How the Democrats could lose EVERYTHING
How the Republicans could win EVERYTHING
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Democratic National Convention — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Richard Cohen is not a political strategist, but in June of last year, he penned this column: How the GOP Could Win. He has since become impressed with his work – "The Post's 10th most e-mailed column of 2007" – and has ventured another: How the Democrats Could Lose. It is '72 all over again, he insists, though "John McCain lacks Nixon's raw talent for hypocrisy." Basically, he has it that McCain has to hang on to the surge and its "limited success," while painting the Democrats plan to surrender.
Cohen credits Mitt Romney with inventing, in his gracious speech leaving the GOP nominating contests, with inventing McCain's plan for campaigning on this matter:
Referring to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Romney said, "They would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequence of that would be devastating."
Romney's right, but McCain was saying it looking before that. It is part of the GOP message, Mr. Cohen, and it's obvious that we mean it.
Read On…
But this is all basic stuff that many of us have argued repeatedly without the odd comparison to '72. But the '72 analogy goes further in Cohen's mind.
Back in '72, the Democratic Party was split between doves and hawks, reformers and stogie smokers -- even between men and women. The result was a national convention that was boisterous, unruly and ugly to look at. That convention might, however, look like a tea party compared with what could happen in Denver this August.
I'm with Doug Wilder, in that we could be looking at a 1968-Chicago do-over for the party of McGovern, Humphrey, Clinton, and now, Obama. (Note, I used the term "do-over" because I consider it to be applying liberal amounts of salt to an infected wound.)
Cohen has an idea:
At the moment, no one can figure out how the Democrats are going to get a nominee. What the party needs is someone like George Mitchell, a senior figure of trusted wisdom who might be able to do what Howard Dean, the party chairman, clearly cannot -- avoid the train wreck everyone can see coming.
George Mitchell is well-known for bringing "peace" to Northern Ireland, but if you can call it peace, Hillary says it wasn't Mitchell who brought it; rather, it was her, Hillary, the Once and Future Co-President. (There are a few questions about this tale, but just like the movies, we can't believe everything we hear from her campaign.) I guess that theory is shot to bits by Hillary's 2nd place jughead-eranaut.
The Republicans could win this election. The Democrats could lose this election. Either way, it will be a combination GOP victory and Dem defeat. They'll blame Client no. 9 and live to whine and obstruct, and to get really angry, another day.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Conservatives vs. the GOP in Georgia — Comments (29) »
How the Democrats could lose EVERYTHING 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I wish I shared your optimism. But I'm still relatively convinced that we're going to get our rear ends kicked in November.
They've outraised us by about 3-1. They're drawing gobs more voters to the primary polls. And the economy seems to be headed in a direction that will make it the major issue -- which, in this case, favors the out-of-power party.
Meanwhile, a lot of Republicans are less than enthused about our candidate....to the point where he gets only 56% of the vote in the last challenged primary, well after he became the presumptive nominee.
I hate to be such a downer, but I'm thinking we're looking at about a 12-15 seat gain in the House for the Dems, a 4-7 seat gain in the Senate, and an 8-10 point Dem win in the presidential election.
I'd love to be convinced otherwise with something other than wishful thinking.
The power of the silent majority. There are plenty of people out there that don't donate to campaigns, don't participate in primaries (Democrats always have higher turnouts in theirs regardless of the situation), and don't care much about ideology (Nixon wasn't exactly a darling of the conservatives, either).
What they do care about is the nation being strong and not weakened. And they're perfectly capable of seeing through rose-tinted smoke clouds of defeatism and siding with a hard-nosed warrior. It happened in '72 and it can happen in '08.
I mean '72 not that McCain will win 49 states, he won't, but I think there are similarities in the sense that:
A. The D's are extremely divided, and look to be on their way to a really messy convention.
B. FAR too many of them are accidentally showing who they really are, i.e. Geraldine Farraro saying today that Obama wouldn't be anywhere if he were white. That won't go over well with black voters. That's gasoline on the fire.
C. They might nominate someone based on his opposition to a war that's already going on.
D. Conservatives didn't like Nixon, but they were still less divided then the D's, and most of them sucked it up and voted for him regardless of how loudly they protested.
Perhaps it's more like 1968 in that it'll be very close but with a Republican victory. Basically, the thing I'm getting at is the D's are tearing themselves apart, and are doing things based on opposition to American victory. That has done VERY poorly historically.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
They've also outspent us by about 3-1 and see where their candidates are at, and that is why they have @ 3mill and we have @30 mill right now
The real fundraising advantage is by Hillary and Obama. This is all primary money. And as you say, they have little to show for it. Are they tapping out their source before the general? Will they have what then need THEN?
On the other hand, the Republican donors have largely been sitting on the sidelines. Of course, they may stay on the sidelines for the duration, but I am guessing that their money will come to the table as the season goes on.
Of all the parallels to draw from previous elections, 1972 would be one of the last that would come to my mind.
The fact is we've really haven't seen a situation similar to this: A primary featuring two superstars of their party in a locked battle for the nomination. Whether the Dems come out of this battle energized or worn down remains to be seen. But I don't see much to compare '72 to '08, besides the Iraq/Vietnam comparison, which isn't a good comparison anyway.
And I for one thinks that this could affect not just the presidential election, but as well the congressional races, and put the GOP back in power in either the House or Senate.
I doubt it. Nixon's '72 victory had virtually no coattails. He gained 2 house seats and lost 2 Senate seats if I'm not mistaken.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
". What the party needs is someone like George Mitchell, a senior figure of trusted wisdom who might be able to do what Howard Dean, the party chairman, clearly cannot -- avoid the train wreck everyone can see coming."
The problem with this line of thinking is twofold.
1. Whether it is George Mitchell, Sam Nunn, Al Gore, whatever heavyweight they call in, Obama and Clinton look like two quarrelling children who just got scolded by Daddy. Not the sort of thing
2. If either candidate's hard core of supporters comes to the conclusion that their favorite candidate was done in by some nefarious back-room deal the party runs the risk of alienating that group for the general. I've heard a lot of conversation about Obama's base (young voters and African-Americans) sitting home in the event Clinton grabs the nomination, but Hillary's supporters (white women, especially older white women) are just as solid.
Whoops...
Not the sort of thing you want a few months before the convention.
My belief is that regardless of who wins the Donk nomination, the loser's supporters will very difficult or even impossible to reel back in. The depth of animosity for one's group of supporters towards the opposing candidate makes the GOP look rock-solid united.
The high turn out in the Donk primary is based on three main things: Intense support for 'my' candidate, intense dislike for the 'other' candidate, and crossovers that want to stir the pot.
The Donks will have a very messy convention regardless of how the decision finally gets made as they are institutionally ready to cry foul and look for the stolen election. The comfort here is that before we can steal an election from one of them (heh), they have to arrange to have one of their own steal a nomination from the other. Oh, the joy...
Personally, I feel if Iraq wasn't an issue, then both candidates would have found soomething else to slash each other. Democratic Party is too small to contain both rock star personalities.
This is not to say that Democratic Party won't be divided, but that the division is all about personalities rather than Democratic Party's platform.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
I wouldn't count our chickens before they hatch, but I've wondered if it's a possible '72 repeat (although, admittedly, McCain won't win 49 states) for quite a while. A lot of the signs are there.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas