In two recent articles for the National Review, Bruce Bartlett recommended that conservatives pledge their support for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries. His rationale is that the Republicans do not stand a chance in the 2008 election, and conservatives should thus focus on ensuring that the most conservative Democrat receive the Democratic nomination. “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative”, he says. Saying that “Hillary Clinton is the most conservative” is like saying that Cindy Sheehan is the most attractive amongst herself, Helen Thomas, and Madeleine Albright.

In principle I would not necessarily disagree with his stance. It may be wiser to promote the most liberal democrat, in hopes that this would dissuade moderates towards the Republican candidate in the general election. However, such tactics are only relevant if you believe that the election has already been won by the Democrats. I do not believe this is the case.

While Democrats do have a great deal of momentum, and while the Republicans are “on the ropes”, to a certain degree, the two primary Democratic candidates have severe disadvantages: Hillary is a woman and Obama is black. Traditionally women do not vote for women, and “white flight” is a very major factor for black Democrat candidates.

Democrats…desert their party when its candidate is black… In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black

If Obama were to get the Democratic nod, it could mean a great flight of white Democrats towards a white Republican candidate.

Bartlett goes on to state,

Republicans should remember that they just barely won the White House in 2000 and 2004 against very poor Democratic candidates and with the party strongly united behind George W. Bush. I just don’t see that happening again next year.

The Republicans are not going to be as united, and it is almost a certainty that the Democrats will run a better campaign in 2008. I think all three of the Democrats within striking distance of the nomination will be better candidates than Al Gore or John Kerry

. In 2000 Republicans were hardly united behind George Bush. John McCain had a great deal of support in the primaries. Nonetheless, Bush managed to beat the incumbent Vice President. In 2004 Bush beat Kerry despite a fairly weak approval rating. There is no reason to conclude that the 2008 Republican nominee will experience less support than Bush has had in either 2000 or 2004. The nominee will likely experience greater support.

Frankly, Bartlett is wrong on throwing in the towel. With well over a year before the election it is simply too soon to make any predictions, and certainly too soon to give up on those candidates who will continue to fight the war on terror.

Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket

1. You know…they sound much like the muslims…
   “You’ve lost. Give it up.”

   Comment by suek — May 10, 2007 @ 6:19 pm

2. Say what? Even the weakest GOP candidate is light years ahead of anyone on the left. Guliani for all his left leanings on social issues is fiscally conservative, tough on crime and saw 9/11 up close, so he’s not gonna wimp out on the war on terror. I think Bruce got too close to the kool aid this time…

   Comment by Vegas Art Guy — May 10, 2007 @ 10:16 pm

3. Still, thats a dangerous, and stupid, comment. I can just hear all the nit picky conservatives now that will split hairs next year because Rudy or Mitt or John, or Fred or whoever is not exactly the 100% that they want.

   Mother of God, let’s get real.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — May 11, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

4. The donkeys keep touting last year’s elections as a “mandate against the war.” Let’s look at some uncomfortable (and mostly unreported) facts.

   1) Joe Lieberman was re-elected as an independent by a majority of his state’s voters because of his war stance.

   2) In approximately 14 races, donkeys put up blowhards who SAID they were more conservative and more pro-war than the incumbant RINO, and they all won because they were perceived as more conservative and hawkish.

   3) Because the only way to get an incombant RINO out of office is to defeat him/her in a general election, many disenchanted Republican voters chose to either stay home and not vote at all (dumb!), or chose to vote for the jackass donkey in hopes of getting a better choice next time around. (This third one is opinionated fact, but anectdotely correct, anyway.)

   Given the above, I would guess the donkey spinmeisters are having a field day telling us what flies in the face of reality, as is normal for both the jackasses and the elephants (especially the elephants with short memories who can’t remember whom they supposedly serve.)

   We got rid of some RINO’s last time, and I suspect we’ll get rid of some more this next time around. I just hope the donkeys who unceremoniously dumped the last ones are replaced this time with Republicans who have spines and not forked tongues.

   Comment by Carlos — May 11, 2007 @ 9:35 pm