I have been watching the debates in the blogosphere on the coming 2004 election and the effect current events is having on it. Winds of Change has had many posts touching on aspects of it recently here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Now I’m going to throw my hat in the ring in the way of predictions and analysis. It is my view that the Democrats are dead for 2004 and are damned in the longer run.
Starting with why Democrats are dead in 2004:
Democrats have kept harping on the economy in beating up on Bush, trying to make the case that “It's "national security and the economy," stupid!
This is the Republican counter: People vote with their pockets books, but only after they have physical security at home. National security is economic security.
My e-mail buddy Tom Holsinger had a November 28, 2002 column over on Strategypage.com titled The World's Coming Encounter With Andrew Jackson that goes to the heart of the Democratic Party's disconnect with the American public over national security:
Continued...
The American people won't tolerate being attacked at home by foreign terrorists. This is THE dominant factor in the war against terror. Americans' definition of victory here is security from attack at home, which even the Democratic Party does not understand, let alone foreigners. This war began when we were attacked at home and will end when further danger of that has passed. We're fighting for our security at home, not to create a better world elsewhere, but the latter is all the Democratic Party proposes.The Democrats banished their national security faction long ago, and feel military policy is merely a variant of domestic policy - either pork-barrel spending or armed social work among ungrateful foreigners. Every problem looks like a nail if your only tool is a hammer. Democrats are unable to accept the existence of evil or the necessity of winning in war. This resulted in collapse of public confidence in the Democrats' ability and willingness to protect the American people, even if many Democratic internationalist proposals have merit.
It is highly unlikely that the Democratic Party will regain national office for the duration of the war against terror, even if takes a generation and one or more Republican administrations fail seriously. Replacement by GOP primary challengers is more likely in such event.
The name for that banished Democratic national security wing was "Scoop Jackson Democrats," named after Senator Jackson (D) of Washington state. They were driven out of the party by the "Nuclear Freeze" movement in the 1984 Democratic Presidential primaries when Sen. John Glenn caved in to their pressure. Today those people are known as "Neo-conservatives." Their public and reviled face for Democrats is Richard Perle. "The Prince of Darkness" who was a former staffer for Sen. Jackson.
This is why there is no conceivable Democratic Presidential candidate that can win in 2004. No matter how hawkish the Democratic Presidential candidate. The people that Democratic candidate brings in with him to run national security will be the same Democratic cadre that blew it under Clinton.
The Bush/Rove team is going to pound on that fact like a drum.
For two generations the best Democrat political minds have gone into issues like national healthcare or civil rights and avoided national security. This gap in Democratic professional development crippled newly sworn in Defense Secretary Les Aspin when he took control of the Pentagon for Pres. Clinton in 1993. I vividly recall reading about his complaints about this in the defense trade newsletter INSIDE THE PENTAGON. I think this gap was a contributing factor in the Somalia debacle.
There is really no institutional support in the Democratic Party for a military affairs/national security brain trust like the Republicans have in the beltway shops like the Heritage Foundation. Adam Clymer recently pointed this out in the NY TIMES in a pair of articles on the two parties here and here. Blogger Pat Ruffini has his take here on the same articles.
The killer 'graphs from Clymer’s article on the state of the Democratic Party:
“Another project nearing realization is the creation of a foundation like that of the conservative Heritage research group. The Democrats' organization will be led by John D. Podesta, President Clinton's last chief of staff. In September, Mr. Podesta said he expected to open the tentatively named American Majority Institute as "a think tank that both generates new ideas and provides a hard-hitting and consistent critique of the conservatives."But Democratic efforts to build a new infrastructure pale next to the layers of affiliated political groups, research groups and like-minded media organs that the Republicans have fortified over the decades, especially since the election of Mr. Reagan as president in 1980. And, as Mr. Hart noted, Democrats are not trying to make inroads into Republican constituencies, like white male conservatives (who gave Mr. Gore only 11 percent of their votes in 2000) the way Republicans are going after African-Americans and Hispanics. On the other hand, Hispanic voters are becoming an ever-larger part of the electorate, and still give Democrats a solid majority of their votes.”
It is easy to see that what the Democrats do have is at best 2nd rate compared to the Republican brain trusts. This disadvantage has consequences.
Sandy Berger was the Democrat's best on national security and he screwed the dog on terrorism. Everyone else from the Clinton National Security establishment is similarly tarnished.
A recent Op-Ed by former FBI director Freeh make clear he got more and more effective support from Bush 41 in an unofficial capacity in investigating the Khobar Towers bombing than he did from his own Clinton Administration in an official one.
ABC just carried a story of how Janet Reno cancelled a mission in 1998 to arrest Osama bin Laden.
Lets face it; the only 1st rate, competent, senior experts on national security are Republicans. That is whom Congressional Democrats hire for subject expertise for their committee slots on both Armed Service Committees. That is why Clinton brought in a Republican Senator to be his Secretary of Defense.
If any hawkish Democrat has to get Republicans to competently run his national security establishment. Why should people vote for a Democrat in time of war?
This is born out by recent polling here, here, and here plus in articles like this in TIME magazine.
The paragraph below from the TIME article captures the danger these Democratic mistakes on national security mean for the "gender gap" that elected Bill Clinton President:
...“Republican pollster David Winston was one of the first to identify the shift from Soccer Mom to Security Mom, and he warns: "What these women are looking for are solutions to make their families and children safer. It's about solutions; it's not about partisan bickering." Democratic political consultant Rachel Gorlin agrees: "We can't criticize what the Bush Administration is doing unless we make it clear that the criticism is toward a new and improved approach we're turning people off." It's that kind of impatience with point-scoring politics that nettles women like 31-year-old Stacy McDaniel, who stockpiles water and canned goods in San Diego, and plans her exit route when she goes to a ball game. "I expect our leaders to get more done now," she says. "I'm less tolerant of inefficiency. I'm less tolerant of poor decision making." For their own security, both parties are scrambling to listen and respond to women like her.”The damage is not just limited to women. Democrats have lost the current generation of college students as well. College students are, thanks to 9/11/2001, some of the most patriotic and pro-military Americans to be found and Democrats have wiffed on both in their eyes.
A number political operative of both parties recognizes this problem, but it is only being said by Republican/conservative pundits in the media such as in this Donald Lambro column and this column by Douglas MacKinnon exerpted below:
WASHINGTON - In the past few weeks, I have spoken with a number of politically experienced Democrats. The two questions I've asked them: "What do you think of President Bush's chances in 2004, and why?" Publicly, they would state Mr. Bush is in trouble. But privately, to a person, they say the election is all but over, and he will win.Their rationale, pure and simple, is terrorism. These Democrats know the American people believe that Mr. Bush can protect them against terrorism better and more forcefully than the Democrats, and that protecting the homeland trumps economic issues or any other wedge issue the Democratic nominee may come up with.
(snip)
Privately, the Democrats with whom I spoke all but concede 2004 to Mr. Bush. They are looking toward 2008 and expect Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania to be the front-runners.
Until then, they expect the American electorate will give Mr. Bush one more term to continue his war on terrorism.
This Democratic flame out on national security will not be limited to just the White House. The Democrat’s position in the Senate is threatened geography, demographics and the war, as this clip from a Robert Novak column makes clear:
“Democratic insiders, acknowledging little chance of recapturing the House in 2004, have all but given up hope of winning a Senate majority, unless there is such a transcendent development as an economic collapse.
The early calculation in Democratic circles is for a net loss of four additional Senate seats, extending the present 51-49 Republican majority to 55-45. Democratic seats are in real jeopardy in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, South Dakota and Nevada.In contrast, Alaska is the only Republican Senate seat up next year that clearly tilts to the Democrats.”
Daniel Drezner and Oxblog have both mentioned Donna Brazile's recent comments and commitments to a stronger Democratic Party national security wing in a WSJ op-ed titled "What Would Scoop Do? Fellow Democrats, get serious about defense or get used to losing." Both bloggers also mentioned this web site: http://www.demsfornatsec.org/
I think the following paragraphs from the Brazile's column bear further reading:
"Democrats have yet to fully comprehend the new reality of the post-Sept. 11 world. While most Americans viewed the war in Iraq through the prism of the Twin Towers attacks, many prominent Democrats still seem not to grasp the profound sense of insecurity that so many people feel in our country. This unease is especially pronounced among women, who have been a cornerstone of our party's strength and without whom we cannot hope to win back the White House or Congress. The American people agree with us on many vital issues --but they believe that we Democrats are weak and indecisive when it comes to standing up to dictators and terrorists, and when it comes to the primary responsibility of government: defending the nation. No matter how compelling our positions on the economy, health care, Social Security, the environment and privacy, if voters continue to see us as feckless and effete they will not listen to our message next year and they will re-elect Mr. Bush.As we prepare to mount our challenge in 2004, Democrats need to return to the muscular national security principles of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and the other Democrats who understood that only by confronting threats abroad could our party achieve its other great mission of expanding equality, opportunity and progress here at home."
Unfortunately it takes more than a sharp web site to build a competent national security cadre. It takes time, interest, career opportunities and money. Brazil's comments and commitments to a stronger Democratic national security wing are for 2008, not 2004.
Democrats as a party are dominated by a hard left faction that has about 15% of the primary vote and over 50% of the money in the party. This ruling faction is nothing so much as a cross between 1940's Trotskites and "Jeffersonians" as described by Walter Russel Mead. They are the mind children of the people President Truman ran out of the Democratic Party in 1948. They came back to power in 1972-74 with the McGovern primary victory and the aftermath of Watergate. They make up the vast majority of Democratic political activists today.
This dominant Democratic faction is opposed to nationalism, any nationalism, most especially American nationalism and the ordered liberty that arises from it. The Democratic Party's devotion to senseless forms of both domestic multi-culturalism and foreign policy multilateralism can be seen as a political allergic reaction to American nationalism. There can be no "American Exceptionalism" in any sense of the word for them. This worldview cannot acknowledge either federalism or anything political outside the USA, as Michael Totten recently noted about his fellow liberals.
Today's "Democratic liberals" are big central government statists who are functional isolationists. As such, a political party run by them can provide neither national security nor long term economic prosperity, with that faction's devotion to a multi-cultural/anti-nationalist/anti-American, isolationist, and centralized regulatory state.
The Democratic Party will only cure this problem when they have a 1948 Truman style presidential candidate purge of the Democratic leftists. To give it credit, the Democratic Leadership Council is trying to pick this fight. The problem is that it isn't the DLC's place to do that. That fight must be done by the Democratic nominee after he has secured his position and before the Democratic National Convention.
The easiest way for that nominee to pick that fight is to answer Donna Brazile's "What Would Scoop Do?" question, by naming Richard Perle as his Secretary of State choice before the convention ballots are taken.
Last I read, Perle is still a registered Democrat. If Perle was really guarantee that he would be supported by the Democratic Presidential nominee. That the Democratic nominee had seriously "gone over to the dark side." Perle would take the job. This would drive the Democratic activist base insane and they would walk out of the party...which is the point of the exercise.
Perle as the Democratic face on national security combined with the activist walk out would go a very long way towards rehabilitating the Democratic Party's national security credibility with the American people. Unfortunately, none of the current Democratic field will do this.
The earliest either Tom Holsinger -- who inspired me to write this-- or I see that happening is the 2012 Presidential election cycle. I ly see 2016 as the most likely year, if the Democrats do it at all.
This is why Democrats are Dead and Damned *LOSERS* in 2004.
Since this blog entry is running to five pages in my word file. I will save my thoughts on why I think the Democrats are damned in the long term for non-national security reasons for later. But I will leave you with these parting thoughts and a couple of questions:
The beating heart of a modern economy is the growth of the small business sector. It is the difference between the economic decay of Europe and the economic power of America.
So, if that is the case, exactly how many small busnessmen are in the Democratic Party who are not "disadvantaged government contractors" or trial lawyers? And what does that mean for the Democratic Party's assimulation of new immigrants into it's voter base?
Update:
Hat tip to the Daily Pundit for being nice with the clue by four on spelling the "Dark Prince's" last name correctly.
Update 2:
The Washington Times has an article today on the latest polling on the terrorism issue and Democratic Presidential candidates here. The power 'graphs from the article are below:
Still, when asked who's winning the issue of homeland security, polls show Mr. Bush has a gigantic lead. A recent poll commissioned by Democracy Corps and done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 17 percent of respondents thought Democrats are better on homeland security; 57 percent said Republicans are better. And 64 percent strongly endorsed the direction Mr. Bush is taking in the war on terror. Meanwhile, a CNN-Time poll from last week found that 62 percent of those surveyed said none of the Democratic presidential candidates is convincingly credible in handling terrorism.UPDATE: Armed Liberal responds.
Wow! That is a truly impressive analysis, which I have no reason to believe is anything but 100% on the nose. Great job.
"This ruling faction is nothing so much as a cross between 1940's Trotskites..."
No, no, no. Those became the neoconservatives, who now run the Republican Party thanks to disciples like Richard PERLE. Viva el revolucion!
I think the Democrats got the Maoists or something :-)
2004 is one thing. The question is, who's going to be running in 2008? Hillary, yes. But on the Republican side, unless it's Rice I'm not sure our candidate will be someone who'll really drive home the national security advantage.
There's still a lot that can happen anyway. Wasn't everyone talking about 50-50 America before 9/11? One event can change everything.
Trent, want to make this a bit interesting?? I think the Dems will lose the White House in '04 - but it is going to be fairly close. The DLC controls the levers of cash, and McKinney and Sharpton will provide the Sistah Soljah's needed for the eventual candidates to push to the center.
The war in the M.E. is going to be in that difficult long-term phase, requiring patience and sacrifice - something I haven;t seen in long supply from the GOP leadership.
Dinner at Arthur Bryant's on the loser??
A.L.
Interesting read. It seems to me that 2004 is pretty much over, barring, of course, any major economic damage. The question is whether or not the GOP can hold the Congress in 2006. Because once Bush is in his second term he won't be able to support Congress as much, and voter's will be much more willing to punish the GOP for a bad economy, feeling that enough time has passed since 9/11. As for 2008, that could be real interesting. It depends on who is running. A crappy GOP candidate could lose, even if the platform is better. But I think Hillary will go for the Dem nomination, and likely get it. And then get creamed in the general election by a decent GOP contender. I tend to agree the GOP will have the advantage in the presidential race, unless the Dems somehow dramatically beef up their national security stats. The real question is who will run for the GOP nomination in '08. It sure isn't going to be Chaney, who, IMO, should drop out in '04.
I found this post viscerally angering, but when you find yourself angry over something as harmless as political kibbitzing, it's almost always better to bite your tongue, so that's what I'm going to do.
FWIW, my take is that the Democrats have a somewhat better chance on winning in 2004 than 2008. My reasoning is that in 2004 they will be running against George W Bush, with a mediocre record, while in 2008 they will be running against someone like Bill Frist or John Kasich, both of whom are much stronger, more appealing candidates than President Bush.
There have been three successes of this administration:
1) Military victory against the Taliban
2) Military victory against Saddam's regime
3) After 9/11, there has not been a mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil
I think it's fair to say on everything else, the Bush administration has made an absolute pigs' breakfast: the record ranges from mediocre to indifferent to downright awful.
Let's keep it simple: the Democrats will win if they convince a majority of Americans that either the voter personally, or the country as a whole, will do better if the Democrat gets elected. I'll just state categorically that given this Administration's record, there is plenty of room to make that case.
Of the all-important war on terror, there are three aspects to it:
1) preventing terrorist attacks from happening
2) bringing the perpetrators to justice and avenging our dead
3)reforming the dysfunctional societies which produce these terrorists, and even worse, large swaths of the population who sympathise with terrorists
and a conservative would add a fourth:
4) Restoring the American Aura, so that America & Americans, even if they are resented, are feared and respected throughout the world.
This may evoke howls of outrage from the Right, but as a Democrat I'm quite sure that it is possible for a Democratic administration to do as well or better at the first three of these tasks, and to make that case to the American people. The fourth one is the the real ideological dispute, between those who are obsessed with America being feared, even at the cost of resentment, and those who are obsessed with America being liked, even at the cost of contempt. You can go too far in either direction.
Lastly, on a demographic/sociological note, I would say that if the Democrats are to win, they need to increase their share of the white vote, and in particular white men. I would say that either the parties get close to parity in the white vote, and the Democrat's advantage in the minority vote makes them the majority party, or the Republicans increase their percentage of the white vote, and they become the majority party, and our politics becomes the politics of the South writ large on a National scale.
In terms of issue-terrain, I am optimistic and feel the advantage lies with the Democrats. In terms of demographics/tribal factors, I am pessimistic and feel the advantage lies with the Republicans. We'll see how it plays out.
Roublen,
I really don't mean this as an attack on you, but you said, you were "quite sure that it is possible for a Democratic administration to do as well or better at the first three of these tasks". The tasks you refer to were:
1) preventing terrorist attacks from happening
2) bringing the perpetrators to justice and avenging our dead
3)reforming the dysfunctional societies which produce these terrorists, and even worse, large swaths of the population who sympathise with terrorists
How can the Democrats do this? I'm trying not to bring up the horrendous failures of the clinton administration in this very arena, but it's hard to ignore that aspect of this subject. Clinton failed miserably, and it seems that he and most Dems consider the military as just another group of social workers. Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden and passed on it (although he did take out a tent with a "Osame slept here" sign on it). There have been less terrorist attacks in the last year than in any year since at least 1981 (see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19997.htm for chart)
So I'm really curious if you have some new ideas that the Dems could try or if you just feel that clinton was an aberration as President (I don't mean it that way... really) in the defense arena (don't forget carter either)or what?
I intend to use some of the ideas in Trent's post as jumping-off points for a Palace essay. Therefore, I'll confine myself to a single observation that, for me, delineates the most important characteristic of the political process:
Political parties are devices by which ambitious men seek power: vote-maximizing machines. They have no ideology. They're incapable of adopting one for any reason other than pragmatic electoral advantage. Therefore, whatever a party espouses today, it will cheerfully betray tomorrow if the electoral indicators suggest that it should.
"Put not your trust in parties." -- Me.
It may be that the "Scoop" Democrats will have to walk out of the Democratic Convention and form a new party down the block rather than nominate someone who will drive the leftist nuts. That, of course, is what happened in the 1850's when the future Republicans left the Whigs over their (the Whigs) lack of seriousness on the question of slavery. When a political party refuses to confront the "nation altering" crisis it either dies (the Whigs) or is marginalize for one or two generations (the mid century Republicans). The current Democratic Party is obsessed with cutural issues. But during a "nation altering" crisis the nation always puts its survival on the front burner and cultural issues seem silly. These days the Democrats just seem silly and in need of adult supervision. Maybe the DLC simply needs to walk away. In the 1850's the Republicans succeeded after just two election cycles and then ran things for nearly 70 years. Is there a lesson there?
" Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden and passed on it"
So did Bush. Trashed Afghanistan, didn't find Osama. For that matter, where's Saddam?
Truly we have had the misfortune to be ruled by a long succession of bumbling idiots.
Everyone should examine the report Glen has posted.
Apparently, the Bush regime is doing a great job of rooting out terrorism in... Latin America and Africa?????
The reason for such a drastic drop in terrorist attacks has more to do with the drop in Latin American industrial oil line bombings than a strong stance by the Bush administration. Just look at the type of institutions that have been bombed and notice the MASSIVE drop in business bombings.
And if we want to do a bullshit statistical analysis, how about the number of American deaths under Bush and under Clinton. Looks like Bush is getting his ass handed to him 1,466 (in two years) to 47 over Clinton's second term.
Bush has done nothing to stop terrorism other than place American soldiers in harms way and create a Department of Homeland Security more interested in gerrymandering Texas congressional districts and curtailing Americans civil liberties than protecting American citizens.
I just don't see how Bush has been great for American security other than to increase our paranoia and manipulate said fear to his own political gain.
Finally, somebody give me a reason to think that Clinton has a horrible record on terrorism? Just some facts or something besides Democrats and Clinton in particular hate America and would rather see France succeed than our own God damn country. With the exception of white boy McVeigh and the first World Trade Center bombing, what were the events that threatened American security or took American lives? Where did Clinton screw up so royally? (I'm open, incredibly open to evidence about this because Clinton screwed up a number of things during his 8 years. I just don't remember terrorism being one of them)
"requiring patience and sacrifice - something I haven;t seen in long supply from the GOP leadership."
I haven't seen it in the Democrat leadership, either.
InFilling,
The more you spout on about Bush or Clinton being bumbling idiots, the less intelligent you make yourself look. However good or bad the choices they made, I'd bet against either of them doing what they did because "they so stooopid!!". Clinton was well known as a "details man", while Bush...well, the man gets 90% of what he wants, domestically and internationally, almost everytime. I should be such a bumbling idiot. Perhaps it makes YOU feel better to carry on thinking of them as idiots...in that case I charge for psychoanalysis. Reasonable rates.
Dakota>>
Off the top of my head, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, Kohbar Towers bombing, and the embassy bombings in Africa all happened under Clinton's watch.
glen,
re: that state department chart,
Yes the number of terrorist incidents is down from past years (first chart). But, look at the second chart and you see that the decline is primarily due to the decrease in the number of incidents in South America. I believe the South American incidents are mostly Colombian pipeline bombings: property damage, not killings, and so are simply irrelevant to the real reasons for the War on Terror ™, IMO, and aren't the focus of Bush's attention in any case. In fact, if you ignore the South American numbers, the number of incidents worldwide drops from 154 in 2001 to 149 in 2002: a difference of 5. Now note how many North America had in 2001: 4 (compared to 0 and 0 in 2000 and 2002).
So, unless you're willing to give Bush and the US Republican party credit for keeping the FARC under control in Colombia (which I don't), and if you consider the North American incidents (9/11, anthrax) to be exceptions (which i do), the number of incidents from 2001 to 2002 didn't change much at all.
I see absolutely no reason to think the Ds would be any less capable of reducing the number of terrorist incidents by 5.
The Democrats are losing on two fronts despite the cheerleading and whistilng past the grave evidenced here.
The national security front so well examined here. And the economic front examined here:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/003485.html#003485
What the Democrats fail to realize is that it is time for national unity politics. The most important thing they can do for the country is to protect civil liberties in time of war. In this effort they find significant support on the right.
Despite what the Democrats who have posted here think, Bush's tax cut will jump start the economy in the next 12 to 18 months i.e. just in time for the election.
The economic question has been settled. The security question has been settled. That leaves only civil liberties for the Democrats. To win elections the Democrats will have to move towards the center. As I pointed out in the above url, the Republican social conservatives can live without a government enforced social situation. The Democrats cannot live without government enforced redistribution. Redistributionist policies are falling out of favor all over ther world, not just in America.
I think the idea that the Ds are in for at least a 16 or 20 year hard ride are right on the money. In fact I predict the demise of the Democrats. It is the only way to cohesively restructure the elements of the party that are properly aligned for today's politics.
Trent,
You are missing one really big factor: demographics is destiny. Hispanics are the most rapidly growing segment of the US population and for decades they have never voted for Republican Presidential candidates at more than 36% or 37% and usually less than that.
Karl Rove is naive to think the Republicans can make significant in-roads among Hispanics by supporting amnesties. An ethnic group that does not get as much education and does not get trained in the highest skill occupations at the same rate as whites is going to want government benefits for medical care and other purposes and the Democrats are going to offer them that.
Even in Texas the Republican ascendancy is due to white people voting Republican at much higher rates than nationally. The gap between white and hispanic Republican voting is 20 or 30% (been a while since I saw the figures but it is large).
Poor people are going to place a higher priority on domestic spending than on foreign policy. The growing ranks of the lower classes are going to become Democrats. If you want to see the future of the Republican Party look at California.
Good comments section, as usual. The thing about analysis is that (a) events are not static, and change the playing field; and (b) the more "maybes" one strings together, the less the likelihood of a "yes" at the end.
Lots can happen between now and 2004, let alone 2008. The Democrats are definitely in trouble, for many of the reasons Trent mentions. That said, the generalizations we make about groups of people aren't uniformly true - and in those exceptions lies the potential for changes that could make a big difference. Especially when external events are thrown into the mix.
Chris C. -
Thanks for the reminders, I had the World Trade bombing, but completely forgot about the African incidents and the Cole.
Still, I'm not sure how to blame Clinton OR Bush for terrorist action they have no control over. I'm certainly not blaming Bush for 9-11, but he was president then. I'm sure someone can blame Clinton for all these terrorist events, I just don't see how. It'd be like blaming Roosevelt for WWII.
I disagree.
You heard it here first:
Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry or Graham/Edwards or Gephardt/Edwards or Lieberman/Edwards or Gephardt/Graham will win in 2004.
But I think Edwards will be somewhere on that ticket, barring he doesn't run or some scandal: South Carolina native and North Carolina Senator.
Could be other things like Kerry/Zell Miller.
Look at the vote totals and the electoral college map for 2000. What state that voted Dem in 2000 is going to switch to Repub?
My God, Gore almost won Florida, but for Nader and butterfly ballots. This just after Elian Gonzalez and the Clinton scandals!
My prediction of what's going to happen between now and then:
A deflating economy with rocketing deficits and unemployment;
Real pain in local governments as social programs and educational aid are cut due to lack of federal support
Osama is still going to be free, jumping out once in a while to raise the threat level to orange without any major terrorist attack actually happening.
No Nader - Greens endorse Dems. Even if Nader were to run, he's a spent force. Nader pulled big votes away from Gore in Pac. NW, Cal, Maine, Minn. Gore would have won several states more w/o Nader running
What could happen:
Another preemptive attack on Iran/Syria/North Korea predicated on WMDs being there.
War might help an incumbent to some degree, but too much war might not. The WMD threat, fairly or unfairly, will be viewed ith suspicion.
No conclusive results/improvement/continued conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq.
More estrangement with our old allies in Europe, more opposition to the USA there.
Wild card:
McCain runs as independent.
The economic question has been settled.
My god, really? Yet somehow my state (pick a state, any state) is under a huge budget crisis, meaning all kinds of services (social, transporation, security) are being cut at the local level. Unemployment here (pick a place, any place) is at an 8 year high, there are no jobs, formerly middle-class and upper-middle-class are seeking support services previously required only by the poor and working poor. Yet around here (wherever it is) you can still plainly see that the rich are doing very, very well, and no matter how you spin it it's indisputable that the rich are far and away the greatest beneficiaries of tax cuts. Lining the pockets of the wealthy now and suggesting to the struggling that the excess wealth of the wealthy will somehow tricke down does not a sane economic forecast make.
Yeah, clue, and the Democrats are interested in taxing their way out of those same crises. That's why they'll get hammered on econmics. You can't spend WAY too much of someone else's moeny, then tell them that there's nothing for you to do but take still more of it--and promise not to overspend this time around. Those budget shortfalls can't be pinned on either party, and only solutions matter come election time. The really key point, though, is nationalism, which is at its strongest point in half a century.
As long as people like Chris Hedges are dong anti-American theatrics at graduation ceremonies, and Democratic voters dominate in the flag-burning department, that party is going to have a mighty difficult haul ahead.
You have to spend just a little time on a college campus to see how deep the intellectual rot goes. The view from the leftist brain trust (which, through graft and corruption, amounts to the entire American higher education system) is so steaming awful on defense concerns that the Dems are painted into a corner they can't get out of. Their strategy of funding people and institutions that despise American capitalism and military strength worked just fine as long as we never got attacked at home.
We did. And they're really f*cked now.
clue,
There are eddies in any stream. A certain movement that appears to go against the flow.
When I say the question has been decided I do not mean to say that all vestiges of the struggle have disappeared. What I mean is that we have passed an inflection point.
There are many examples of what the future holds but let me talk Europe. The Germans know they can't grow their economy without cutting the strangle hold labor has on the economy. The French know that their pension funds are destroying their economy. Have they done much about it yet? No. The critical point is that they know the problem. Because of politics it will take quite some time to fix.
But. The hand writing is on the wall.
A.L.
Not a single red zone state of the 2000 election is going to go Democratic in 2004. That is the legacy of 9/11/2001.
The public reaction to 9/11/2001 ratified the 2000 election results in the 2002 election cycle.
The links I posted from Pat Ruffini make clear that Democratic strong holds of New York State, California and New Jersey are all in play and currently lean for Bush versus the entire current Democratic presidential candidate field.
If Democrats are spending heavy advertising money in the last two weeks of the 2004 election in California, New York and New Jersey. Then 2004 will be a something very close to a 50 state wipe out.
The only reason I could see it not being that is that Bush is going for 60 Republican votes in the Senate.
Randell said:
>You are missing one really big factor:
>demographics is destiny.
Too paraphrase an old SEC jingle: "Past demographic performance is not a guarentee of future results."
Both you and the Democratic strategist Texeria (sp?) assume that past demographic trends will go on forever and ever.
The last time we had the current kind of prolonged levels of high immigration was at the turn of the century. It was shut down by a mass movement grass roots political reaction and the shut down lasted from the 1920's through the 1960's.
It has only lasted as long as it has this time due to a coalition of Republican business interests -- primarily agricultural, construction and restraunt industries -- and Democratic political ones.
There is overwhelming grass roots political support for an immigration pause via exerting control of the American borders.
See this poll:
http://projectusa.org/Ezine/03-01-03-06.html
It has only been the veto of the fat cats that has prevented the US government from exercising control of the borders. That and the fact that the general public has not had its vital interests hurt by illegal immigration.
That could change in the next terrorist attack.
Even leaving that asside, for Texeria's theory to work among other things, you have to assume that Republicans will continue to screw themselves nationally. In so many words, they would have to continue to act like California Republicans.
Both you and Texeria also miss a very important point about immigrants and American nationalism.
American nationalism isn't an ethicity. It is a political creed. There is no stronger beliver in a creed than the newly converted. That is the description of an immigrant, someone who wants to be American.
The hyperpartisanship of both the "Hate America First" Democrats and "Hate Bush first" Democrats leaves them blind to the effect of their attacks on Bush's handling of the war for 2004 just the way it did for 2002.
The time beyond 2004 is the subject of my next post.
My father's last hurrah as a California Democratic party operative was to exploit then Governor Pete Wilson's 1994 suicidal anti-immigrant ballot initiatives. Pop spent weeks in D.C. plotting with Leon Panetta, then a Clinton administration official, on how the Clinton administration could use this to totally bury the California Republican party. And he told me all aobut it in loving detail at the time (I'm a Republican) so I could watch my side jumping off the cliff.
And I have a far more extensive political background than that.
The Democrats fantasize about immigrant voting patterns saving them. These guys go conservative once they start to assimilate because they become small businessmen, and Democrat overkill concerning government regulation is poison to small businesses.
The Democrats have made themselves into a rather narrowly based party - one primarily based on government clients of various sorts, primarily government employees (teachers) or those whose businesses depend on government contracts or government regulations (environmental consultants, attorneys, etc.). That is not how to retain the loyalty of immigrant groups.
Trent -
Bet a slab of ribs on that?? My offer stands...
First, it's early 2003 not late 2004, and the one thing I'm suree of is that the next five or ten years are going be very different than we expect.
I do think the GOP will win, but it's because the Dems have a candidate selection process that's fatally flawed. But I think the win will be narrow (58 - 42 or less in the popular vote). And I'll bet on that.
A.L.
AL, As we saw in the last election, in the presidential race popular vote don't mean squat. And that's just how the Founding Fathers wanted it. The key, of course, is putting together the electoral college puzzle. I would suspect that if the popular vote is 58-42 GOP, (or 56-44 or 54-46)it will mean something like a 40 or 42 state sweep for the GOP and that will be a landslide by any political scientist's calculation. But I still believe the Democratic Party sealed its fate in the debate over Homeland Security. Worrying about union job secutiry after America had been attacked made it clear to most Americans (especially the Independents) that the Dems were simply not serious about what had happened. 9/11 really did change everything and cultural and interest group politics now simply sound like the whinning they always were. With such a tin ear and an unwillingness to confront the Clintons (at least Susan Estrich had the cajones to tell them to shut up) the Democrats are headed to minority status for some time. I'm betting at least a generation.
Holy cow. A 16 point popular spread isn't 'narrow'.
The margin of victory essentially depends on whom the Democrats nominate in 2004. Early rumblings would suggest that a deeply non-serious candidate like Dean has a good chance (and Lieberman may be out before he's started due to fundraising issues). In which case: goodbye filibuster; hello Justice Estrada.
2008 looks 'narrow' to me though. Depends on our candidate.
Tom, Look at the historical trends for how long it took various ethnic groups to start voting Repub in significant numbers. The Italians are sometimes compared to the Hispanics as historical parallels and they took literally multiple generations to begin to move toward being majority Repubs (I'm still not even sure they are now though they might be).
As for the Immigration Pause idea: Hey, just because the majority of the populace is for an idea does not mean it is going to happen. The majority have opposed the elite position on immigration for many years without much effect on policy.
Show me data on 3rd generation Hispanics voting for the Repubs in higher numbers than 2nd or 1st generation. I've seen data to the contrary. But I'm willing to be convinced. Also, look at historical graphs of Hispanic voting patterns. There is no hope in those graphs for the Republican Party. In fact, as the Cubans (who were upper middle class immigrants unlike most Hispanic immigrants) become a smaller percentage of the Hispanic voters in Florida even Florida Hispanics are going to become majority Democrats.
The Republican Party is going to become the Rino (Republican In Name Only) Party due to two factors:
1) The aging of the populace. More people will want retirement benefits. Therefore they will vote for tax-and-spend politicians.
2) The growth of Hispanics as a voting segment. They want more social spending than the populace as a whole. Heck, look at the data (sorry, no URL) on Hispanic Republican opinions vs the rest of the Republicans. Hispanic Republicans are to the left of the Republican Party as a whole on social welfare issues.
Look at Hispanic vs white illegitimacy rates, high school drop-out rates, rates of college graduation, rates of medically uninsured and various other measures. They all point toward the Hispanics continuing to be strong supporters of social welfare spending.
I repeat my argument: Demographics Is Destiny. You want to make a contrary argument then show the data.
Who was the last first-term president to preside over 4 years of net job losses, and was this president re-elected to a second term?
Randall,
Your RINO/aging population arguement runs directly into the the 401(k) Mac truck. The investor class is made up of the very people who's investments are hurt by higher government spending.
Your hispanic demographics argument falls apart on the face of two words -- "Cuban-Americans."
As Hispanics get more wealthy, they get more conservative, AKA Republican.
So yes, "Demographics Is Destiny." Just 180 degrees out of phase with what you intended.
Randall,
This was from the Donald Lambro link in the above post:
There is growing fear among Democratic strategists that George W. Bush is making gains in their party's base, especially with minorities and labor. If true, this could be the most important political sea change in America in 70 years.
Donna Brazile, the black turnout specialist who ran Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, has been telling the Democratic National Committee and anyone else who will listen, "don't take African-Americans for granted" because their loyalty is eroding and Mr. Bush is courting them aggressively.
A survey last summer by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which focuses on black issues, found black partisan identification with the Democrats declining. Only 63 percent of black voters now call themselves Democrats, down from 74 percent in 2000. Self-identified independents were up 20 percent. Ten percent now identify with the GOP, up from 4 percent in 2000, as I reported last year.
Notably, internal polls conducted for the DNC in preparation for 2004, reveal similar signs of partisan erosion among younger black voters, a party adviser told me this week.
This slippage is even more evident among heavily Democratic Hispanic and Latino voters. Some 35 percent of all Hispanics voted Republican in 2002, according to postelection surveys. Gov. George Pataki of New York won 50 percent of their vote. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida won 40 percent. Texas Gov. Rick Perry won 35 percent against an Hispanic challenger.
This erosion in the Democrats' base, plus increased Republican turnout of its own voter base, led to Democratic losses in governors and Senate races in Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota and elsewhere.