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.

Comments

[sox05]

I will vote for (D) as will half the voters. The other half will vote for (R)

It will be a close race as always no matter what happens.

[wrightthewrong]

Yes, and either the machines (voting/counting)or the Supreme Court will give us our president, whether we voted for him/her or not.

[Mack20]

Wrongo. Hillary is only good for about 45% at best. Too many Hillary haters out there. Like her husband, she needs a Perot to split the 55% that will never vote for her.

[AstralTechnician]

I find it odd that you would say "...short of a terrorist attack or war with Iran..." as if these would somehow reflect well on Gopers' chances in 08. If either of these occurred, it would be on their watch, and render them completely irrelevant.

[nomoron]

You could take it a step further and, without overstating the facts, say a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be aimed at enflaming the
American psyche into renewed support of the war with a resulting boon for terrorist recruitment. Starting a war with Iran.... Osama couldn't be happier even if he'd planned it himself.

[ejeder]

your forgetting the republicans' great ability to steal elections! three's a charm as they say

[dragn1]

Your article is very interesting but in 94 you are giving to much credit for the health care and not enough for the assault weapons ban. Even Bill admitted he lost maybe 20 Dem seats because of that fiasco. You may be well correct in your assumptions however I will dare say it is because the republicans have started acting very much like democrats in their spending and vacillation on core issues. It will also be that the Democrats have finally wised up and got some blue dog democrats to run. These democrats will never again vote for the foolish gun control issues of the left wingers lest they find themselves out of a job once again.

[nowaterboardUSA]

I hope you are right. But Iran or some other terror boogeyman could blow this analysis right out of the water - Americans have traditionally stuck with incumbents in time of war with the historical exception of Vietnam and that was only because Johnson refused to run.

[HermanBubbert]

Your predictions assume the absence of "another terrorist attack or a new war against Iran". Unfortunately for all of us, the latter is precisely what is within the power of the Current Occupant to order just in time.

[kevinabt]

The former is also within the power of the current occupant to order.

[knowhelpnow]

Watch out they are now saying that the WMD were sent to Syira before we went in, and that the surge is working and it's only a little more time before Iraq is a functioning democracy, we aren't even a functioning democracy or Republic when the President can just snob his nose at Congress and ignore the Constitution and in effect write his own laws and then hide everyone behind presidential authority.

[KnoxBlues1]

Exactly. I assume Cheney-Bush has war with Iran already in the works. In that WWIII atmosphere, with the Rovian Swiftboat attack dogs salivating for another slaughter, the dumbed-down American public will once again vote for "national security" and put somebody from the Gay Old Party back in the White House. Plus, thinking voters are disgusted with the Dems for their miserable response to the 2006 mandate to get out of Iraq (lack of a "veto-proof" majority in the Senate or not).
McCain has the best sense of humor, but he doesn't seem "optimistic" enough. Rudy and Mitt smile a lot and have that "optimistic" edge that us Amurricans so dearly luv, but Mitt is a Morman, and Rudy is from New York and has a last name ending in a vowel. Us Southern Evangelicals won't vote for a "cult member" or a yankee from New York City. That leaves Uncle Fred. He's from the South, he smiles a lot, and he seems as dumb as us reglar Amurricans, just like Ronnie and W. And he's tough on crime (terror). I know, 'cuz I seen him on TV. And - Yee Haw! - Amurrica is dying to have a hot First Lady. Bombs away!

[Rickandanumber]

I hope you are right, but remember, it isn't important who votes. What is important is who counts the votes....

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Well it isn't going to be Katherine Harris... I'm going to make sure of that!

I moreso, fear the voting machines..­. which I guess are the new counters.

Death to Diebold!

[wldnswmmr]

I don't think it's that simple at all. Not to sound elitist more than necessary, but your confidence in the American electorate is a little surprising in light of what happened in 2000 and 2004. In 2006 with most of what you're writing about already on the horizon the great majority of red state Congress members held on to their Republican seats. It was not very long ago that a blue state haven like California removed a Democrat and replaced him with the Republican Govenator. And the rational analysis leaves out the decisive element of hysteria in American elections -- the immediate context in which an election happens. If another terrorist attack in the U.S. occurs anywhere in the temporal vicinity of the election, all bets will be off, and a marginally sane yo-yo like Giuliani may look good. There was a sea change in 1932 and following, but that was during the Great Depression. The electorate at that point was under no illusions that things were going to change anytime soon without drastic action. Modern Americans, by contrast, suffer from an incurable form of attention deficit. Just promise them they can keep their toys and you will win their hearts, even if it means more war, the earth burns up and we bomb Iran.

[Wilbur]

This has to be one of THE BEST posts I have seen in HuffPo!! Congratulations on a brilliantly detailed yet concise post! A true masterpiece!!

My only quibble with your statements has to do with your analysis of Red State Congresspersons hanging onto their seats in the '06 elections. I think we need to be aware of the extent that gerrymandering has played in creating Congressional districts, especially in California. There, the Dems and the Repukes have formed an unholy alliance to ensure that their respective districts will either be safe Dem or safe GOP, safe for one or two districts where they could not create a safe seat for either party.

But, again, a brilliant post! Thank you!!

Wilbur

[Lazslo]

Right. Who is going to vote for a person that can't get anything done? Not many people will vote again for ineffectual dems. My prediction is a huge win for the repubs in 2008, which includes the presidency. Dems are in for a world of hurt next year, sorry to say so, but it's true. There is no way people are going to vote for a person that will raise taxes. Not gonna happen. The opportunity for dems was when they voted to appropriate money for the war, and they gave the prez what he wanted, and they gave the president authorization to continue spying on Americans. Not good, especially seeing that the dems campaigned on doing the opposite. When the dems get the courage of their convictions, then we can talk. All this maligning of repubs, while often accurate, is not going to get anything done.

[prolifeprogressive]

There will be great hunger for viable 3rd party candiadtes but unless Paul or Kucinich [or gravel] jump their repsective ships the vote may come down to which candiadate suffers less atrition. In this case that would be the dems.

Republicans have already started voting with their pocket books and have doomed the current crop.

An Iranian attack is a true wild card that cheney seems determined to play. We simply won't know how it will

I see Hillary odds on favorite, because the electorate is too dense to see her for the corparate pro-war shill she is, we are so weary of a president who can not grasp the english language much less foreign policy, she seems a breath of fresh air.

I hate neo-libs as much as neo-cons but the public can't tell one till they have been seriously had.

Hell, the disaster that is/was Nafta should have sunk clinton, but almost no one reads between the newspaper lines.

The only questions are a] iran war or not and b] just how asleep are the voters this year...

[HollywoodBill]

Be careful in generalizing California as a "blue haven." During the 20th Century, there were exactly 4 Democratic Governors: Culbert Olson, Pat Brown, Jerry Brown and Gray Davis. That's it. The Assembly and the Senate have had a Democratic majority since the late 1950s with one brief exception in the 90s.

One party rule is not really acceptable out here. When it occurred under Gray Davis, the results were a mess and the voters immense disatisfation manifested itself in the following year with Davis's recall. By and large, Californians like gridlock and appreciate at least one adult supervising the entire chaos up in Sacramento.

As a generalization (which is always dangerous), fiscal conservatives, or what passes for it out here, socially moderate candidates of either party tend to win the governorship.

[JimR]

The problem is that in poll after poll, the Democratic Congress scores much lower approval ratings than George Bush. If the performance of this Congress is any indicator of the chances of the Democratic Party in 2008, they're in trouble.

[TakeBackAmerica]

Too bad you don't read the entire polls or understand polls. When asked in those same polls who is doing the worst job in Congress, the nod goes to the Republicans, not the Democrats. And might I remind you that the Dems have a very slight majority, so the actions of Congress are not theirs alone, considering all the obstruction that the Republinazis put up to block any meaningful legislation. Oh, and the reason the polls for the Dems are so low is because they haven't ended the Iraq FIASCO, as they were asked to do after the 2006 elections. Who is the party that the MAJORITY of Americans see ending the war? Dems. So, go ahead and live in your SPIN WORLD of unreality. The Repubinazis are headed for the trash heap of history.

Being a Republican is no longer a political philosophy or ideology. It is a mental illness.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

A MOST excellent response TBA!

[JimR]

Too bad you fail to note that in addition to the 23 percent that blame Democrats solely, 3 in 10 blame both parties equally.

Too bad you still apologize for the absolutely pathetic performance of the Democrat-led Congress by using the lame excuse of "it's them mean ol' nasty Wepubwicans, boo-hoo."

Too bad you fail to mention the Democrats haven't done a single thing to try to end the war besides posture and pontificate. (I know, I know..."It­'s dem Wepubwinazis, wahhhhhh."­)

Too bad you are so divisive and blinded by irrational hate that you don't realize I'm neither a Republican NOR a Democrat.

Too band you responded to a perfectly legitimate comment with a hate-filled spin worthy of Karl Rove.

Enjoy your fantasy.

[Wilbur]

I would aver that if one looked into the DETAILS of the low approval ratings for the Democratic­-controlle­d Congress given by those being polled, one would find that those polled are dissatisfied with the fact that the REPUBLICANS have stymied every progressive plan by the Dems, from the Iraq debacle to children's health insurance. This will make things more difficult for the GOP, not the Dems, come the '08 elections.

Wilbur

[cam]

Agreed - the progressive electorate is unimpressed with the Dems. The Republicans don't really come into the picture.

[cynara]

This weekend I volunteered to do Democratic voter registration at a local festival. I would guess half of the people who stopped by to register were independents switching to Democratic affiliation to vote in the 2008 primaries, way up from past years. Also, while trying to find my way to the Democratic booth, I passed by the Republican booth, where a young volunteer was trying to convince some would-be-Republican voters to support Guliani. His pitch was, "well, you know, he's the only one that can beat Hillary". If their best pitch for a candidate is that, despite his obvious flaws, he may be able to compete with what the Republicans see as the most polarizing Democratic nominee, they are already screwed. They are screwed if Hillary is nominated since half their base will be so disgusted with their choices they'll stay home. And they will be even more screwed if Edwards or Obama wins, since some of the desinfranchised Republican voters will go to the polls - to vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Pdubya]

I'm a former Democrat voting for Ron Paul, the ONLY true Republican, and the ONLY Republican that can beat the Dems running. And they should be beaten, about the brow, just like the neocons they've funded through lobbying efforts all these years. Shame on all of them.

www.ronpaul2008.com
www.dailypaul.com

p.s. he is now called "the dark horse candidate"

[Misanthrope2]

Democrats won't vote for Paul because he is anti-choice, racist and a "free" marketer.

I sure hope he runs as a third party candidate. Again.

[JCP]

These conclusions are the result of an assumption that the winner in each inidividual race will be the person for whom the greatest number of people voted, rather than the person whose name is recorded as the winner on an electronic voting machine with no paper trail.

[texastrixie]

If the Dems don't elect either a veto-proof congress or President or both, this country is in a world of hurt. What would another Republican majority bring us: probably the formalized end to Social Security. Yes, they'd have to give us our contributions back, but those would fund a relatively short "retiremen­t."

[TuffPosh]

Mark:

I hope you're right! But, could you outline some of the ways that the Democratic Party could be more pro-immigrant? For instance, how much more should Democratic Party leaders collaborate with the Mexican government? How much more can the Democratic Party attempt to thwart enforcement of our "laws"? What more can the Democratic Party do to help out the poor, oppressed leaders of Mexico?

To push it over the edge, maybe AAR could feature this on its site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTjcYVQ-cKE

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Posh,

How about just stopping the crap with building the wall, and just stopping the whole immigration issue SCARE.

How about we issue 2 year work visas for any immigrants wanting to work here...whi­ch is the main reason they want to jump the wall...or ocean....o­r mountain. They would pay taxes - including their share into a universal healthcare system - and if they stay 'clean' and are model citizens, why NOT let them apply for citizenship? Most immigrants want a chance at a better life and work hard to strive for same... the slackers and crimminals would be weeded out by their wrong doings and thrown over the wall/river­/mountain/­into ocean....a­nd therefore denied access to the freebies that build a slacker, treasury draining society in this country.

Most don't want a free-ride on the american dollar... they just want a chance at a better life.

[Nommo]

Not to mention a shitload of American citizens who would dig a chance at a better life.

[Misanthrope2]

Many Democrats think that immigration laws should be enforced, that illegals should be deported and their employers jailed.

The employers and the corporations want the illegals to be here to depress wages. They are Republicans.

Republicans are pushing Bush to let in more illegals, just as much as DLC Democrats.

[Eric2]

I predict Bush and the neocons will get us into war against Iran with significant (we can't take anything off the table) Democratic support.