Republicans Glum As Presidential Race Enters Prime Time
Today, the big political moment has arrived: the 2008 Presidential race now enters political world “prime time.”
Only, this year we’ve had to sit through a seemingly endless array of pilot episodes before prime time even began.
Labor Day is indeed the start of the silly season political race season. And if you take stock, both parties seem on track to nominate feisty candidates, some clear favorites have emerged, two possibilities (one more likely than the other) are waiting in the wings and one party is notably more upbeat than the other.
If you take stock, you get this:
THE DEMOCRATS: After a somewhat unsteady start, New York Senator Hillary Clinton appears the Democratic favorite even with her widely perceived high negatives. The reasons: slick debate appearances, skillful answers, solid funding and a tough campaign organization. Senator Barack Obama at first skyrocketed but seems to have leveled out. Has he peaked? Senator John Edwards has staked out distinctive political turf — but will he (again) be voters’ favorite second choice? And rumors (perhaps wishful thinking?) persist about Vice President Al Gore (who insists he is not running).
The Democrats’ dilemma: find a way to satisfy the progressive base that clamors for a quick end to the war without falling into what some warn is the trap of taking a position that the GOP can use to make the Democrats appear weak on military and security issues. Good news for the Democrats: the polls still show Americans sour on the war.
Toughest trick for the Democrats: how to satisfy its progressive base (particularly the ones who want to purge the party of those who go along with the White House on some votes) and not lose voters who ARE sympathetic to the DLC — voters who dislike the Republicans’ job performance or polarization but are not fans of filmmaker Michael Moore and activist Cindy Sheehan.
THE REPUBLICANS: After a rocky start, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani seems to be fulfilling his long-predicted potential as a long-predicted GOP front runner. Likely reasons: his 911 aura, his skills (rusty at first) on the stump and a solid campaign organization. Arizona Senator John McCain’s campaign is now operating mostly on life support, the Senator’s charisma and the Senator’s ego. Massachusetts’ former Governor Mitt Romney is coming on strong with a slick if gaffe-prone campaign but there are continued signs that some Republicans may balk at him due to his religion.
The Republicans’ dilemma: How to keep the base and not repudiate or insult President George W. Bush but not appear to offer “Bush 44″ for 2008. GOPers must cater to their conservative base (just as Democrats must cater to their progressive base) to win the primary. But Republicans now face a double whammy come election: being punished for being too close to George Bush and being rejected by independent voters who are turning thumbs down on Republicans in polls in increasing numbers.
Toughest trick for the Republicans: How to distance themselves enough from Bush and offer a “wide stance” (ideologically speaking, that is) while not having social conservatives stay home.
And attention paid to national politics (and to weblogs) will be a lot more as of today. Via CNN:
“Think of this as prime time. It’s sort of been off-Broadway. Now, this is the real thing,” says CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley.
“In the past, Labor Day has been the traditional kickoff to the campaign, but the 2008 race for the White House really began the day after the 2004 presidential election,” chimes in CNN Political Editor Mark Preston, adding that now “each and every campaign stop counts. Most of the candidates will be spending their time in the key early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”
And, because of that, just about all of the presidential candidates are out on the trail this long holiday weekend, reaching out to voters and hoping for headlines.
One question CNN raises: will history repeat itself in the race for the GOP nomination?
Giuliani took over the top position in the national polls from Arizona Sen. John McCain at the beginning of the year, and he’s held the top spot ever since.
In the modern primary era, the Republican candidate in the top spot the September before the primaries has won the nomination. But there are questions about whether that will hold this time around. Giuliani is a moderate Republican whose views on crucial social issues differ from conservatives who dominate the Republican primaries.
“The punditry and the reporters in general, the politicos, have always had a hard time looking at Rudy Giuliani and his moderate-to-liberal social views and seeing how he can fit into a primary where the conservatives vote. Nonetheless, the Giuliani people think that what has happened in this election cycle is that people are far more interested in security and they view that as the strong point,” says Crowley.
But then there’s the Fred Factor.
Has actor and former Senator Fred Thompson (reportedly working out hard each day at a gym reportedly because he believes it’s vital to look and be fit to run — which means Al Gore ought to forget it this year) blown it by waiting so long to enter the fray?
Have GOP voters had time to adapt mentally to a President Giuliani? Thompson’s supporters say he isn’t too late and his timing is masterful. Others (including some who supported him earlier) think he is too late and now has virtually no leeway for any error since he must hit every note correctly in record time.
But a major cloud is now looming over the GOP: the Bush administration.
And columnist Robert Novak reports it is having an impact:
As measured by offices held, Republicans have been in much worse shape during my half-century of reporting in Washington. The party was a mere remnant after the Democratic landslides of 1958, 1964 and 1974. But never have I seen morale so low. While Republican support for an unpopular war has remained remarkably strong, almost all the non-war news during the dreary August recess has been bad for the GOP. The hope is that the eventual elevation of a presidential candidate will revive the party’s spirits.
The week before Labor Day, when nothing of importance was supposed to happen, brought bad news even as it appeared nothing worse was possible.
Novak (who has excellent GOP and White House sources) rattles off several big problems for Republicans:
1. The resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig:“If so many people knew Craig was an accident waiting to happen, why was he not eased out of office? How many other examples of possibly scandalous behavior are known but hidden?”
2. Virginia Senator John Warner’s announcement that he won’t seek re-election. “Republicans privately estimate that this is one of four Senate seats they will lose, giving Democratic leader Harry Reid a real working majority.”
3. “Rep. Rick Renzi, facing an FBI investigation, announced he would not seek a fourth term in a highly competitive northern Arizona district that could go Democratic.”
4. “Most of the dwindling contingent of Republican governors have abandoned conservative principles to embrace the Democratic-sponsored extension of SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) to people who are neither children nor poor.”
He notes some of what we’ve covered on Giuliani and Romney and ends his piece this way:
Past candidates have succeeded in pointing to corruption in Washington, but always by the opposite party. The Republican Party’s next leader faces a more complicated problem.
Another complication:
The report on the “surge” in Iraq will soon come out. If the report is, as expected, largely positive, it will likely result in essentially a stalemate of the existing political scene. People against the war will reject it and question its veracity. People who strongly back the war will say it proves the surge is working. Some Republicans who are nervous and seem ready to jump ship may balk (for a while).
But anything short of a turnaround in the status quo for the Republican Party in terms of war support will likely be a big and increasing handicap in 2008.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “Republicans Glum As Presidential Race Enters Prime Time”
You left off three things.
1. The Democratic candidates for president have decided to take a hands off approach to Senator Clinton. They cannot find a way to separate themselves from her. If allof the candidates look and sound the same, voters will just go with the name candidate.
2. If the Republicans spend too much time and effort on the Presidential Election, they will get crushed on the down ballot election. The Democrats are getting close to getting 60 seats in the Senate. The Demcorats should easily pick up more than five seats in the Senate and if they get to 58 or 59, the Democrats could then flip a moderate Repubican (like Specter) to get to 60 seats. Also, since Giuliani or Romeny will have a negative impact on down ballot races, it could get much worse.
3. With the currnent demographic trends in the U.S., the long term prospects for the Republicans are horrible. Thus, the Republicans will have more problems in candidate recruitment, fund raising, and reelecting incumbents with every election cycle.
[...] Efron Republicans Glum As Presidential Race Enters Prime Time » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
I think Joe’s correct that the report is going to make no progress at all. If it says that we’re going nowhere fast, the left will embrace it as proof positive that we need to get out now. If it says that we’re making progress, the left will call it a whitewash. Ditto the general public, whose view will be predetermined by their exosting view on the war.
Warner’s departure is only problematic if the GOP can’t field a candidate who can win Virginia, a dubious proposition at best, given that even after everything George Allen did wrong in that campaign, he lost by half a percent. This by no means suggests that a Democrat can’t win Warner’s seat, but it’s even further from suggesting that it’s a done deal. I’m not sure I buy Novak’s idea that the departures of Craig and Renzi are a bad thing – their departures, seen as forced, can be sold by the GOP as a party engaged in cleaning house. It would be far, far worse for them to remain on the ballot with a cloud hanging over them.
I mean to say that the report is going to make no progress in moving the domestic debate. Sorry, that wasn’t clear in hindsight.
What would be problematic for the GOP in Va is a Mark Warner/ Jim Gilmore race for the Senate seat, as former governor Warner eclipses former governor Gilmore (the Republican likely candidate who has already expressed interest) in popularity.
It seems as if my most dreaded of Presidential choices are becoming more and more likely to be the nominees, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
That just goes to show that Americans are fine with panderers.
My only hope is that both parties start to attack both of them. So far they have been given pretty easy passes by the opposing parties and their own party candidates aren’t willing to break out the big guns yet.
I do think this WILL happen. Those skeletons can only be kept in the closet for so long when people are desperate.
Don’t be surprised to see Tier 2 candidates do some kamikazee runs at the leaders in order to get a place at the table for one of the people behind the top guys.
kritter said,
“[E]clipses” in terms of polls conducted now, or in terms of popularity while they were governor? I don’t think either of those are helpful; a U.S. Senator is not a state Governor, and it by no means necessarily follows that a vote for one will transfer to the other (I have some hope that comprehension of basic civics is not yet lost on the electorate). And opinion polls, as I’ve said many times, “are worthless…. [T]he only meaningful polls are elections … [b]ecause opinion polls are choice without consequence. Only when actual consequences are at stake and an opinion expressed through a ballot box do you know what someone really thinks.” It seems to me that the Virginia GOP need to put up a credible candidate with statewide stature and appeal, and Gilmore would by no means seem the worst possible choice.
I have to disagree, Simon. George Allen won his senate seat after a successful term in the Virginia governorship. Many governors go on to the US Senate- as the state-wide recognition gives them a huge advantage over lesser known candidates.
Virginians are more likely to elect a centrist candidate like Warner, than a right-wing conservative like Gilmore, who was not popular as governor.
BTW, I wasn’t quoting any particular polls- I dont’ know that the two have been matched in the media yet. I would wager that Warner would win over Gilmore, because of their records in office. I definitely think the GOP should be worried about this seat, as only John Warner would have been a sure bet for them at this point.
And yet they came within half a percentage point – less than 10,000 votes in a state with 5,521,454 (75.3% of 7,332,608) persons over 18 – of reelecting George Allen, who by most accounts is more conservative than Gilmore and far more gaffe-prone. OTOH, if your point’s that they would do better to field a more moderate candidate with statewide stature, I can subscribe to that much.
I certainly agree that governors can go on to the Senate (I’m from Indiana, so we know all about that!), but I think that’s mainly a function, as you point out, of their gaining statewide name recognition and reputation as a result of that office, rather than because people assume that a person who’s a good governor will be a good senator. This isn’t a precise parallel but it’s a reasonably good fit: The American electorate has repeatedly shown itself acutely aware of the difference between the legislator’s skillset and the chief executive’s skillset, in its routine (almost invariable) rejection of Presidential candidates from legislative backgrounds in favor of executive experience.
I agree that the skill sets are different. Some governors, who were movers and shakers in leading their state, get bored and restless with the slow and unproductive pace of the US Senate. I didn’t say that I thought that Warner would be a great Senator, just that he would have no trouble winning. Many of the GOP politicos seem to believe the same.
Actually, although Gilmore has expressed interest in running, Warner has left his options open. I’m assuming, given Warner’s aborted run for the presidency, he’s still interested in public service, but he’s a hands-on manager, so he could hate the Senate.
The question is whether or not the Republicans are going to be able to run hard right during the primaries and then get away with shifting their positions later. In spite of what some conservatives are claiming the Democrats aren’t having to run that far left because so much of the population is sour on the war. They also aren’t thrilled with how the economy is treating them personally. All the numbers cited to support the idea that the economy is going great really doesn’t say that much about how the average American sees it. Real income increases aren’t that great and even that number in the end doesn’t account for take home pay if their share of health insurance costs have been going up. The tremendous variability in gas prices does nothing to help people feel secure and neither do increases in utility bills. The knowledge that even if they have health insurance they could be bankrupted by a serious enough illness is another factor. Most people don’t like feeling insecure economically. They don’t like the idea that long term trends might make their children worse off than themselves instead of better off. When all of the existing factors that contribute to these feelings are combined, even if not in consciously, the winner take all free market approach that Novak is really supporting in his 4th point doesn’t appeal as much as it might have once. It’s not only Iraq that has so many people saying that the country is going in the wrong direction. Apparently the Republican base hasn’t caught onto this yet.