| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Winning the White House? History's Against Them (Dems) |
| 2007-03-12 |
| The Democrats' road to the White House in 2008 runs through Congress, and it is uphill all the way. The last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. Democrats who think that it is their turn to expand their pet programs and please their core constituencies have forgotten how quickly congressional heavy-handedness can revive the president's party. Right now, President Bush is a lame duck and an albatross. His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless. But just in case you think this is more of the usual WaPo whining, check this out! However, such troubles are not unusual for a president whose party has just lost control of Congress. It is far too soon to count the Republicans out -- or even bet against them. At this point in 1995, President Bill Clinton trailed Bob Dole in polls, and only 55 percent of Democrats even wanted him to run for a second term. The parties that lost control of one or both houses in 1994, 1986, 1954 and 1946 all won the White House two years later. Early in 1987, to pick a powerful recent example, the Republicans' prospects looked even bleaker than they do today. Democrats had just recaptured the Senate and retained the House, and polls showed that the public had more confidence in them than in the Reagan administration to reduce the federal deficit. The Iran-contra hearings investigating the secret sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages and the funneling of the profits to the Nicaraguan contras were the big story, and looked ominous enough to derail Vice President George H.W. Bush's White House aspirations. Then in 1988, Bush handily dispatched Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. But this wasn't a new story. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman was lower in the polls after his midterm defeat than were George W. Bush, Clinton or Ronald Reagan after their midterm losses. Truman was reelected in 1948. Presidential parties have also done well in the legislative battles that have followed every midterm takeover since World War II. Presidents and their parties recover after midterm wipeouts because, as Clinton had to remind people in 1995, "The Constitution makes me relevant." The president's party begins to recover when he wields his veto pen -- especially if he can establish his relevance as a defender of the center against the other party's excesses. Each time since 1948 that one party has retaken one or more houses of Congress and then two years later lost the race for the White House, that party has scapegoated its candidate for the party's sins. But in each case, the congressional party placed onerous burdens on the candidates. Would Truman have won without the "do-nothing Congress" to run against in 1948? Would anyone have known about the Dukakis-Willie Horton episode if the congressional Democrats had produced a defensible record on crime in 1988? Or if Democrats hadn't pushed for a welfare bill that looked "soft on work," would "tax and spend" have been such a powerful epithet in 1988? |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 Thompson/Pruitt '08! |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-03-12 22:32 |
| #7 GEORGE WILL + ROBERT NOVAK are in rough consensus that the Dems are hurting themselves going in 2008 POTUS andor Congressional elex - gonna be an uphill battle agz a hill the Dems built = are building themselves. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-12 22:21 |
| #6 The Fred Thompson thing is very interesting. The news he is considering jumping in is very welcome, indeed. He's solid, the hardcore conservatives will have few, if any, quibbles with him... and he can swing that segment of vacuous twitters that put the Dimmicrats over the top last November. I heard Vitter (R-LA) say today he had talked with Giuliani at length and had decided he was okay with the man. Thompson, wouldn't need individual sit-downs with conservatives to convince them. Lots of time remaining on the clock. I'm glad Billery and Hussein started so early - they will cut each other's throat long before it elapses. Besides, I'd enjoy seeing (a) Fred elected Prezzident, LOL. |
| Posted by: LAX 2007-03-12 20:03 |
| #5 Fred Thompson and Newt is the only ticket viable. |
| Posted by: johnniebartlett 2007-03-12 19:48 |
| #4 His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless. This is what passes for journalism ??? 'the GOP has splintered' - 'the economy is sputtering' - 'and the public (those who swallow our constant line of shit) believes that the Iraq war is hopeless'; 3 complete bullshit lines in one sentence. The republicans have lined up 12 good, and great candidates for president, some kind of splintered. The economy is flourishing, and many of us know we will win in hopeless Iraq because we would have to run away for them to win. And, fighting in Iraq is a win in the first place. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-12 13:55 |
| #3 Interesting story in todays Wash Times. Its about how Dem strategists are questioning Hilarys electectability. Whats very interesting is that the only named Dem strategist, is David Sirotta, a leftie blogger. Usually the Wash Times is quick to name a leftie as such. This time there was no such reference - if you didnt know better, youd think Sirotta was mainstream. The only other Dem quoted was an anon "press aide". They also quoted some polls showing many folks think Hilary is not the most electable Dem. They did NOT compare her numbers in one-on-one matchups to those of other Dems. If the Wash Times is so busy looking for stuff on Hilary, this suggests to me that Hilary is who the right is afraid of. Definitely not St. Obama. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-12 12:48 |
| #2 I dont recall even the GOP ads linking Willie Horton to the Dem congress. Duke ran on his Mass record, and this was an attack on his Mass record, period. And he failed to respond strongly to the attacks. It also didnt help that he sat on lead, taking the month off after the Dem convention. No one is making those kinds of mistakes again. I dont know as much about 1948, as far as the Dewey campaign is concerned, but my vague impression was the there was a lot of complacency there as well. Which mainly says whoever is the Dem nominee shouldnt be complacent. I doubt very much whether Hilary would be complacent. Dont know about St Obama. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-12 12:44 |
| #1 His approval ratings are in the 30s, But the ratings of Congressional Democrats are in the 20s. A bit of a conundrum, that. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-12 09:50 |