Posted on 05/10/2008 11:40:00 AM PDT by The_Republican
First, the good news. Conservatives won a sweeping victory in an enormously important election the week before last. Unfortunately, it happened in England, where Boris Johnson won the race for mayor of London and Conservatives trounced Labour all across the country. Now, the bad news. Prospects for Republicans in the 2008 election here at home look grim. The political environment isn't as bad as it was in 2006 when Republicans lost both houses of Congress and a lot more. But it's close.
The empirical evidence is well known. More than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Democrats have steadily maintained the 10 percentage point lead in voter preference they gained two years ago. And President Bush's job performance rating is stuck in the low 30s, a level of unpopularity that weakens the Republican case for holding the White House in 2008.
There's another piece of polling data that is both intriguing and indicative. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey last month, John McCain fared better with Republican voters (84 percent to 8 percent) than Barack Obama did with Democrats (78 percent to 12 percent). McCain was also stronger than Obama among independent voters (46 percent to 35 percent).
These are terrific numbers for McCain. But they aren't enough. In the overall match-up, McCain trailed Obama (43 percent to 46 percent). The explanation for this seeming paradox is quite simple: The Republican base has shrunk. In 2008, there are fewer Republicans.
"It's the erosion in party affiliation that's pulling McCain down," says a Republican strategist, and it could doom his chances of winning the presidency. The strategist fears Republican leaders and McCain campaign officials "don't realize the trouble they're going to be in."
There have been some improvements in political atmospherics for Republicans. The 2006 midterm election was framed by intense voter dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The 2008 election won't be. The surge of American troops in Iraq hasn't turned the war into a Republican asset, but it's at least blunted it as an effective Democratic talking point.
With scandal after scandal involving House Republicans in 2006, the party became the target of voter fury. Now Democrats control Congress. "The anger against congressional Republicans isn't there," says Republican congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, who is retiring.
Davis, however, thinks Republicans have made little headway in improving their tarnished image. House minority leader John Boehner talks about fixing the Republican "brand." Davis's assessment: "We haven't done anything the last year and a half to re-do the brand." Instead, Republicans have focused on "looking out for the president."
Pollster Frank Luntz, a sharp critic of Boehner's leadership, believes the Republican image has gotten worse. "It used to be that Republicans won [in polls] on economic and values and foreign policy issues," he says. "Democrats won on quality of life. Now Democrats are winning on everything."
The worst news for Republicans in recent weeks has been the capture by Democrats of two Republican House seats in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana. Poorly chosen candidates were responsible for the defeats, Republicans insist. Maybe, but success in special elections usually foreshadows success in the next general election. This was precisely what happened in the months before the 1994 Republican landslide when Republicans won Democratic seats in special elections.
"These special elections are not indicative of what's going to happen this fall," argues House Republican whip Roy Blunt. "I'm not saying they're helpful." He notes that John McCain and Barack Obama weren't the likely presidential nominees six months ago, so the political environment may change in the six months before Election Day. If it does, it's not likely to change much.
Democrats regard the unexpected victories in Republican territory as one more indication of a coming landslide. "There's never been a better climate, since 1932, for Democrats," says Bob Beckel, a Democratic consultant. "And the political environment usually prevails. It's impossible for me to conclude anything other than it's going to be a Democratic year."
Beckel cites, in particular, a huge increase in Democratic voters in 2008 that has widened the party's advantage in registration by millions of voters. "Republicans are facing a surge in new Democratic voters, and they are facing defections in a number of states," he says.
Indeed they are, which is why Republican expectations for 2008 are modest. There are three major goals: Hold the White House, avert sweeping House losses, and keep the Senate defeats to four or fewer.
McCain must overcome a "generic" presidential preference for a Democratic president of 51 percent to 33 percent (in the WSJ/NBC poll). He'll have to appeal more strongly than Obama to independents, moderates, and soft Democrats. The good news for McCain is that 20 percent of Clinton supporters in primary exit polls and other surveys say they'll vote for him over Obama.
In the House, Republicans want to stay within close range of Democrats, who currently have a 36-seat majority. Republicans hold 199 seats. The generic advantage for a Democratic House is 49 percent to 34 percent (again in the WSJ/NBC poll), which shows the headwind Republicans are running against. If the next president is a Democrat, Republicans figure they'll have a chance to win control of the House in 2010, so long as losses this year don't put them too far behind.
Republicans need a minimum of 45 senators to pursue a filibuster strategy and block or alter Democratic legislation. They currently hold 49 Senate seats, but at least 7 of those are in jeopardy this year. Only 41 votes are required for a successful filibuster, but a few Republicans always defect--thus the need for 45.
If the Conservative triumph in Britain last month has any relevance for America, Republicans shouldn't get their hopes up in 2008. It took Conservatives 11 years to recover from their landslide loss to Labour in 1997. The Republican recovery--what there is of one--is less than two years old.
With 3 Democrats to choose from, and NO Conservatives... why shouldn’t things look gloomy?
Things look gloomy because when Gingrich took over the House in the nineties he promised a lot of a new approach. What we got was the GOP controlling earmarks.
Folks remember.
It is gloomy. Alaska will very likely fall to the Ds. Fairbanks will be closing down by this time next year.
These turkeys had better wake up and smell the coffee and the winds of change else they will find themselves looking for a pardon from Thanksgiving dinner by an incoming Democrat president!
Wow! I didn’t know that. LOL! This guy gets the respect these days because he is the official liberal debator on FNC.
Then again, Dick “Toe Sucker” Morris is alway on FNC as well. I share his hatred of Hildabeast, so who am I to point fingers at anyone.
One of the greatest crimes in American political history has to be the squandering of political opportunities by Bush and the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
Shame. Shame on you all.
But more RINOs. That doesn't help the Republican party at all. Folks know the difference between principled men and phony politicians. Proof positive becoming "moderate" does not help your party.
Barnes is mixing apples and oranges. A conservative win in Britain has nothing to do with Republicans here because there are no conservatives in the Republican party. Well, OK, there are a few but they’ve been told to shut up and sit in the corner.
Sigh.
It took Conservatives 11 years to recover from their landslide loss to Labour in 1997. The Republican recovery—what there is of one—is less than two years old.
The two aren’t comparable. The conservatives don’t have a party in the US.
Bush1 began tearing down the Reagan conservative movement and Bush2 completed the job.
Exactly. Reagan wasn’t supposed to happen. As soon as he was out of the picture, the GOP worked at getting things back to normal as quickly as possible.
Would it be safe to say that conservatives in the UK are not nearly as conservative as we on FR are?
Exactly. 40 more years of wandering in the wilderness is more like what lies ahead. Unfortunately, there won't be a country with elected anythings by that time.
Would it be safe to say that conservatives in the UK are not nearly as conservative as we on FR are?
We’re not always so conservative here on FR, but from the somewhat limited knowledge I have, the UK Conservatives are only conservative in comparison to the other parties.
You nailed it.
“One of the greatest crimes in American political history has to be the squandering of political opportunities by Bush and the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
Shame. Shame on you all.”
And as recently as 11/2004, the Republicans were in the strongest position in most anyone’s memory, and perhaps ever. They managed to fritter it away in barely two years.
Well, in Jorge’s famous words: “I have political capital now and I aim to spend it.”
Squandered and frittered it away is much more accurate.
“Bush1 began tearing down the Reagan conservative movement and Bush2 completed the job.”
All too true. Peggy Noonan said it several months ago, that the Bushes are “wastrels” who fritter away political power and influence as if they earned it. They didn’t. They just wasted away what others had earned and built up.
And, to sort of cap off the work of the two Bushes, neither picked a VP who was likely to ever become a strong presidential contender, Quayle because he was an unknown, and Cheney because of health concerns. Neither provided the party with a strong heir apparent, but used the VP spot purely for their own, limited purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.