Lately, I’ve been exposed to comments, both in the netroots community, and in the "real world," that seem assured of the ability of the Democrats to win in 2008. While most agree that the Democrats are on good footing going into 2008, at least some people, in both parties, seem to have reached the conclusion that 2008 will break Democratic because the Republicans are too damaged to win, or because the public will simply decide that it’s the "Democrats turn."
Such ideas of assured victory are false, and progressive activists must not be lulled into believing otherwise.
More below the fold.
No one can deny that there’s a great deal for us to be happy about going into the 2008 elections. The Democrats won control of both branches of Congress last year. On the money front, Democratic presidential candidates are out raising Republican presidential candidates, even in "red" states. The Iraq War and President Bush are both increasingly unpopular, which is creating drift from the Republican Party. Formerly loyal Republican voters may now be open to elements of the Democratic platform, and willing to consider voting for some Democratic candidates.
All of those things can – and should – induce us to be optimistic about our chances next year. However, in some quarters optimism (or, in the case of conservatives, fear) of Democratic chances seems to be taken too far.
In an interesting and highly recommended diary, dlawbailey discusses advice that a "conscientious Republican" friend of his has for the Democrats. According to his friend, the Democrats should "move to a lower-stakes game" due to the fact that the Republicans "have yet to reach the full flower of their incompetence." As the diarist explains further:
The logic is this: the Democratic leadership is going to win in 2008 and they know this. And they also know that they (the leadership) are winning only because the Republicans are losing. Dem leaders have no message and they have no intention of adopting one now.
So I asked him what he thought the Dem leadership was offering to the American people and he said: "Constructive Complicity".
In other words, what the Republicans want to do, the Dems are letting them do by sins of omission. The Dems know perfectly well that they are simply going along with the Republicans, making only a perfunctory fuss, not engaging in any ideological battles. They are "the other party" and in 2008 it will simply be their turn. The other side has burned itself out.
He used the analogy of a town that has only two restaurants where one (Republican) has just burned down. The owner of the remaining restaurant (the Dems) simply smiles to the American people and says "Hopefully, we'll win your business."
Friends of mine – conservative and liberal – have expressed similar views on the motivation of the Democratic leadership, and on the tactics that Democrats should engage in going into 2008. For many, it seems, the "2008 will be the Democrats turn" point of view seems worth betting the house on.
A recent Gallup poll seems to confirm the advantage that the Democrats currently have over the Republicans. As reported on MyDD, the Democratic front runners have national leads over all of the Republican front runners:
Clinton 49%, McCain 46%
Clinton 50%, Giuliani, 46%
Clinton 53%, Romney 40%
Edwards 50%, McCain 44%
Edwards 50%, Giuliani 45%
Edwards 61%, Romney 32%
Obama 48%, McCain 46%
Obama 50%, Giuliani 45%
Obama 57%, Romney 36%
Such polls are indeed cause for a certain level of optimism. They show Democratic strength, and Republican weakness. They’re proof that any of the Democratic frontrunners – Clinton, Obama, or Edwards – are quite capable of taking on anyone the Republicans can throw at us. But, are such polls reason to make an assumption, as is claimed that the Democratic leadership has made, that we will win in 2008, simply because it’s "our turn?"
Obviously, no one here can speak with certainty about the views of the Democratic leadership. However, if they are indeed "letting the Republicans do what they want to" in the name of "constructive complicity," I would caution the Democratic leadership to seriously consider changing its approach. Contrary to what you may have been told, nowhere – absolutely nowhere – is it written in stone that the Democrats will take the White House next year. That outcome is possible, and, as the recent Gallup poll shows us, it is something to be optimistic about. But, it is not assured.
Indeed, victory is something that everyone – from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, down to the Democratic volunteers walking the streets – will have to work for. While George W. Bush and the Republican Party may be polling badly, even the Gallup poll shows Giuliani and McCain within striking distance of the Democrats. Furthermore, other recent polling has showen some of the Republican frontrunners with leads in key states when paired against some of the Democratic candidates.
For example, Quinnipiac University "swing state" polling, in April, 2007, showed the following in a hypothetical race in which Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee:
Florida - Giuliani leads Clinton 49 - 41 percent, compared to 50 - 40 percent in an April 2 poll. Gore trails Giuliani 47 - 43 percent.
Ohio - Giuliani leads Clinton 46 - 41 percent, compared to March 22 when Clinton was up 46 - 43 percent. Gore trails Giuliani 47 - 39 percent.
Pennsylvania - Giuliani leads Clinton 47 - 43 percent, compared to 46 - 42 percent March 29. Gore ties Giuliani 44 - 44 percent.
The results for other hypothetical matchups are as follows:
Looking at other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Florida, the Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds:
Gore tops Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 - 43 percent;
Gore beats Thompson 48 - 36 percent;
Clinton and McCain are tied at 45 - 45 percent;
Clinton bests Thompson 48 - 38 percent;
Giuliani beats Obama 49 - 38 percent;
Obama and McCain are tied at 41 - 41 percent;
Obama tops Thompson 42 - 35 percent.
In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Ohio:
McCain beats Gore 46 - 39 percent;
Gore beats Thompson 44 - 35 percent;
McCain edges Clinton 44 - 42 percent;
Clinton tops Thompson 45 - 35 percent;
Giuliani bests Obama 45 - 37 percent;
McCain tops Obama 42 - 36 percent;
Obama beats Thompson 44 - 31 percent.
In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Pennsylvania:
Gore tops McCain 45 - 42 percent;
Gore leads Thompson 48 - 34 percent;
McCain edges Clinton 45 - 43 percent;
Clinton tops Thompson 47 - 36 percent;
Giuliani beats Obama 45 - 41 percent;
Obama edges McCain 43 - 41 percent;
Obama beats Thompson 45 - 33 percent.
More recent Quinnipac polling, from May 31st, shows the Democratic and Republican candidates comparing as follows in the critical state of Pennsylvania:
Giuliani 47%, Clinton 43%
Giuliani 45%, Obama 40%
Gore 45%, Giuliani 44%
Clinton 45%, McCain 43%
McCain 42%, Obama 41%
Gore 44%, McCain 44%
Obama 47%, Thompson 32%
Clinton 50%, Thompson 36%
Gore 50%, Thompson 35%
Granted, polling in a presidential race can change quickly. As Kos pointed out the other day, few people are really paying attention to the presidential race right now. Actual results could vary dramatically once more people begin to actually think about the race. And, even if they don’t, there is some good news in the fact that most of our potential nominees are, at the very least, competitive, and should be able to win if they run the right kind of campaign.
Nevertheless, the strength of Giuliani and McCain in key states is enough to give one pause. It does suggest that the 2008 election will be anything but a guaranteed victory for the Democrats. Giuliani’s performance in Pennsylvania, a "blue leaning" state, is particularly disturbing, as it suggests that he might be able to cut into the "social moderate, suburban voters" that Democrats have relied on to win PA in past elections. Other polls over the past few months have seen Giuliani with strong showings in other "blue" and "blue leaning" states, such as New Jersey.
In other words, despite what some may try to tell us, despite what the Democratic leadership might be thinking, the 2008 election is not automatically set to send a Democrat to the White House. Yes, our candidates are competitive. Yes, President Bush is suffering in the polls. Yes, the Republican Party is suffering as well. However, President Bush will not be on the ballot, and the voters may not be willing, at least initially, to blame others for what they feel are his mistakes. And, whatever their newfound distaste for the Republican Party, most voters in this country seem willing to consider the individual candidate aside from their party when deciding on who to vote.
Taken together, the recent polls show that the 2008 election will not be won through complacency, but, rather, through hard work, and a commitment to win. That means establishing a narrative on the candidates. If either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain wins the Republican nomination, we have to clearly establish that they’re not the "moderates" that they’re perceived to be in the public eye. We need to tie the Republican nominee to the Bush administration, and ensure that, at every turn, they’re forced to either repudiate or identify with the administration’s unpopular policies, especially on Iraq. And, we need to make an honest effort both to fight the inevitable Republican mudslinging at the Democratic nominee, and to make sure that we don’t turn on our own candidates during the primary. Policy critiques are fine, but unfair personal attacks will only harm us come the general election.
More importantly, though, the effort in 2008 will not entirely be up to us. In order to win, we must not only have hard work from activists, but, also, real leadership from the top of the party. The public elected Democrats in 2006 not to sit back and acquiesce to administration policy, but to stand up to the administration, and to take the country in a new direction, especially on Iraq. Failure to do so, and continued capitulation to Bush administration demands for meaningless, "non-binding" goals and timelines will only diminish popular support for Congress in general, and Democrats in particular. Ultimately, it will prove a burden on the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee, especially if voters decide that neither party has anything to offer on the Iraq War.
The stakes of the 2008 presidential election could not be higher. Six Supreme Court Justices will be either 60 years old, or approaching 60, at the end of the 2008-2009 term. Long neglected labor policies, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, may only see the light of day if the right president is sitting in the Oval Office. And, whoever is making the decisions as of January, 2009, will have a great deal of influence over whether the U.S. begins an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, or whether U.S. troops continue to die there, for years to come.
The 2008 election is wide open, and provides an incredible opportunity for change in this country. We must never be lulled into thinking, however, that victory is guaranteed. We can only win with hard work. And, we can only win if the Democrats in congress decide to show true leadership in the year leading up to the election.