University of Virginia Political Scientist Larry Sabato has gazed into his uncannily precise crystal ball once again — this time to survey the GOP situation for 2008 and here’s what he sees:
- The GOP will have to fulfill certain conditions to win a third consequetive White House term (indeed, history is against it).
- It’s highly unlikely GOP centrist is going to get the nomination.
- If the conservatives felt shut out by a moderate nominee there is a real chance they could bolt and form their own third party.
You can read his whole report by CLICKING HERE. Here are some highlights.
Conditions he says the GOP has to meet in order to win a third White House term:
President Bush must have had a successful second term, with significant policy achievements in several areas.
President Bush must be relatively popular–which for this polarizing president means maintenance of a job approval rating around 50 percent or better in national surveys.
The economy must be fair to good, and the international outlook (terrorism, Iraq , etc.) must be generally acceptable to the American people.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the GOP must nominate a moderate-conservative within the American political mainstream, taking care not to go too far right but also not too far to the left of the dominant conservative activist corps.
Can a GOP moderate get the nomination?
Should a moderate somehow win the GOP nod, say in a split field of conservatives, this political earthquake would likely generate a third-party, right-wing candidacy that could doom the Republican nominee in the fall by splitting the GOP vote. There can be little doubt that conservatives would mount such an effort, arguing that the loss of the White House for a term or two would be worth the lesson to the party for its apostasy. Let us quickly add that, unlike some others and contrary to the early polls, we do not expect any moderate-liberal Republican to secure the nomination in 2008. The GOP base is simply too conservative, and the risks for the GOP of a moderate-liberal nomination would be obvious to most party activists.
Continuity has trumped change more than change has trumped continuity:
Thus, over the past 108 years, continuity has actually defeated change. In the last 28 presidential elections, Americans have opted for the incumbent party 17 times (61 percent of the time). Put another way, there have been 11 handovers of White House power from one party to the other between 1896 and 2004: 1896, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2000. In just five of these cases had the incumbent party served only eight years–the length of time usually thought to be normal between party turnovers. In another five instances, one party had held the presidency for 12 to 20 years before losing it. (Only twice–in 1896 as Democrat Grover Cleveland finished his second nonconsecutive term and in 1980 with Democrat Jimmy Carter–did a party lose its lease on the executive mansion after a mere four years in office.)
The Jeb Question:
True enough, America has had plenty of political dynasties, from the Rockefellers and the Kennedys to the Adamses and the Harrisons. However, no family has been able to secure more than two presidencies, and no family member has ever succeeded another family member. It’s just too much, and Jeb Bush senses it. Had JFK lived to serve two terms, Robert Kennedy might well have tried to capture the family’s third term in 1968–the Kennedys were rumored to have been making plans along these lines–but our bet is that it wouldn’t have happened. Americans have a love-hate relationship with their celebrities, politicians and entertainers alike, and the public is fickle. After all, voters in a nation born of anti-monarchial revolution will naturally recoil from the establishment of a political royal line. After a few years past 2008, Jeb may be a possibility, and who would bet against another Bush serving in the Oval Office at some point in the future?
Which wing of the party is likely to prevail?
The Democrats were divided into liberals and moderates, so we can be consistent by separating the Republicans into moderate and conservative camps. Just as Democrats usually favor liberals, conservatives have a big edge in the GOP….
Sabato believes former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani won’t get the nod because of his liberalism on social issues and John McCain is a maverick rather than a liberal — and GOPers don’t usually like mavericks. He adds:
Other GOP moderates or mavericks are likely to be equally unsuccessful in 2008. New York Governor George Pataki is both too liberal and too boring. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will never overcome the constitutional prohibition on non-native born presidents; the amendment may eventually pass, but not in time for Arnold. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is a McCain photocopy, presumably only in the running if McCain bows out. He has all of McCain’s liabilities, is relatively unknown, and from a small state. Republican activists would be unlikely to nominate any moderate, but if several men of this ideological stripe run, they will simply split the quarter to a third of the party available to a moderate.
The eventual Republican nominee is much more likely to be a conservative, of course. But given the free-for-all nature of the first presidential race since 1952 with no incumbent president or vice president in the contest, in-fighting on the GOP right could be wild and wooly–and debilitating, if not carefully managed.
So if it’s a conservative who will have the edge who does he think has the edge? Read his whole piece to see all the names he considers but Sabato sees one conservative politico as having bright prospects right now: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
Should the Republicans want a solid, smart, experienced conservative with a high likeability quotient, Frist may be the one. The Tennessean is unexciting, but signals continuity. Yet that adjective “unexciting” sends a warning signal about Frist’s chances. Moreover, the conservatives who control the GOP are often unforgiving, and they may well make Frist pay for every legislative loss of the second Bush presidency–not to mention the big-government Medicare prescription drug plan and any backlash resulting from a possible Social Security tax increase.
FOOTNOTE: Sabato has a good track record and his analyses are serious examinations that he and his staff do after exhaustive consideration. You can get the Crystal Ball for free by email by clicking on the link above.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.