Republicans have won seven of the past ten presidential elections. Two of the three lost elections came when the Republican base found the Republican nominee to be insufficiently conservative on domestic policy, and a substantial third party candidacy was mounted. In both elections the Democrat won on the strength of less than half the popular vote. The years were 1992 and 1996, and the Democrat was Bill Clinton, who won in '92 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, and in '96 with 49 percent.
That history is rehearsed here on the occasion of a new poll out of Rasmussen Reports -- which forecast the 2004 presidential vote with uncanny precision -- and of declarations from the more conservative quarters in American politics, including especially James Dobson.
The Rasmussen poll sets Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, Clinton as Democrat nominee for president and Giuliani as the Republican, then inserts a third-party challenger who satisfies the conservative base of the Republican Party on domestic policy, with the result that Clinton wins, but on the strength of 46 percent of the popular vote. I.e., the candidate who unites the outstanding 54 percent bids fair to become next president of the United States.
And so we come to the conservative base of the Republican Party. James Dobson doesn't presume to act as some official spokesman for the base, but I presume to know him particularly and the base generally to where I can say with some authority that Dobson makes a reasonable representation of the values and votes of devout Christian and traditionally-minded core conservatives. Threats of a third party conservative kamikaze in the event that Rudy Giuliani is Republican nominee are not novel, but on October 8 Dobson appeared on Hannity and Colmes and uttered the starkest pronouncement I have yet heard, that under no circumstances will he vote Giuliani.
In light of the Rasmussen poll and the Dobson declaration, the picture is clearing, that Hillary Clinton cannot command half of the popular vote, and that the Republican Party cannot seize on that with a nominee who doesn't first satisfy its base on domestic policy. Defense and foreign policy don't figure in this, incidentally, the principal Republican candidates being agreed on "beyond the water's edge" questions.
The lessons of '92 and '96 were that Republicans lose nationally when their base is unenthused, that motivating the conservative base goes most of the way to winning national election. Most Americans are not Republican, but most Americans are conservative, and to the extent the Republican Party is the conservative party, it stands to win the most votes in most elections. Those lessons were taken to heart by Karl Rove and his class of strategists particularly, and presumably the thought has occurred to Rove et al. that if the Republican nomination goes again to a less-reliably conservative candidate, the lessons will have been unlearned.
John McCain as of this writing may not qualify for the top tier of the Republican presidential field. But it was one presidential cycle ago that John Kerry ascended from sub-McCainian primary polling to Democrat presidential nominee, and McCain has compared better against Hillary Clinton than some of those Republicans who rank ahead of him in the primary polls.
The Powerline blog on October 7 posted what is to me the shrewdist observation on John McCain and the Rebublican base: McCain is disliked by many Republicans for many reasons, but he is a conservative, and to pull the lever for John McCain would be a good deal less disagreeable than a vote for Giuliani or Romney, to the conservative base. McCain has managed to be a bad Republican but a better conservative than Giuliani and Romney, who are good Republicans but spottier in their conservatism.
And there is another, probably sillier point. 43 of the 43 presidents of the United States have been male, and 42 of those 43 have been what is called in America "WASP". That is a very resilient tendency of history. Of the candidates with national appeal in both parties, there are precious few who satisfy that "historical tendency" test. One is John McCain.
John McCain is a longshot for the presidency, certainly, and the Republican nomination may be the longer part of that longshot, but it may be that McCain makes a more likely "next president of the United States" than the leaders and first runners-up of both parties as of this writing. The core conservative activists now demurring on the prospective Republican nominees are sounding an alarm that may yet be heeded. And they are allowing an opening for John McCain. It would take a comeback on the order of John Kerry's comeback following the Iowa caucuses in 2004, but that's recent demonstration that it can be done.
That history is rehearsed here on the occasion of a new poll out of Rasmussen Reports -- which forecast the 2004 presidential vote with uncanny precision -- and of declarations from the more conservative quarters in American politics, including especially James Dobson.
The Rasmussen poll sets Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, Clinton as Democrat nominee for president and Giuliani as the Republican, then inserts a third-party challenger who satisfies the conservative base of the Republican Party on domestic policy, with the result that Clinton wins, but on the strength of 46 percent of the popular vote. I.e., the candidate who unites the outstanding 54 percent bids fair to become next president of the United States.
And so we come to the conservative base of the Republican Party. James Dobson doesn't presume to act as some official spokesman for the base, but I presume to know him particularly and the base generally to where I can say with some authority that Dobson makes a reasonable representation of the values and votes of devout Christian and traditionally-minded core conservatives. Threats of a third party conservative kamikaze in the event that Rudy Giuliani is Republican nominee are not novel, but on October 8 Dobson appeared on Hannity and Colmes and uttered the starkest pronouncement I have yet heard, that under no circumstances will he vote Giuliani.
In light of the Rasmussen poll and the Dobson declaration, the picture is clearing, that Hillary Clinton cannot command half of the popular vote, and that the Republican Party cannot seize on that with a nominee who doesn't first satisfy its base on domestic policy. Defense and foreign policy don't figure in this, incidentally, the principal Republican candidates being agreed on "beyond the water's edge" questions.
The lessons of '92 and '96 were that Republicans lose nationally when their base is unenthused, that motivating the conservative base goes most of the way to winning national election. Most Americans are not Republican, but most Americans are conservative, and to the extent the Republican Party is the conservative party, it stands to win the most votes in most elections. Those lessons were taken to heart by Karl Rove and his class of strategists particularly, and presumably the thought has occurred to Rove et al. that if the Republican nomination goes again to a less-reliably conservative candidate, the lessons will have been unlearned.
John McCain as of this writing may not qualify for the top tier of the Republican presidential field. But it was one presidential cycle ago that John Kerry ascended from sub-McCainian primary polling to Democrat presidential nominee, and McCain has compared better against Hillary Clinton than some of those Republicans who rank ahead of him in the primary polls.
The Powerline blog on October 7 posted what is to me the shrewdist observation on John McCain and the Rebublican base: McCain is disliked by many Republicans for many reasons, but he is a conservative, and to pull the lever for John McCain would be a good deal less disagreeable than a vote for Giuliani or Romney, to the conservative base. McCain has managed to be a bad Republican but a better conservative than Giuliani and Romney, who are good Republicans but spottier in their conservatism.
And there is another, probably sillier point. 43 of the 43 presidents of the United States have been male, and 42 of those 43 have been what is called in America "WASP". That is a very resilient tendency of history. Of the candidates with national appeal in both parties, there are precious few who satisfy that "historical tendency" test. One is John McCain.
John McCain is a longshot for the presidency, certainly, and the Republican nomination may be the longer part of that longshot, but it may be that McCain makes a more likely "next president of the United States" than the leaders and first runners-up of both parties as of this writing. The core conservative activists now demurring on the prospective Republican nominees are sounding an alarm that may yet be heeded. And they are allowing an opening for John McCain. It would take a comeback on the order of John Kerry's comeback following the Iowa caucuses in 2004, but that's recent demonstration that it can be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment