come, but it was not yet in sight."
A condensed version of this post appears today in the New York Daily News here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
RickO,
I believe that was Josef Stalin.
none of the present mess will amt. to diddely when real campaigning kicks in. Newt will appear from the wings, deus ex machina, issues now on peoples; 'minds' will vaporize, a illegal aliens will be the Willie Horton which will win the election for him.
The "Perfect Storm" is brewing, and the Decider Bush is also the Brewmaster!
I doubt it. Somewhere between 25% and 30% of the country remains firmly entrenched in the rightist trenches of the GOP. That moderates, mostly women and minorities, will desert the GOP is likely. White males still however will keep on voting Republican, though I fail to understand why. However as the Democrats are about serve me an unpalatable dish, inedible from the start, I will dine elsewhere. I will not vote for Sir Hillary. She is Bush-Lite or Clinton Pale Ale. The former doesn't taste any better and the former is less filling. I remain an ABC voter, ANYBODY BUT CLINTON. We need real reform and leadership, to try new ideas and Sir Hillary is only more of the same old corporatist regime, just different colors. Instead of Morgan Stanley or Exxon-Mobil, we get Goldman Sachs and Royal Dutch Shell. Is there a difference? Yes, the latter are much more progressive firms but ultimately they are both part of the system that needs to be undone.
Another Nader-nadderer. "I will cheerfully, willfully take the the Democrats because they don't do everything that I want." And then when another Republican is in the White House they can complete their task of installing a Facists Supreme Court for the corporations that own the government, the media and ultimately the country. Hating Hillary Clinton is so much easier than making sure the there is a "real" progressive congress to make sure that no one defies the will of the people. But then the right wing aren't the only folks that spend more time hating than doing anything constructive.
I prefer a new and better way in politics and in life for all of humanity. Ours is not abetter way but an alternative to the lies.distr
Right on richstue! We need to change our paradigmns of how we see each other and what we think of as democracy before we can even begin to change our corrupt political system. The disfunctions we are eperiencing now are merely symptoms of much deeper problems.
Pro-war and anti-growth, anti-minorities, anti-children.
Sounds like a winning bumper-sticker for any of the Rebugnican candidates on the stump today. I'd add fiscally insane...b
And like her or not (or in the case of Repugnicans, loathe), Hillary is bound to be the next President.
That said, it will be interesting to see what she does with the illegal (or is that extra-legal?) powers of the President that have now been codified and unchallenged by the legislature. That's gonna be the thing that get's the neo-convicts all a-twitter.
Surprising that the author doesn't mention the huge rift that is tearing the Republican Party apart. The rest of the article is so on target that this should have been mentionned.
The Southern Revival Tent Republicans, under the direction of Karl Rove and Bush43, have been in control since 2000--with now disasterous results. The Goldwater libertarian Republicans have been ignored, called RINOs and are being purged from the GOP.
The Revival Tent Republicans have had their every whim catered to and had a hot line to the White House. From the turnip, Terri Schiavo to the knuckledragging Creationists, to the mindnumbing vetoes of embroyonic stem cell research, their every wish was fulfilled by Bush.
However, by catering solely to the Revival Tent Republicans, Bush has turned more Republicans into Independents who are not willing to be Southern snake handling theocrats.
06 was a warm up. The GOP is going to lose every state except those in the deep South, Idaho and Utah. And luckily that's not enough to win elections.
Don't forget Indiana, nearly all of Bushes 30% live there
A "perfect storm is gathering force that will likely decimate Republican strength." Mr. Green, you are getting me hot. I sure hope you're not teasing.
Ah, but then there is the Democrats total sell out of the working people by supporting Amnesty. Hillary and Chuck have been hiding "in the shadows" since Spitzer dropped the bomb by announcing his license plan for illegal immigrants in NY. Siena poll says 72% oppose it. Illegal immigrants hurt American workers including union people and the working poor. So which do the Democrats support? Those who are in the Country legally or those who broke the law? I can't afford to work any cheaper and will not vote for anyone who is pro Anesty. Do the Dems know it's a felony to "aid or abet" a person who's in the Country illegally? I guess Bush isn't the only one who ignores the laws that don't suit him. It's too bad, I so wanted to get the Republicans out of the White House and Congress. For me this is the number one issue. Oh and where do the Democrats stand on this Security and Prosparity Partnership (Bush's North American Union) that is being railroaded through under NAFTA (thanks Bill Clinton for signing it) without Congressional or Voter approval? I don't hear any discussion by Democrats on this issue which will result in our the loss of our borders and sovernty. No Mr. Green your vision is mere fantasy as the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot yet again. Put impeachment back on the table or the "Perfect Storm" you cite will be when the voters totally loose faith in this corrupt, broken down filthy system that BOTH parties have sold to their Corporate Pimps.
In a two party system, the best way to be elected is to be the lesser of two evils. The Democrats don't have to be perfect... they just have to be better than the Republicans. Being that that will be the standard for 2008, the GOP is about to be slaughtered once again. The election of 2008 could easily be a death blow for the Republican party, as it will transform the GOP into a party of the South. Once that happens, it'll be hard for the Republicans to regain their stature in swing states that don't want the South running the country. Especially after the current President and former Texas governor gets done with his tenure.
Democrats battle cry "We suck less!" "We suck less!"
I wouldn't pop the corks yet - what is the Democratic congress approval? 11% something like that? Failed to deliver on Iraq, failed to deliver on economic fairnessand social justice, sold out the labor base with "free" trade - what makes them any better than the republicrits?
And the GOP will always plumb new depths in dirty trickery to hold onto power - even moreso when they are like cornered wild animals
A most excellent blog Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mark, it might be a "perfect storm" for Republicans if Democrats only had the competence to actually capitalize on their opponent's errors, so clearly laid out above. The problem with your analysis is twofold:
(1) The Democratic retaking of the Congress in 2006 was supposed to herald an endgame in Iraq and the restoration of civil liberties (specifically those involving habeas corpus and FISA) at home. They have completely caved to this wholly corrupt administration, with no end in sight.
(2) The presence of the "wild card" candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), and his inspirational grassroots organization that even pols like Hillary have got to envy.
I have no faith in Democrats running things well if handed the keys in 2008 - 70% of the people hate the war and turned to Dems to lead the way out of it. The sitting Dems in Congress should be opposed in their own primary campaigns next year as punishment for that.
Are you saying that even the majority of the Dems in Congress who have been trying to overcome the intransigence of the 98% of GOP Congresspersons who have backed Bush, Cheney & Co. on the war should be opposed in primaries? I think I smell a GOP troll here.
Wilbur
Democrats can end the war now, they could have ended it in the beginning of 2007. I think the message from the voters was clear that they wanted the Iraq war to end. But the Democrats deliberately refunded the war and made it continue. People know that is what happened and that is why so few people approve of congress right now.
The same goes for the loss of our civil liberties, such as the right to not be spied on and the right contest our arrest. Democrats are complicit in that no matter they SAY, it is what they did that matters.
I agree I would love to see every war-enabling dem congressman trounced in the primaries, but frankly the public seems to be sleeping through another election, those who are not are looking at only 2 people Kucinich and Paul, and only one has an outside chance.
But greens scenario will prob play out.
The republicans, paul aside are busy commiting national political suicide, and the Dems are busy preparing to takeover and continue the corporatization of america and the oil addiction continue unabated.
Congressional dems are largely wussies
With 2008 being a Presidential election year, those leading the ticket play a HUGE role in what happens elsewhere.
More than half of all likely voters say that they absolutely will not vote for Hillary. This creates a huge problem, as many of these swing voters that would otherwise vote for Democrats will stay home.
Meanwhile the Republican base will be rabid. They will mobilize like never before to try to defeat Hillary. These two dynamics will impact the state and local races as well.
I think Republicans will lose some seats, but I don't think it's going to be cataclysmic, and I think Hillary may very well sink her own party's hopes in the end.
Getting all your insights in a public bathroom?
Have you checked out GOP fundraising? Rabid?
I think you're barking up a tree, Marmaduke.
Actually, if we nominate Hillary we'll sink our own ship.
ANYBODY BUT HILLARY would be a landslide winner.
Hillary wants war with Iran !
Let's nominate anti-war candidates.
Obama/Edwards '08
TURN THE PAGE
Hillary is not the nominee... yet.
Just wait until she is.
No disrespect intended mormondude, but you and your brethren live in some alternate reality. You can say what you want, but it does not disguise the fact that you are peeing your pants in anticipation of a Democratic landslide, the likes of which has not been seen since 1964. Veto-proof majorities in the house and senate - quite possible. To the vistor go the spoils!
Clinton can destroy that.
And even if Hillary wins, they secretly will love it, because Hill is really one of them - pro global, pro corporate, pro lobbyist, pro war.
I was first eligible to vote in a presidential election in 1972. With the sole exception of a vote for Anderson in 1980, I have voted for the Democratic nominee every time. HOWEVER, I am so disgusted by the utterly inept campaigns by Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and by the performance of the Democrats in Congress since they won majorities in 2006, that I may never support a Democrat again. I certainly won't vote Republican, but I cannot and will not support another corporatist Decmocrat.
This country desperately needs a genuinely progressive government. One that will end our military adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere and pursue a foreign policy of peaceful diplomacy. One that will reaffirm and strengthen our social safety nets -- Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. One that will respond to the crisis in medical care with universal health care. One that will develop newer, less polluting energy sources and end our dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil. One that will guarantee access to quality education, including college and graduate school for all students who qualify and desire to learn.
At present, no political party in this country comes anywhere close to providing what we need from our political leaders. All we get are retreads of the same old worn out and harmful policies. Just say no to all Republicans, Libertarians like Ron Paul (who would end all social programs and benefits like Social Security and Medicare), and moderate Democrats like Hillary Clinton.
Is John Edwards a "corporatist"? Not last time I checked. Anything but. Probably it's what will defeat him in the end, the corps. are scared witless he'll get the nomination.
You sound to me like your ready to run. As far as Edwards goes, I would describe him as an out-of-touch, elitist, ambulance chasing, bloodsucking lawyer. He was a loser in 2004 and cant accept the fact he has no chance in 08.
I thought it was obvious in 04' that this administration's time was up. 58 million people failed to see the obvious. I'm not sure the country is collectively any brighter.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
