Headed For Disaster?
Dick Morris thinks so based on his latest column for Jewish World Review. This flies in the face of Michael Barone’s article from earlier this week. Let me say at the outset that Morris and Barone are heavyweights in terms of election analysis. I’ll admit, though, that when push comes to shove between these two, I’ll side with Mr. Barone most often. Let’s compare their comments about this year’s midterms. Here’s what Michael Barone said:
Twelve years ago, I was the first in the national press to write that the Republicans had a serious chance to win a majority of seats in the House. That article appeared in the issue of U.S. News that hit the newsstands on July 11, 1994, less than four months before the election. That’s how late it was in the cycle before anyone except Newt Gingrich and his acolytes took seriously the possibility that the Republicans would win control for the first time in 40 years.
———-
In years when voters have shifted sharply to one party, Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1994, the winning parties captured only about half the seats they targeted. So even if the field of contested seats expands as Greenberg suggests, Democrats could take the House only if they picked off half their targets, while defending every one of their own contested seats. But few seats are captured without strong challenger candidates, and while Democratic recruiting has had some successes, it hasn’t produced serious challengers in all these seats.
Here’s Morris’ thoughts on the midterms:
After the Republican Party gets shellacked in the congressional elections of 2006, the wisdom of nominating someone who can attract votes outside the Republican base will become increasingly apparent.
It appears that Morris thinks there’s a huge enough groundswell out in the Heartland to bring Democrats back into power in Congress. Barone, on the other hand, lists a string of reasons why he doesn’t see evidence of that at this point.
Barone says that, even in the midterm landslides of 1974 and 1994, the party winning that election picks up about half of their opponents’ vulnerable seats. Remember that 1974 election happened when Nixon’s resignation wasn’t even 100 days distant. It’s wise to remember that 1994’s Republican landslide happened when the Democratic majority was riddled with one major scandal after another, starting with Jim Wright’s resigning after it was shown that his wife was paid a salary by a Texas newspaper essentially for being the House Speaker’s wife, followed by the House Banking scandal, followed by the House Post Office scandal.
That’s not even counting the destruction wrought by Hillary’s disastrous health care plan.
In other words, 2006 isn’t anything like 1974 or 1994. It’s silly to argue otherwise. Though we hear the Democrats’ claims about the GOP’s “Culture of Corruption” campaign, most serious people don’t take it seriously because Ms. Pelosi’s and Dr. Dean’s claims are so specious that they’re laughed at.
Here’s something else that Barone points out:
Ordinarily in a decade we see a shift in these patterns. Some geographic regions or demographic groups move to one party or the other, or the whole electorate does.
But that hasn’t happened in the past 10 years. In the five House elections starting in 1996, Republicans have won between 49 percent and 51 percent of the popular votes, Democrats between 46 percent and 48.5 percent of the popular votes. Nor have regional patterns changed much. From 1990 to 1996, the nation’s largest metro areas became more Democratic, while rural areas and the South became more Republican. Since then, things have stayed about the same. And this is regardless of whatever problems were facing party leaders like Bill Clinton, Gingrich and George W. Bush.
In other words, demographics matter. Also noteworthy is the fact that Democratic candidates are becoming more and more liberal while more and more Republicans are seen as sharing their constituents’ values better than their Democratic challengers.
Finally, Morris says:
It’s a shame because McCain and Giuliani are the only two frequently mentioned candidates who could actually get elected and defy the likely disaster the GOP faces in ‘08. Giuliani, for his part, is even less likely than McCain to win the nomination. His pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-affirmative-action, pro-gay-rights, pro-immigration positioning is enough to give the party ulcers. The support he now shows in polls he gets just because the party faithful only see him in terms of his splendid 9/11 record.
None of the remaining candidates has a prayer to win the general election, although they are likely party-line enough to win the nomination. But their long histories of party loyalty and fealty to the right-wing agenda will do little to attract the swing voters of the next election: Hispanics and women.
I’ve notice that Morris hasn’t grasped the concept that (a) conservatism works and (b) conservatism is still the dominant force in American politics. Past election results should tell Morris something but it hasn’t. When Morris was Clinton’s advisor, there was a need for Clinton to be seen as less liberal. Morris thinks that a party’s base is nice but appealing to moderates is the top priority.
Finally, in terms of 2008, winning states still matters. At this point, I don’t see a bit of proof that Hillary can flip a single red state, with New Mexico and Iowa being the most likely to flip. That said, I can see New Hampshire flipping back into the red state camp.
Historically speaking, it’s tricky business to ‘harness the power’ of moderates. Appealing to like-minded people, then relying on that expanding base to appeal to others is the most structurally sound strategy.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing