Home | Away

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

As for the Democrats . . .

I’ve been blogging for about six months now (at Public Intelligence), but with nothing like Michael’s readership.  I get so few comments that I have almost always responded to every one.  Plus twenty-five years of teaching have programmed me to praise and reply to everything anyone ever says in reaction to something I’ve said.

So I’ll confess to being a bit overwhelmed.  All of the comments have been so interesting—and it always fun to play these speculation games about future campaigns.  For the nonce, I’ve decided to plunge ahead.  But my opinions are changing in relation to your comments—and that will be reflected in future posts.

The last commentator, Dirty Donkey, has called my bluff correctly.  The claim that I would identify the Democratic nominee with the same (only partly feigned) chutzpah with which I anointed Jeb was bluster.  I thought the pressure of a deadline (it’s worked miracles for me in the past) might prove my salvation yet again.  But . . .

The Democrats face a familiar problem—the same one they faced in 1960, 1972, 1976, 1992, and 2004 (just to stay within my lifetime).  They are on the outs—and one of the consequences of being on the outside is that you’ve got, as one commentator put it, a very thin bench.  Very few of your people have a track record—or a national profile.  (The Republicans, of course, were in that spot in 2000—but they could turn to a family name and run the callow W.)

1972 doesn’t really count because the Dems were expiating the sins of ‘68 more than they were looking to win the national election.  McGovern’s nomination was all about keeping the party from disintegrating altogether.  So if we go by the other four elections, twice the nomination went to Senators from Massachusetts and twice to Southern governors.  (And it’s nice to recall that the Dems won three of those four elections.)

I agree with the various people who have pointed out that governors fare better than Senators.  And I think it is safe to say that neither Senator from Massachusetts will be the nominee next time.  No Adlai Stevenson moment here.  Kerry can start growing the beard and have his agent working on a SNL guest host spot now.  I just pray Kerry won’t run, so we will be spared the unedifying spectacle of erstwhile mates Kerry and Edwards going at it in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democrats are harder to predict because the party is so much less centrally controlled than the GOP and because it needs to find its identity as well as its candidate.  Of course, the perfect candidate will prove his or her perfection by being the face of an identity the party can both embrace and present in a coherent, forceful way to the nation as a whole.

I actually think Edwards could be that candidate. Undoubtedly, I will live to regret venturing such a positive statement about any politician—especially in a forum as public as this one.  I will resist the immediate temptation to list all his faults, so as to prove that I am not naïve.  I’ll just leave it that he is certainly a front-runner at this point and that his understanding of the economic realities (i.e. hardships) faced by the vast majority of Americans on a daily basis is everything I would hope for in a Democrat.

I think the Democrats will be too terrified of Hilary Clinton’s negatives to nominate her.  Even though the “electability” strategy didn’t work in 2004, I think plenty of Democratic primary voters will still pursue some version of that approach. 

So the field is wide open for dark horses—especially for governors like New Mexico’s Richardson or Virginia’s Mark Warner.  I don’t think any of the senators—from Biden to Feingold to Rockefeller —has much of a chance, but that hardly means it couldn’t happen.  And there’s always the savior from way outside, a fantasy particularly appealing to a party on the outs that also lacks any obvious standard-bearer.  The Democrats may well look for their version of the Governator.  Bill Cosby gets mentioned. We may even hear Colin Powell fantasies again.

Can the Democrats win?  I’ve already discussed the Electoral Map problems, which are really another way of saying that the South, as it has through much of American history, holds the balance in national elections.  That’s why a Southern candidate is always so attractive, although it is worth noting that Edwards didn’t help Kerry one bit in the South or anywhere else last time, and that, even at the top of the ticket, he would face an uphill battle just winning North Carolina no less any other Southern state.

Even more daunting is Kevin Drum’s recent report that only 18% of the electorate characterizes itself as liberal, as contrasted to the 30% who call themselves conservative.  The more surprising fact is that those numbers have not changed much in thirty years.  So the Democrats have won in the face of those numbers before—and they will again (even if not necessarily in 2008).

The Democrats need to run a hard-hitting and very well-focused campaign; they have to bring home to the public how the Republicans have overreached; and they have to articulate their vision of an America that doesn’t screw the middle and lower middle classes.

More on this last topic when I return at the beginning of next week.

Posted by John McGowan on 05/18 at 08:22 PM
(40) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages