Outside view: Emerging Democrat minority

[The Robfather 0]

Outside view: Emerging Democrat minority

 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- The Democrats have a real dilemma on their hands in the wake of the November midterm congressional elections. The challenge of repositioning their party so that it is more attractive to the American electorate is a difficult one. But reposition they must or they risk becoming a long-term minority party or -- even worse -- being superseded by a new upstart one.

 

Many analysts offer pedestrian advice to the Democrats about what they must do to increase their political appeal, including developing a more coherent message; focusing on issues important to main street America; and finding more enthusiastic and photogenic messengers. But the Nov. 5 election results demonstrate that the problem is far more serious and systemic.

 

The collapse of the Democratic Party's electoral majority was neither necessary nor automatic. But it has happened. And unless that fact is recognized soon this collapse may remain permanent.

 

Even if the Democratic nominee for president is successful in 2004, a highly unlikely prospect at present, the serious problem of the party's disintegration will likely continue.

 

According to United Press International, Americans voted for the GOP over the Democrats by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. A telegenic face doesn't easily undo a six-point margin.

 

This is the political landscape after Nov. 5: Republicans hold a majority of statehouses and a majority of governorships; they are the majority in the U.S. and the House of Representatives. As a result, the GOP has a bench from which to launch new candidates making them a viable party in races across the board.

 

In contrast, the Democrats find themselves increasingly taking a pass in potentially competitive races by either fielding unqualified candidates or no candidates at all as they did in several Senate and House races this year.

 

Having every Democrat united on one message is not going to overcome this state of affairs.

 

Actually it's worse than that. There are places in the country, like Texas and Virginia, where there simply are no serious Democrat challengers left who are undefeated, capable of raising a credible level of funds or likely to command at least 40 percent of the vote in the general election.

 

In Texas, every statewide office is held by a Republican. In Virginia, Democrats hold only two out of five, and that appears to be the upper limit. To be fair, Democrats appear to have a similar advantage in California. But the advantage is deceiving.

 

The Republican Party is viable in California. The GOP candidates consistently and regularly break 40 percent, significantly higher at the statewide level. Republican Bill Simon's lackluster gubernatorial bid still came within six points of upsetting incumbent Gov. Gray Davis. Repositioning the party so that it appeals to more than just beneficiaries of the social safety net as some progressives recommend won't negate this type of structural disadvantage.

 

Consider that among several voting groups, Nov. 5 was a walk through the electoral killing fields for the Democrats. White men nationally gave the GOP a 20-point margin and the trend looks likely to increase rather than contract.

 

Married women favored the Republicans by 10 points on Election Day. Rural voters in general preferred the GOP by an average of 20 points. And the former Democratic stronghold, the South, voted overwhelmingly against them, expelling several governors and at least one senator from office while handing new legislatures over to the GOP.

 

There is a serious values gap aiding the GOP and hindering the Democrats. Increasingly a sizeable percentage of the voting public rejects the Democratic party out of hand.

 

The sense that the party promotes the agendas of elite liberals, caters to minorities at the expense of equality of opportunity and fails to treat national security issues seriously undermines the electoral prospects of the party.

 

Heading into the 2004 campaign the Democrats face a serious headwind. For the first time in a generation Gallup polls show that the American people have a more favorable view of the GOP than the Democratic Party.

 

Even as President Ronald Reagan was winning 49 out of 50 states in 1984, he was unable to translate his landslide electoral support to the Republican Party itself. The GOP since then has maintained a favorable rating, meaning more people liked it than disliked it, but the Democratic Party was always more popular with the public because it was perceived as representing the interests of the average person.

 

That advantage no longer exists. Increasingly the public thinks of the Democrats as the party of special interests. Notwithstanding Ruy Texiera and John B. Judis' thesis that there is an "Emerging Democratic Majority," it appears not to be so unless that majority is undergoing an unusually long gestation period -- say 25 to 50 years. The untold story is how rapidly and how far the Democrats have descended from the heights of political power they once enjoyed. In less than 30 years the party has changed from having a stronghold in every area of the country to now being primarily limited to the two coasts. It has shrunk from being popular in urban and rural areas alike to dominating only in the inner city.

 

Did the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Towers and part of the Pentagon have an impact on this? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be overstated. The trend is the real issue. Does a wartime president like Bush, whose leadership skills shine during a crisis, provide benefits to his party? Certainly, just as a charismatic president like Reagan drew the country towards him and made being a Republican respectable for new demographic groups.

 

The reality is that the collapse of the Democrats is part of a nearly 40-year-long process. Since 1964 the Democratic Party, while winning the presidency four times, has received more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election exactly twice. In 1964 by a wide margin and in 1976, just barely.

 

The GOP on the other hand has won six times and received an outright majority of votes four times -- in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

 

In the 2000 presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College, but he carried fewer than 200 congressional districts, foreshadowing the House Democrats' uphill challenge in their failure to retake the House in 2002.

 

What does this mean? It is possible for the Democrats to topple a GOP candidate here and there such as in Wyoming, a state Bush won by more than 40 points in 2000 but elected a Democratic governor? But the problem is those elections are anomalies rather than trends. The fact is that the so called "GOP electoral lock" at the presidential level has expanded and now in approximately two-thirds of the country the GOP candidate for state and national office starts out with an advantage that must be overcome by his Democratic rival.

 

The longer this trend continues the more difficult it will be to reverse. Losing replicates itself. As the backbench is depleted by losses, new challengers come in with less experience and less viability and they lose even more.

 

Issues such as liberal attacks on the Boy Scouts, support for needle exchange in the inner city, and a reflexive hostility to U.S. military action are part and parcel of the modern Democratic Party.

 

While these and similar issues are a large cause of the public's alienation with the Democratic Party, reversing course may not be the best option. Critics of the Democratic Leadership Council and other "centrists" within the party rightly charge that if given the choice between the GOP and a Democratic Party posing as a "wannabe" GOP, voters will elect the real GOP every time.

 

On the other hand, there needs to be a real examination among the party members as to why issues important to core Democrat constituencies prove to be losers nationally. Reversing course on issues like the death penalty and middle class tax relief may help in the short run, as they did for President Bill Clinton in 1992. But, as the Republican triumph in regaining control of the House in 1994 proved, beware the wrath of a scorned public.

 

The truth is that unless the party can convince the public to change its view on these issues, the decline of the party will continue.

 

Perhaps the bleakness of the present situation will challenge the Democratic Party sufficiently that it decides to take action now. It's more likely though that the party elders will agree that better polling, TV friendly candidates and other smoke-and-mirror approaches will solve their problems.

 

Even if these techniques work in the 2004 presidential election they can't sustain the party against this long-term trend. When the GOP has a majority of inner city mayoralties it will be too late.

 

 

(Horace Cooper is a senior fellow with the Center for New Black Leadership.)

 

 

(Outside View commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in issues of public interest.)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

LOL. Someone mentioned the California Republican Party and then talked about the democrats being unstructured.

 

The state GOP has to either keep a close eye on this Arnold thing (and he's already started to bite at them a little suggesting this bond) and learn how to be electable or they'll go back to losing. If this was a regular election, Arnold would have not made it past the primary.

[NoCalMike 0]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

[NoCalMike 0]

The biggest reason Arnold won in CA, is because people bought into his "outsider" banter. It would be a lot harder to to do that running as an ®(or (D)) for that matter on a national level, with over a year for everyone to attack you on stuff.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's too much of a Democrat for the socially conservative money running the state GOP. It's like a reverse situation of what Dean was talking about Southerners before all the stereotypes appeared. California's Republican party, when it could stop fighting, endorsed shoving gays back in the closet and aboloshing all forms of gun control and abortion.

 

The McClintocks and Simons cause everyone to vote for the Democrats instead.

[Vern Gagne 0]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

What have the Democrats done reguarding these issues? Besides saying everthing the Republican's propose is horrible. Agree or disagree, the Republican party is at least offering solutions for these issues. Instead of saying crying about Tax Cuts for the Rich, and the Medicare legislation benefiting the evil pharmasutical (sp) companies. Actually tell the public planes to fix these problems.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Agree or disagree, the Republican party is at least offering solutions for these issues.

"Well, they're bombing us. We're makin' PROGRESS!"

[NoCalMike 0]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

What have the Democrats done reguarding these issues? Besides saying everthing the Republican's propose is horrible. Agree or disagree, the Republican party is at least offering solutions for these issues. Instead of saying crying about Tax Cuts for the Rich, and the Medicare legislation benefiting the evil pharmasutical (sp) companies. Actually tell the public planes to fix these problems.

As far as the war issue goes, it is a little late to ask a democrat, "what would you do" it has already been done, what are they supposed to say? Unless you are referring to here on out. For the economy, I am sure they would support repealing whatever is left that they can of the tax cuts and probably try to work on job creation, rather then just urging people to shop shop shop, for the holidays. With medicare, well I think their point is there is that they would NOT privatize medicare in the first place and let it be overrun with price gouging and foul play. Of course I am just trying to think of things the democrats would say, but as far as believing they would follow through and actually do it, that is another story.

[NoCalMike 0]

Agree or disagree, the Republican party is at least offering solutions for these issues.

"Well, they're bombing us. We're makin' PROGRESS!"

well as long as Rumsfield is claiming that Iraq is the "centerpiece" of the war on terrorism, a lot of people are going to buy into the bs, unfortunately.

[NoCalMike 0]

. Agree or disagree, the Republican party is at least offering solutions for these issues.

Which is why I doubt I would even vote for either party. Republican solutions make me vomit, yet the Democrats don't talk enough about solution. Of course, the INCOMING or would-be incoming party rarely talks about solutions anyway, since their priority is to oust the current administration first. I mean what was Bush's insight into "problems" facing us in 2000?

[Guest MikeSC]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

 

The economy? In full recovery.

 

Medicare? Well, that is a bad program with numerous flaws --- so it'll be a wash.

 

If you want an idea about Democratic party problems, MY state's party might FOLD. They are having a hard time getting enough money together to actually hold a primary next year.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

 

The economy? In full recovery.

 

Medicare? Well, that is a bad program with numerous flaws --- so it'll be a wash.

Are these your opinions or is this what you believe the majority of the country believes?

 

Bush winning handidly on "the war on terror"? Umm, 2 years ago called, and they want your opinion back!

 

Economy is full recovery!?! Come on.......% went up in third quarter, but most reports said it was mostly attributed to the auto industry which in turn means more overseas jobs, which translates to people still out of jobs here aka Jobless recovery.

[Guest MD2020]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

 

If you want an idea about Democratic party problems, MY state's party might FOLD. They are having a hard time getting enough money together to actually hold a primary next year.

-=Mike

[bad Bogie impersonation]My dear, we'll always have Berkeley[/bad Bogie impersonation]

[NoCalMike 0]

I think the only wildcard so far in the election will be if the Democrat tries to go the Arnold route and claim they will not sell out to special interests etc...of course like I have said before, any member from the 2 parties trying to sell this on a national level is going to be exposed eventually. Hell even Arnold was, but it was too late.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

What's with these RNC ads?

 

Some people are attacking the President

 

(OMG and nobody attacked Clinton, ever.)

 

in his fight against the terrorists.

 

 

Now, I don't know where he gets off talking about how Democratcs are trying to politicize 9/11 when he practically used 9/11 as a crutch to get in a fight with Iraq.

[Vyce 0]

If the top 3 issues raised for the election are, The "War on Terrorism", The economy, and Medicare, Then I'd say it is a safe bet another close election is on the horizon.

 

And 2 out of those 3 issues may weigh in Bush's favor.

 

Iraq will be the focal point, of course, and that's where Bush will get the most heat. Will it be enough to oust him from office, though? It depends upon what the situation is a few months from now.

 

The economy? As long as it continues to grow and recovery keeps happening, then a good portion of the sting will be taken out of this issue in regards to using it as a weapon against Bush.

 

Medicare? The far right and the far left aren't happy with this bill, but - as many political commentators are saying today - this is a near-Clinton like performance by Bush as he's playing to the moderates on both sides of the political aisle.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

What's with these RNC ads?

 

Some people are attacking the President

 

(OMG and nobody attacked Clinton, ever.)

 

in his fight against the terrorists.

 

 

Now, I don't know where he gets off talking about how Democratcs are trying to politicize 9/11 when he practically used 9/11 as a crutch to get in a fight with Iraq.

Because, God knows, Clinton didn't use Oklahoma City to paint his critics as ALL government-hating, psychotic lunatics. It's not good or nice --- but it's common.

 

Still better than telling blacks that a vote for a Republican is a vote for lynching or telling the elderly that the GOP wants to starve them and take away their medication.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

 

The economy? In full recovery.

 

Medicare? Well, that is a bad program with numerous flaws --- so it'll be a wash.

Are these your opinions or is this what you believe the majority of the country believes?

 

Bush winning handidly on "the war on terror"? Umm, 2 years ago called, and they want your opinion back!

 

Economy is full recovery!?! Come on.......% went up in third quarter, but most reports said it was mostly attributed to the auto industry which in turn means more overseas jobs, which translates to people still out of jobs here aka Jobless recovery.

Stock market has, in case you missed it, been doing QUITE nicely --- and God knows THAT was the centerpiece of Clinton's claims of economic strength. The recession and we have been in a full-fledged recovery for months now --- so Dems who wish to campaign on a bad economy might have a brutally hard time finding much traction.

 

War on Terror? How many Al Qaeda leaders and Iraqi leaders are either in our custody or dead? Care to guess how many we "have"? How many plots have been shot down?

 

Bush is a bigger lock, right now, than Clinton was heading into 1996 at this point.

-=Mike

...And all of the Dems appear to be WORSE candidates than Dole was

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, War on Terror? Bush wins that one handidly.

 

The economy? In full recovery.

 

Medicare? Well, that is a bad program with numerous flaws --- so it'll be a wash.

Are these your opinions or is this what you believe the majority of the country believes?

 

Bush winning handidly on "the war on terror"? Umm, 2 years ago called, and they want your opinion back!

 

Economy is full recovery!?! Come on.......% went up in third quarter, but most reports said it was mostly attributed to the auto industry which in turn means more overseas jobs, which translates to people still out of jobs here aka Jobless recovery.

Stock market has, in case you missed it, been doing QUITE nicely --- and God knows THAT was the centerpiece of Clinton's claims of economic strength. The recession and we have been in a full-fledged recovery for months now --- so Dems who wish to campaign on a bad economy might have a brutally hard time finding much traction.

 

War on Terror? How many Al Qaeda leaders and Iraqi leaders are either in our custody or dead? Care to guess how many we "have"? How many plots have been shot down?

 

Bush is a bigger lock, right now, than Clinton was heading into 1996 at this point.

-=Mike

...And all of the Dems appear to be WORSE candidates than Dole was

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It all depends, Mike. I await to see the guys' approval levels shoot back up. At this rate, the only thing people give him high marks for is trust that he'll handle Iraq correctly.

 

GWB is the Democrats' most valuable player when it comes to getting votes and contributions.

[Vern Gagne 0]

They need to bring in the swing voters. None of the canidates look capable of doing so.

[Guest MikeSC]

It all depends, Mike. I await to see the guys' approval levels shoot back up. At this rate, the only thing people give him high marks for is trust that he'll handle Iraq correctly.

 

GWB is the Democrats' most valuable player when it comes to getting votes and contributions.

Democrats NEED to be centrists to get votes --- and none of the guys are centrists.

-=Mike

...When the election rolls around, this might get ugly for the DNC.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Democrats NEED to be centrists to get votes --- and none of the guys are centrists.

But they're also not Bush.

 

Bill Clinton used to be in the single digits leading to 1992. It is possible that once all the Dean hoopla wears off, someone more centered but lower in the rankings can get attention.

[NoCalMike 0]

Democrats NEED to be centrists to get votes --- and none of the guys are centrists.

But they're also not Bush.

 

Bill Clinton used to be in the single digits leading to 1992. It is possible that once all the Dean hoopla wears off, someone more centered but lower in the rankings can get attention.

Plus, things change after the primary. In the primaries candidates have to pander to the more extreme members of the party because that is who is paying attention and voting. The right certainly isn't voting or caring about who gets the nod. I think this is the most highly covered primary to date, everything is getting broken down five hundred times, every little statement, word etc.......Once someone wins the primary I'd expect a change in strategy for the Presidential election. Plus the debates with Bush should be fun.

[Guest MikeSC]

Democrats NEED to be centrists to get votes --- and none of the guys are centrists.

But they're also not Bush.

 

Bill Clinton used to be in the single digits leading to 1992. It is possible that once all the Dean hoopla wears off, someone more centered but lower in the rankings can get attention.

 

I hope, for their sake, that the candidates aren't underestimating Bush as you seem to be.

 

Problem the Dems have is that NOBODY looks electable. Clark is Clinton's choice, but he looks like a disaster as a candidate. Kucinich, Gephardt, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, and Lieberman are dead in the water. Edwards has the look, but no money and no platform. Dean is just a bomb waiting to hit and Kerry might have killed his entire career with this horrible run.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Democrats NEED to be centrists to get votes --- and none of the guys are centrists.

But they're also not Bush.

 

Bill Clinton used to be in the single digits leading to 1992. It is possible that once all the Dean hoopla wears off, someone more centered but lower in the rankings can get attention.

Plus, things change after the primary. In the primaries candidates have to pander to the more extreme members of the party because that is who is paying attention and voting. The right certainly isn't voting or caring about who gets the nod. I think this is the most highly covered primary to date, everything is getting broken down five hundred times, every little statement, word etc.......Once someone wins the primary I'd expect a change in strategy for the Presidential election. Plus the debates with Bush should be fun.

The Dems in 2004 = GOP in 1996.

 

They probably have no shot, either.

 

Bush has NO competition and more money than he knows what to do with. He can just sit back and run ads left and right and risk NOTHING. The Dems have to win this nomination and, thus, go LEFT (since the primary voters tend to be the far left wing of the party).

 

During the campaign --- it's REAL hard to go back to the center when Bush will basically be the one dictating where the center IS.

-=Mike

[Guest Kamui]

I'd love for a Dem to win '04, being as I can't STAND Bush, but Mike's right. Bush is a lock in '04, unfortuntley. The next big shot we'll have is in '08, and it will be interesting to see what happens there. Especially if Hilary finally runs.

 

-Duo

[Guest JMA]

I'd love for a Dem to win '04, being as I can't STAND Bush, but Mike's right. Bush is a lock in '04, unfortuntley. The next big shot we'll have is in '08, and it will be interesting to see what happens there. Especially if Hilary finally runs.

 

-Duo

I too am pessimistic about a Democrat winning in '04. Mike hit the nail on the head when he said the Dems in '04=the GOP in 96.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think Kerry is comitting political suicide on this one, Dean could do alright if he makes Bush look like a moron in the debates (I would say "when", but Gore kind of proved it isn't certain,) Edwards is in an interesting position and could benefit when something gives in the fighting between Kerry and Dean. His voting record reflects a somewhat conservative Democrat but he's got the right message going on the war and other subjects.

 

Clark is... Well, a Clark/Bush debate would be better than half the crap on Comedy Central.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd love for a Dem to win '04, being as I can't STAND Bush, but Mike's right. Bush is a lock in '04, unfortuntley. The next big shot we'll have is in '08, and it will be interesting to see what happens there. Especially if Hilary finally runs.

 

-Duo

Hillary absolutely cannot win a national election. Her winning re-election in NY is not a guarantee.

 

She has MORE faults than Bill did (by a healthy margin) and FAR less charisma or political savvy. She is just not a likable person --- unless she gets Bill to do something mean to her again so she can get that sympathy thing running.

 

But, should she run in '04, she'll get slaughtered.

 

Especially if the GOP decides to cheese her off and run Condi Rice against her --- or Powell.

-=Mike