I have thought for some time now that we are headed back to the 80's.
What I mean is that, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the status quo will prevail in the 2008 elections. The Democrats will pick up some Senate seats (the Republicans have done a horrendous job at attracting candidates, and the Dems simply have more targets). The Republicans will pick up House seats, probably between 5 and 10, but the Democrats will still hold that chamber. (Sorry kossacks, there is almost always a "snap-back" after a tide election. And I have seen little evidence to show that the Dems will duplicate the 1934 election.) And the Republicans - believe it or not - will hold onto the President.
There are some reasons for believing this.
The worst thing to happen to the Democrats in 2006 was that they swept both Houses of Congress. Immediately, their buddies in the media began to trumpet a "historic repudiation" of the Bush Administration. This prompted the Democrats to make the cardinal mistake - they began to believe their own propaganda. My own belief is that the (independent swing) voters in 2006 were angry at Bush about Iraq, which they believe is a pointless war (it isn't, but this is what they believe, largely because Bush has been so inarticulate in responding to this media meme) so they voted to punish him for it. What they didn't do, however, is come out on the Democrats side, and vote for an immediate surrender. They also did this because they "knew this was a free vote" i.e., according to the conventional wisdom, the Congress doesn't control foreign policy, so the Dems "couldn't" really do anything about Iraq. They could only punish Bush, through oversight and subpoenas. But after the election, the Dems began to meddle where they didn't belong (i.e., foreign policy), as they began to do everything they could to cause our defeat in Iraq (other than the one constitutional thing they can do, which is stop the funding). The swing voters, and the Democratic base, began to get angry - the former for reasons I already explained, and the latter because the Democrats stupidly got their base believing that they (the Democrats) could actually end the war, which they simply can't do, without Republican assistance. So now we have the situation we have now, where there is a pox on every one's houses, with low approval ratings for both.
But this is not all. Americans, as everyone knows, favor divided government. And the easiest way to keep divided government in 2008 is to vote Republican for President. It is "conventional wisdom" that the Dems have a lock on the Congress today; thus, the swing voters can only go right in the Presidential race if they want to prevent one party from sweeping the election. With the pox on both sides mentallity in place, this is most logical vote for them.
Plus, there is the Hillary problem. Hillary is still the most likely nominee for the Democratic party, and yet she is incredibly unpopular with both Republicans and the swing voters. But in the Democratic primaries, she leads in the polls, has the best organization, and is very controlled - she will make few mistakes. Perhaps her greatest strength is her (and her husband's) utter political ruthlessness - Obama and Edwards don't have much of a chance. (I feel bad for Obama, who although a liberal, seems like a principled, nice man.) So she will probably win the nomination. This leads her to the general election, where she will be the distinct underdog, as all the polls currently show. The Republicans hate her - they will come out to vote against her in droves. The swing voters dislike her, as she is known for her corruption, and has a shrill and mean personality, so they will swing against her. (No, it is not simply that she is a woman - have you guys seen her on tv?) The Republican will be either Fred, Mitt or Rudy, with an outside chance of McCain. Any one of them should beat her. Fred and Mitt both come across as presidential and pleasant; Mitt's major problem is still his religion. (This is simply a fact people; it is not my problem with him.) Rudy comes across as a born leader, although a meanie - still, as an executive he has more experience, and the mean factor will cancel out. (McCain can beat her too, although he seems unlikely to make it that far.) In other words, Hillary can only win if she manages to beat the hell out of the GOP nominee, even while escaping his own counterattacks, and she is also able to capitalize on his unforced mistakes. This is tough to do (but not impossible).
This leads us back to the 1980's, where the Republicans had a "lock" on the Presidency, and the Democrats had a "lock" on the Congress. That is what I think will happen in 2008.
|