Sabato on the Dems
Larry Sabato, who, as you may recall, is of the opinion that John McCain will probably be the Republican nominee by default, now turns his eye on the Democrats:
The most compelling element of the 2008 contest for the Democrats, in the Crystal Ball’s view, will be their burning desire to end GOP control of the White House. George W. Bush’s reign will have extended over eight years, but to Democrats, who deeply despise this President, it has already seemed like an eternity. Hatred of a President among party activists can produce wise or unwise outcomes. Democratic true believers may incorrectly think that their fellow citizens fully share their opinion of Bush and will inevitably elect the person they choose as their nominee in order to punish the Republicans for Bush’s multitudinous sins. Or Democrats may allow reason to triumph over emotion by picking a nominee who does not fulfill all their liberal fantasies but has a good chance of winning.
Today much of the Washington punditocracy is betting that Democratic ideology will once again trample electability, producing a left-wing or controversial presidential candidate who will elect McCain, Allen, or whoever secures the GOP nod. The Crystal Ball understands this, given the Democratic Party’s modern history, but we choose the opposite scenario. We guess that, for once (or more, if you count Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992), Democrats will select a more moderate, possible winner–perhaps after an early flirtation or two with more ideologically pleasing contenders.
Well, there’s one giant problem with that analysis: John Kerry was chosen precisely because he was seen as the electable, moderate alternative to flaming progressive nut Howard Dean (never mind his record as the biggest liberal in the Senate, a juxtaposition of facts that puts the ability of the Democratic leadership to distinguish between liberal and moderate into serious question).
Sabato, unsurprisingly, likes Mark Warner, who, as we know, is the anti-Hillary of choice at the moment:
The moderate Democrats have several options, but one now stands out above the rest. Governor Mark Warner has just finished a successful stint in Virginia’s top job, having well managed a difficult fiscal situation and also having elected a more liberal successor, Tim Kaine, in a conservative Red State. Warner built an attractive record in a wide variety of areas, from education to mental health to the environment, and he truly made the most of the one four-year term to which Virginia’s Constitution still limits its governors, consecutively. Although a certified suburban yuppie, Warner made deep inroads in rural areas by lavishing attention upon rural people and their problems. He adopted NASCAR, country music, and an antipathy to gun control. With roots in Indiana and Connecticut, not just Virginia, Warner has the wealth and the appeal to run an impressive national campaign. Southern Democrats and many DLCers have flocked to him especially in the wake of Warner’s 2005 off-year triumph in November. Having praised Caeser, Brutus should note Warner’s drawbacks as a presidential candidate. The rich communications mogul has only served a total of four years in public office; he has no foreign policy experience at all; and he famously broke his insistent, George H.W. Bush-like 2001 campaign pledge that he would not raise taxes. Whether Democrats or the country as a whole actually care about any of these sour notes, only the 2008 campaign itself will demonstrate.
As for Hillary herself, Sabato finds her too controversial and too liberal (I doubt the latter, though not the former – she certainly is not as liberal as John Kerry), and he brings up the horrifying spectacle of Bill Clinton’s return to the White House:
…Mrs. Clinton has many pieces of baggage left over from her husband’s administration, including scandals that involved her–and a thousand unanswered questions about them. A presidential campaign by Mrs. Clinton will reopen those controversies, and legitimize the old doubts about her and the relationship with her husband. After all, should she be elected, Bill Clinton would be moving back into the White House. President Clinton may be more popular these days as he settles into the less controversial role of former President, but that status would be revoked as he auditioned for the role of First Gentleman. While most Americans are willing to let bygones be bygones for this former President, they do not necessarily want to give him a new lease on the White House in an encore presentation of “two for the price of one.”
Thanks a lot, Larry, now I won’t sleep for a week…
A moderate Democrat still acceptable to the party base is not a moderate anything to most voters. The word “moderate” and “mainstream” no longer have the same meaning to everyone in the US.
SE Kos has been hyping Warner for some time (as Jim Gerraty has noticed in his recent TKS post). This seems to indicate he’ll try to run against Hillary from both the left and the right simulatneously, which I think will backfire. The strategy failed when Wesley Clark attempted it against Howard Dean and John Kerry in the last cycle. And Hillary is a much stronger candidate than either of the two.
Without Warner, that will leave Feingold as the only other un-Hillary Democrat with any level of national support. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but Hillary is a far more tenacious and nasty candidate than Rusty is capable of being and she will eat him alive. Hillary by default.
“but Hillary is a far more tenacious and nasty candidate than Rusty is capable of being and she will eat him alive. Hillary by default.”
That’s wishful thinking, at least for Hillary’s supporters. Rudy can be as nasty as he needs to be – if you watched him when he was prosecuting organized crime down at the docks in NYC, you would realize that Hillary wouldn’t know what had hit her if he decided to take her down a few pegs. Ditto if you remember his long battles with the teacher’s unions and other various wildlife in the NYC political world.
You point also is moot when you realize that Hillary has an incredible tin ear when it comes to public speaking, and if she ever tried to be disparaging to Rudy she’d just look worse for the comparison. She cannot begin to compare to Rudy’s record of public service, and he’s untouchable since 9/11.
I suggest you have no idea what Rudy’s experience in public office has entailed, or that he is a superior public speaker and campaigner.
From Sabato’s conclusion: “The party that veers nearer to the practical pole of electability will be more likely to prevail at the voting polls in November.”
So, you can become a big-time political pundit and university professor with insights like these? Maybe the University of Virginia will hand me tenure if I point out that the party that chooses the less electable candidate will have a hard time winning in 2008.
I’m a bit baffled by this portion of the essay, which I think gets it backwards yet comes to the right conclusion anyway: “The nomination of Hillary Clinton would be an enormous gamble by Democrats. Instead of a laser-like focus on the inadequacies of the Bush administration, the campaign might well turn out, at least in good part, to be rehash of the mistakes and scandals of the Clinton years. The GOP nominee might get a pass, positioned as an unsullied alternative, while Americans sought to turn the page on both the Clinton and Bush eras after 16 consecutive years of two-family rule.”
I agree that voters really don’t want to see the War of the Roses continue. I think Hillary Clinton has a chance, especially if the Republicans nominate someone seen as a handpicked Bush successor and give voters no choice but to rehash the past 16 years. But in general I think voters want a fresh face.
And that’s exactly why Hillary would be foolish to promote a “laser-like focus on the inadequacies of the Bush administration.” If merely hating Bush wasn’t enough when he was running for re-election, how helpful will it be when voters are already looking beyond him?
dmac, I can’t speak for Sean, but I think he was referring to Rusty, as in Russ Feingold, not Rudy, as in Giuliani.
I have no doubt Rudy would hold his own in any battle with Hillary. My hope is he wouldn’t go overboard and make her look sympathetic, as she managed to turn her put-upon woman sympathy into a carpetbagger senate seat. I’m hoping that Sept. 11 and his health problems have helped him tone down his rhetoric, while not dulling his bite.
Sean, if that is ideed the case, in the immortal words of Emily Litella, “never mind.”
I also agree that the country is tired of the two -family rule that we’ve experienced for quite awhile now – we’re looking more like Europe in the 17th Century than America these days.
dmac: That was the case (thanks Dennis). I guess I should have taken into account the fact that “Rusty” is a bit of an inside-the-beltway nickname.
But back to the original point, Hillary would destroy “Rusty” (Feingold). Maybe not in a debate — where Feingold’s fairly transparant decency would play off well against Hillary’s opportunism and where he would have enough time to respond to scurrilous charges — but definately over the airwaves. Feingold’s votes to confirm John Ashcroft and John Roberts, and his vote against dismissing the impeachment counts against Hillary’s husband before the trial were all perfectly defensible and principled decisions, but good luck explaining his reasoning in a thirty second ad. I think that’s part of the reason the Kossacks are so eager to get behind Warner even though Feingold is more to their political liking. He clearly doesn’t have the fire in the belly to beat Hillary, and even his strongest admirers know it.
Actually, I think that Feingold’s principled choices could be into a thirty second ad–remember the phrase ‘king george’. I don’t think Clinton has said anything as quoteable as Feingold says. Not to say everything he says is quoteable, but I don’t remember any Clinton votes offhand, but I remember a couple Feingold quotes offhand.