« Hillary Clinton Urges Divided Democrats Not To Vote For John McCain
Wright’s Comments Show That the Stain of Antisemitism Remains »
Despite Democratic Primary Divisions Democrats Have Good Long Term Prospects
Right now the conventional wisdom is that growing party divisions due to the bitter battle between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama seem to suggest the Democratic party’s outlook for regaining the White House is increasingly iffy. But is that accurate?
The Christian Science Monitor says no. In an article, the Boston-based newspaper suggests that although the Democrats are getting battered beating each other up, the party’s long-range prospects are not bleak at all. It first provides the political context, which includes this:
Both Clinton and Obama are taking a hit in their poll numbers. Clinton, fresh from the embarrassing revelation that she had misremembered landing under sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia in 1996, is now viewed positively by only 37 percent of voters, according to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Obama’s positive rating has held mostly steady – now 49 percent in the same poll – but following the flap over his former pastor, his image as a uniter has declined. A CBS poll shows 52 percent of voters believe Obama would unite the country, down from 67 percent last month.
Perhaps most alarming for the Democratic Party, several polls also show that at least 20 percent of Democrats would vote for Senator McCain in November if their preferred Democrat does not get the nomination. If such a high defection rate were to hold all the way to November, that could hand the election to McCain.
“A lot of this is fallout from this dragging on too long and from open sores that are smarting,” says John Zogby, an independent pollster. “It’s going to be difficult healing these wounds.”
But Staff Writer Linda Feldmann points to a variety of factors that indicate the Democrats as a party are perhaps now being underestimated by the latest media conventional wisdom. She quotes TMV favorite Larry Sabato, one of the most reliable political analysts around:
Of course Democrats are concerned,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “They’d love to have a nominee organizing for the fall. And they are concerned about the vicious things being said back and forth.”
Still, he adds, “I’ll bet you a dollar to your dime that the Democrats come back together and unite behind their candidate…. In the end, it’s the big things that matter. People will vote on the economy and the war and their feelings about President Bush and their feelings about the two candidates, period.”
And some of the positive factors for the Democrats are noted:
–The Democrats’ huge fund-raising advantage over the GOP.
–The Democrats’ record turnout during the primaries.
–Democratic registration in Pennsylvania:
The news this week that Democratic voter registration in Pennsylvania has surged to record levels, more than 4 million, compared with Republican registration of 3.2 million also bodes well for the Democrats. Some of those new “Democrats” are reportedly Republicans who plan to vote for Clinton to keep the Democratic nomination race going, but analysts say mischiefmakers are not a large part of the total. The registration numbers out of Pennsylvania “may be the most underrated news of the week,” says independent pollster Del Ali.
–Voter self-identification now works against the GOP:
Nationwide, voter self-identification also shows a major tilt toward the Democrats. According to the Pew Research Center, voters who call themselves Democrats or independents who lean Democratic now outnumber Republicans and Republican leaners by 14 points – 51 percent to 37 percent. That’s up from just a three-point gap four years ago. The wider voter-ID gap is a result of declining identification with the GOP, not a rise in identification with the Democrats.
Put it altogether and there still seem to be built in advantages for the Democrats. The Democrats’ biggest problem continues to be the solid appeal McCain has for many independent voters — even some who don’t agree with him on the war issue.
But the biggest advantage the Democrats will have is the fact that after some 8 years of the Bush administration, the Iraq war, and the decimation of the American economy there will likely be many voters who don’t have blogs or run talk radio shows who’ll decide it is simply time to “throw the bums out” and get a new bunch of bums in to try and fix the problems.
These are the voters who won’t be voting to follow the bidding or Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or any bloggers but to get some new eyes in the White House, rather than get an administration drawn from the same party that has been in charge for most of the past 8 years.
Perhaps we should call them The Big Broom voters — because their goal will be to sweep the government clean and put a new crew in.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Despite Democratic Primary Divisions Democrats Have Good Long Term Prospects”
It is more accurate to speak of mid-term prospects here.
In the long term, it may be far better for the GOP if the Democrats sweep the board in November (not for the US but for the party).
My Paradigm:
In the UK, the Conservatives have for years moaned about John Major's surprising victory over Neil Kinnock after deposing Margaret Thatcher. Many wish they had lost.
At the time this win seemed great. Problem was: Major got stuck with an economy that was tanking…a pound that got hammered and had to humiliatingly leave the Eurozone…and worst of all: Kinnock resigned, to be replaced by a chap who died…and then came Tony Blair.
Blair had Obama magic…but he was the real deal! Machiavellian and charismatic. He came in when the economy was recovering…hammered the Conservatives (and his own Looney Left) mercilessly year after year…and the Conservatives have been in the wilderness ever since.
Long term: If Obama beats McCain…he is stuck trying to fix a battered economy with an untested economic team…he will have to raise taxes to fix the deficit with a Democratic Senate and House (GOP Senators mocked Obama's economic plan by tabling legislation mandating all of it TWO WEEKS ago. Reid shut it down)
Worst of all: the Vietnam helicopter on the embassy moment will come on President Obama's watch! A Democrat…elected on an immediate withdrawal plan that will accelerate civil war…presiding over a humiliating withdrawal (American troops will, of course, be under fire all the way — and if you know anything about retreats in military history, they can be brutal).
Bad for the US, undeniably. But a clean Democratic sweep in the Fall could be long term GOLD for the GOP.
To marlowcan's comment, if people are trying to become leaders in government for the right reasons — because they want to affect history and change the way their country behaves and not in order to keep the right party on top — then they have to want to be in power in the difficult times. Perhaps it will be rough on the party in the longer term, but that is supposed to be less important than effecting what they believe is the right thing. As an example, if one believes that getting out of Iraq quickly and providing expanded health care for Americans is fundamentally important, then it is better to gain power and enact those things — and then suffer the consequences — than to wait for a better looking time.
The world is always in crisis.
Excellent comment, Pacatrue. It seems that both parties become corrupt and obsessed with maintaining their own positions of power and the accompanying perks when left in office for too long. No one pretends now that the last 8 years of GOP rule have been about conservative goals, which is why even Republicans may stay home or switch sides in disgust.
Pacatrue said: “Perhaps it will be rough on the party in the longer term, but that is supposed to be less important than effecting what they believe is the right thing…. The world is always in crisis.”
That is an MSM view…they need something to fill the front page after all. The world is not always in crisis. You have to have perspective. (e.g. the 1930s and the Great Depression were a crisis that shook the world. The 1990s were years of milk and honey).
kritt11: ” the accompanying perks when left in office for too long.”
I would add the very good long-term news that the Hastert-era GOP “pigs at the trough” are retiring in droves. The GOP also under Gingrich pushed through term limits. The longest serving Congressional figures are invariably Democrats, who have been at the trough for decades in many cases…their seniority blocking new people and new ideas from below.
I was advancing an argument…based upon the British Conservative experience…as to why in the “long term” a Democratic sweep in 08 could be great for the GOP. There is a risk in this, of course.
A President Obama could be a new FDR, a titan who grasps the challenge of a difficult period and makes the country better for it.
More likely: Based on Obama's 130 “Present” votes whenever a controversial issue appeared in the Illinois senate…Obama has no inclination for the tough decisions that will be necessary in the next few years.
The result: Disillusionment across the Left, as Obama gives nice speeches about race, and nothing much else happens. Cheering across anti-American Europe as the US retreats with its tail between its legs. Furious spinning by liberals as to why this is a wonderful thing.
Then the images of insurgent RPGs taking down the last lonely US Black Hawks leaving Iraq. President Obama gives another wonderful speech about race.
As I said: Bad for the US. Long term gold for the GOP.
Marlow- Political good news is cyclical. The Dems are in the up cycle due to the dismal performance of the GOP. The numerous open seats combined with lower enthusiasm for the party may just usher in a veto-proof majority for their opposition, as they strain to defend dozens of open districts.
Gingrich pushed thru voluntary term limits which few or none observed once the terms were up! They were pretty much a joke. The speaker himself was driven out by his own party before he was ready to go.
The most likely scenario for the Republicans is to become irrelevant on the national scene just like they are irrelevant in places like Maryland today. Ajn Obama administration aided with Democratic majorities in both houses will be able to put millions of illegal aliens on a path to citizenship so that they will automatically vote Democratic, will be able to pass another around of campaign finance reform so that left leaning NGO's and blocks will gain power, and will be able to give entitlements to millions of more Americans to create more speical interest groups dedicated to maintain Democratic control.
the republicans had their chance to change American but threw it away for K-street jobs and short term pork. Politics at the national level is quickly resemble politics in the District of Columbia, Maryland, or California.
The real question is what the U.S. be like as a one party state. It is hard to consider the Republicans relevant when their presidential nominee is too lazy to read his briefing books and too stupid to understand them even if he did read them.
SD – There has been opposition for Pelosi and Reid among members of their own party –the Blue Dogs-as well as the GOP since '06. The Democrats are not monolithic, like their GOP counterparts.
If you'd ever been in Maryland, you'd realize that there are conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats here—which is why the state is able to run as a one-party state. We have a Democratic governor who is having difficulty getting his budget approved by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature- they don't just rubberstamp the way Republicans did for 5 years for Bush.
Long-term gold for the GOP can happen ONLY if:
1) Dubyah doesn't do the stupid thing between now and November by going to war against Iran when our military is already stretched to the breaking point.
2) The Far Right doesn't saddle McCain at the GOP convention with a neo-Fascist vice-presidential running mate and platform.
Otherwise, the GOP will be toast for at least a generation.