The Democrats’ year

[Mr.Conley]

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10230233

This much is sure. Americans will elect a new president to replace George Bush on November 4th. The election process will be a weird mixture of the old and the new: of flesh-pressing in Iowa and guerrilla warfare on YouTube. The presidential election will dominate the nation’s—and the world’s—attention, though the way the new president governs will also depend greatly on the outcome of the House and Senate elections which take place on the same day.

The primary season will be unusually front-loaded. The citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire will vote earlier than ever, probably in the first half of January. Other states have been tripping over each other to move their primaries forward. The season will also feature a new do-or-die date, February 5th, when a score of states, including giant California, will hold elections. The primaries will then give way to the longest general-election campaign in the history of presidential politics—and the most expensive, too.

It is a golden rule of American politics that every election season brings at least one big surprise. Nevertheless it looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats’ year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray—unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago America was evenly divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%. By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates had raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia and Colorado are all leaning Democratic—Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House.

The betting is that that person will be Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton enjoyed a sustained lead in the opinion polls of 20 points or more over her nearest Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for most of 2007. She proved to be an impressive performer in debates and, to a lesser extent, on the stump, always in perfect command of policy details. She was also supported by the best political machine in the country.

This is not to say that she will be a shoo-in. Mr Obama or John Edwards could make a breakthrough in Iowa (where they are running neck and neck with Mrs Clinton). The Republicans may be able to rally around a “Hillary slayer”. Yet both Mr Obama and Mr Edwards come across as too lightweight (America tried lightweight in 2000 and came to regret it). Al Gore, should he change his mind and enter the race, is a proven loser (except when it comes to Nobel prizes and Oscars). The potential Hillary slayers on the right all have significant weaknesses. Rudy Giuliani, who tops Republican polls, has plenty of skeletons in his closet, including two previous wives and a pack of problematic cronies.

The possibility of Mrs Clinton’s return to the White House will dominate the political debate more than anything. If she wins, she will break all sorts of records. She will be America’s first female president. She will be the first president married to a former president (who will in turn be America’s first male “first lady”). She will be the second Clinton in a row to take the keys to the White House from a Bush. If Mrs Clinton is the candidate elected in November, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot.

The battle for control of Capitol Hill will be even more one-sided than the battle for the White House. The Democrats will comfortably maintain a working majority in the House of Representatives: polls show the public prefer Democratic candidates for the House by 7-12 percentage points. The Democrats will also expand their majority in the Senate from what has been a measly margin (provided by two independents who normally vote with them).
The defence will not hold

The Republicans will be defending 21 seats in the Senate compared with the Democrats’ 12. Several of these will be open seats thanks to a rash of retirements, including Pete Domenici of New Mexico and, belatedly, scandal-soiled Larry Craig of Idaho. They will have much less money than the Democrats. And they will be defending a tarnished brand, thanks to out-of-control public spending, presidential incompetence and a rash of sex-and-money scandals.

Even so, the Democrats will be lucky if they hit the 60 seats needed to give them a filibuster-proof majority. But they will win a majority of six or seven seats (including picking up seats in once-Republican states such as Virginia and Colorado). This will make it much easier for the Democratic president to enact their agenda.

What will this agenda be? The centrepiece at home will be health-care reform. Abroad the focus will be on repairing America’s fraught relations with the rest of the world (Mrs Clinton has already pledged to make her husband a roving goodwill ambassador).

Anyone who expects a dramatic lurch to the left will be disappointed. At least, the Democrats will not march as far to the left as Mr Bush and the Republicans did to the right. Mrs Clinton’s health-care reforms, for example, are modest and market-based. And on foreign policy she has carefully refused either to pledge herself to removing American troops from Iraq or to tie America’s hands when it comes to the problem of Iran. The November election, for all its drama and passion, will usher in a period of pragmatic caution rather than tub-thumping ideology.

This piece roughly correlates with how I think the '08 elections are going to pan out. It seems to me that the Republican Presidential Candidate is going to face several structural issues in the electorate that, in my opinion, almost entirely preclude a Republican victory. The biggest problems I see facing the Republicans as we head into 2008 are namely the widespread dissatisfaction with the current President,the tainted image the Republican brand now associates with candidates, the mass defection of business minded voters and donors to the Democratic party- as evidenced by the huge sums of money the Democrats are raising- the general sense of alienation among Christian conservatives, the leftward shift in Ohio along with several other key Republican states and the conservative contest to see who can piss off the Latino vote the most that seems to have obliterated the Republican gains of the Bush years within that group.

The situation only gets worse when we shift the lens to Congress. While the Republicans might be able to minimize the damage in the House, I can't see anything but a rout in the Senate.

 

[midcan5]

I agree, but I am hoping for Edwards or Obama, frankly I see Hillary as more of the same. Hope I am wrong.

 

[JimH52]

I see the major GOP problem as them not having a far right neo candidate. Look at who is there as the front runners now. There is Rudy who is a social liberal. There is Mitt who also leaves the neos shaking in their boots. And then there is Huckabee who has tons of skeletons from his term as governor in Ark. McCain is hated by so many in the party, he has no chance. That s something else the GOP can thank gw and rove for.

Whoever finally gains the GOP nod may have a third party candidate arise from those left behind. That will give the Demos a free ride to the WH. Remember, Bill won his first term primarily because of Ross Perot stealing conservative votes from Bush Sr. I see that happening again but this time with Hillary (who I see as the eventual Dem nominee).

Bottom line, the way I see it. Hillary wins the Dem nomination and WH. The Dems gain more seats in Congress. And who can the GOP thank for all that. I squirrel named gw bush who has the IQ of a paper cut. Congrats!

 

[Toro]

Anything can happen, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Dems winning the White House, adding 4-6 seats in the Senate and a few more House seats.

 

[trobinett]

Anything can happen, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Dems winning the White House, adding 4-6 seats in the Senate and a few more House seats.

Hey, I know, this is what's called a "circle jerk", you boy's go right on, no worries here.