Divine Wind
“We need a candidate with name recognition and media savvy, a true leader who will do exactly as he’s told.” - C.M. Burns
By almost any measure the Republican nominee is going to have a rough go of it next year. The reasons are obvious enough but worth restating anyway. First and foremost is the Iraq War which will be killing Americans for little to no purpose throughout 2008; right next to that is the man most directly responsible for the war, a man who has now managed to surpass Richard Milhous Nixon in unpopularity. The biggest hurdle for any Republican nominee will be garnering the enthusiastic support of the ~25% of the electorate that still supports Bush the Younger without alienating more than 51% of the rest of the country. That alone may be impossible and if that weren’t bad enough, the traditional Republican advantage in campaign cash has not only been erased, it’s actually reversed itself. I doubt reliable data exists to prove it, but 2008 will probably be the first time in history that the Republican nominee will not have a financial edge (maybe 1964…maybe). The three issues that are most prevalent in voters’ minds, health care, global warming and the Iraq War, are all Republican negatives. To top it all off, the party’s own Congressional rank and file are voting with their feet and quitting in droves. Let’s be honest about what that means: they see no hope and don’t feel like going down with the ship.
Despite all that the Republican nomination is being fiercely contested for the first time since 1980. Whoever ends up standing on that stage in St. Paul next year is going to do everything he can to keep some terrorist coddling, tax raising, anti-business tree hugger out of 1600. It’s ridiculous to start speculating on the general election already, we don’t know who the Democratic nominee will be, the image candidates present to wintertime primary voters will likely be very different from the one they offer up to the general public in the summer, and a lot can happen between now and next fall, but I’m going to do it anyway. It’s fun and, if nothing else, it’ll provide a baseline by which to judge the nominee four months from now once he’s got his ticket punched.
There are four distinct items I’d like to look at, the first is how well each candidate might repair and make use of Bush’s coalition from 2002/2004. The second is how each candidate can best handle running away from Bush without seeming like he’s running away from Bush. The third is terrorism/foreign policy/war generally and Iraq specifically. And fourth is any particular strengths or weaknesses and how they can be used or mitigated.
The electoral alliance that Bush the Younger had so much success with in 2002 and 2004, and collapsed so spectacularly in 2006, had three main constituencies, social conservatives, financial conservatives/business interests, and people scared of terrorism. Any Republican candidate is going to need to get all three of them back together to even dream of reaching a plurality, much less a majority.
Barring an impeachment, which, sadly, seems less likely every day, Bush the Younger is going to be the President for the entire campaign. He’s a Republican President and in the last eight years has made himself synonymous with Republicans and the GOP. He’s also staggeringly unpopular and not the type to try and soften his image just for the benefit of his would be successor. As in 2006, in 2008 the single biggest problem for Republican candidates, for any office, is going to be identifying themselves as Republicans without triggering the Bush gag reflex that a majority of the population now possesses. Ignoring him and his Administration sort of works in the primaries, where it’s to no one’s advantage to bring him up, but in the general election Bush, his presidency and his policies are going to need to be addressed.
The Iraq War remains the dominant political issue of the day. With it come all the questions about dealing with terrorism, the Middle East, and what kind of foreign policy America is going to pursue. The Republican nominee is going to need a convincing story to tell when it comes to Iraq. It’s a story that’s going to have to be able to withstand bad and unexpected events happening between the rivers while not giving off even a whiff of retreat or defeat. That’s a tall order, but it’s not out of the question.
Finally, each of the potential nominees has his own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to specific issues, general likeability, and past actions, be they mistakes or achievements. In an attempt to keep the word counts from getting too lengthy, and keep me from churning out complete crap, I’m going to split up the field. This Sunday we’re going to look at the long shot candidates and Mike Huckabee, the mightiest of the mites. Next Wednesday it’s going to be John McCain and Fred Thompson, the fallen media darlings. And next Sunday, after Thanksgiving, it’s going to be Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the latter of whom is, in my opinion, likely going to be the nominee.
You’ll notice that Ron Paul is not on this list. I’d love to be able to include him but the simple fact is that his positions are anathema to a majority of Republican primary voters. He represents the libertarian wing of the Republican Party which, unfortunately, is pretty small and long out of favor.
There are no guarantees in politics and as long as the odds look right now, you never know, this time next year we could be gearing up for four more Red years in the White House. Even as I prepare to engage in acts of pundit stupidity, I like to remember an old Saturday Night Live sketch. Nobody has put a video of it up, at least none that I could find anyway, but I did find the transcript. It’s a fake debate between potential Democratic nominees in November of 1991 over who’s going to be the “chump” to lose to Bush the Elder the next year. Al Gore isn’t even in it (Tipper is), and Bill Clinton doesn’t even rate a mention. A year later the two of them were on their way to Washington. Anything can happen.
