The Reasons for a Democratic Victory in 2008

The Harbinger of the New Deal

by Anthony E. DeFiore MUP, Bucks County Community College

Much thanks to and notable research by Zach Cope, Remo Di Lello, Ben Hollis, Bill Hudek,
Josh Jones, Nicole Kesselman, Jessica Latady, Ryan Mulkeen and Jeremy Spiller.

A look at the Blue and Red States of the 2004 Presidential Election illustrates good news for the Democratic Party. There are eight strong political reasons why the White House will soon be in the hands of the Democratic Party or at least in the hands of economic and social moderates.
A state-by-state review of the 2004 Presidential General Election affords the opportunity to make two definitive observations. First, George W. Bush won the election, but it was not by an overwhelming mandate. The vote was 51% to 48%. He won the election by 3.5+ million votes out of nearly 115 million votes* cast. While nearly 60%* of the electorate came to the polls, the increase in religious voters greatly determined the overall victory for the President due to the closer than usual outcomes in important states. These states were Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Additionally, larger victories in southern states can also be attributable to this reason. In these southern states, strong electoral support for the war in Iraq may have also played a contributing role due to the location of numerous military bases in the south and the high enlistment of southern citizens in the military. Specifically, in Arizona and Florida, all these points may be credited for the larger than usual victories for an incumbent Republican President. Nonetheless, in Arizona and Florida, economic/tax issues and Hurricanes may have carried the day. Finally, religious issues especially in the Hispanic communities of the south and southwest United States played a huge role in voting during the 2004 Presidential Election.

Second, while Democrats won many Blue States that they have carried in previous elections: Midwest States of the Rust Belt: Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, The Entire Northeast from Maine to Maryland, and The West: California, Oregon, Washington, they failed in 2004 to pick up the needed swing states that they counted on for victory. While Clinton 1992-96 & Gore 2000 carried states like (including but not all) Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, and Montana*2, in addition to the regular Blue States, Kerry was not able to win one. Being a Patrician, New England, Liberal, "Yankee" and Catholic caused a major perception problem in one form or another in those states. "He just wasn’t one of us" could be heard among the electors there. When exit polls showed that moral issues and leadership were vastly more important than health care and intelligence, these issues may have played a decisive role. Kerry did gain in New Hampshire. This is an indication that the premise may be true because a perception problem in some states may be a perception advantage in others.
The final outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election: Bush: 51%: 58,978,616 votes: 286 electoral votes. Kerry: 48%: 55,384,497 votes: 252 electoral votes. (Washington Post, 11/14/04). If 60,000 votes in Ohio changed to Kerry from Bush, the presidency would have changed political hands. That isn’t a lot of "ifs", but it ain’t chop liver either! *

While the media industry proclaimed the permanent Republican Majority for the United States Government, and Republicans voiced the "Mandate Victory", Democrats need only recall the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to find a shining light. After Goldwater defeated the liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, he was summarily crushed by LBJ in an election landslide. Even so, less than 16 years later, Ronald Reagan was President with Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford in the 1970’s. Due to the Internet and the shrinking communication distances of the world, politics changes much more swiftly than it used to change. While conservatives reigned for eight to somewhat twelve years (Bush 41), Bill Clinton was elected narrowly from 1992 to 2000, and Carter was elected narrowly in 1976. Take heart Democrats. It isn’t a Red Country yet. The political pendulum swings to the Democrats via the South on a continual basis in American Politics.

The seven reasons for Democrats to see the light at the end of the political tunnel is much better than pundits and headlines indicate:

First, the seven reasons for the coming New Deal of the Democratic Party begin with an interesting election. Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The concerns of Democrats could be heard nationwide and inside the beltway. Nonetheless, before the bridge alerts, consider the 2004 Dean Presidential Campaign and the man himself.
Howard Dean and his "Deaniacs" raised a tremendous amount of money via the Internet. Joe Trippi and the entire campaign team for Dean raised large amounts of money for Howard Dean to run for President. Also, with the enthusiasm of the Dean Campaign, Democrats found a voice to ignite the 2004 Presidential Race that seemed to never end for some since the 2000 race. The Iraq War threw gas onto the still simmering 2000 race fire and made Democrats unafraid to challenge the President in the election. Dean truly galvanized the Democratic Party and became the spark for the 2004 Presidential Election. Surreptitious support by Republican Money or by Conservatives may have assisted Dean in the campaign. These accusations, however, need to be conclusively proved. Whether true or not, Howard Dean was a real political force in the 2004 Presidential Race.

One must look at the potential of Howard Dean as leader of the Democratic National Committee as a major advantage for two reasons. One is that he will use the DNC Data Bank created by former chairman Terry Mc Auliffe to make the Internet churn out donations to the party for the upcoming midterm elections. Second, the reinvigoration of young Democratic voters and stalwarts of the Democratic Liberal Base of the party will make Dean a huge cheerleader with the ability to get on the television. This may be a double-edged sword. If Dean shows an ability to moderate on issues and not yell out any Democratic cheers on the stump, he will be a huge advantage to Democrats in 2008. Dean may be seen and not heard as he collects the fundraising money. However, knowing Dean’s personality and long-term political goals, his moderation is doubtful. Nonetheless, even if he doesn’t remain in the background, the Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2008 will look like a moderate next to him. That bodes well for Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry.

Second, while the Bush Campaign salivated at the chance to destroy Dean in November, 2004, which they would have done, it cannot be discounted that the blogs, meetup.com, and the youth movement for Dean did not set the tone for politics in the future. Joe Trippi’s recent book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, excellently documents the continued emergence of Internet Campaigning.

Unquestionably, The Internet will be a major factor in all up coming elections. It was the Dean 2004 campaign. Young voters equal the Internet. In 1992, a higher voter turnout of younger voters definitely helped Bill Clinton get elected. In 2004, the Internet also contributed and possibly delivered Wisconsin for Kerry in November, 2004. One need only look at the turn out and the Springsteen concert at the University of Wisconsin in Dane County to see that it may have been true. To see that a razor close victory for Gore (by a few thousand votes) in that state turned into a 12,000 vote victory for the patrician Kerry is suggestive that the Deaniacs were a strong influence in Wisconsin. During the Iraq War, with Tommy Thompson support, former Wisconsin Governor in 2000 and at that time, Secretary of Health & Human Services, and with numerous visits by the President to the outlying counties of Milwaukee just days before the election, it is certain that the young voters in Wisconsin had a marked influence in the states final tally. While other factors are always to be considered, what cannot be debated is the significant increase in turnout of voters in Dane County. Additionally, and much more stealth is the influence of the new "ideopolis" in American Politics. The new "ideopolis" will play a role in the future of our national elections. This concept is excellently created and put forth in the book The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judis & Ruy Teixeira. Will the "ideopolis" concept emerge in the states of Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and Arkansas to overcome the other political realities of these states that made them Red States in 2004? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid, and the change may be forthcoming.

While Karl Rove and Michael Barone claim that the "exurbs" will keep the Republicans in office for a long time, they should not count their victories until the votes are counted. "Exurbs" of the counties surrounding the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have become very Democratic in recent years. In fact, the bastion of Republicans known as Montgomery County is now becoming the vote getting stronghold for Democrats. "Exurbers" want better schools, health care, open-minded and moderate elected leaders. These can be the calling cards for Democrats nationwide. The "exurbers" that Rove and Barone are referring to are the rural Americans located in the counties well removed from the "ideopolis". They haven’t grown in numbers. A look at Lancaster County outside Philadelphia proves that point. In fact, urban and suburban sprawl may come to dominate those areas in the near future. The "exurbs" may become the home to Democratic voters as found in Berks, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery & Chester Counties near Philadelphia. Will this same phenomenon take place in Denver, Atlanta, Florida (Broward or Miami-Dade Counties), Cleveland, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Arlington, Maricopa County, AZ, Des Monies or St. Louis? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid and the change may be forthcoming.

Third, the failed candidacies of Barry Goldwater (1964) forebode an emerging conservative movement in the United States that emboldened Wallace, killed Mc Govern, liked the southerner Carter for a while and basked in the Right Wing zealotry of Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the 1960’s, conservatives found their voice in Goldwater and Wallace. They mounted steam until 1980 saw them emerge to the forefront.

Today, politics moves much faster than the days of the afternoon newspaper. The afternoon paper was taken over by the 4 and 5 pm news cast on TV, cable news 24/7 and soon the Internet immediate news update via your Internet use on your wristwatch. While Dean resembles Goldwater (kudos to Chris Matthews, Hardball), he may not be as far away as Goldwater’s conservatives were in 1964. The Dean faction of the Democratic Party may be on the verge of a New Deal in terms of Social Security backlash to Bush 43, Healthcare, Civil Liberties (Patriot Act backlash), post secondary education opportunities and women’s rights.
Fourth, America is not a theocracy. While there is no separation of church and state in the US, there are open-minded voters that fear people who tell them how to pray. The religious right has a large voting bloc in the United States. They supported Ronald Reagan strongly. They have supported Bush 43 very strongly. But many people may have voted for Bush 43, not because they want a theocracy in America, but they may want a more moderate view towards issues like gay marriage and abortion. The Democrats need to embrace this moderation. Also, religious Hispanic voters in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada need to understand that Democrats mean moderation on gay marriages and abortion. That political stance on those issues may be like being "a little pregnant" for Democratic candidates. However, the strength of Democratic candidates in the aforementioned states during the 2000 and 2004 elections indicates that Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats (Salazar in Colo. 2004 Senate race), Women (Gov. Napolitano in Arizona) and (Gov. Richardson in New Mexico) Hispanic candidates. As long as Republicans can wrongly portray Democrats as gay loving, baby killing Atheists; the White House will be beyond the reach of the Democratic Party.

Fourth, the fear of the religious right within the Republican Party is real. Moderate Republicans are mounting a comeback in the Republican ranks. This resurgence is due to the foreseeable political problems associated with the USA becoming a nation more of diverse, educated and moderate voters. A look at the Republican field for the 2008 Presidency is indicative of a moderation in the party. Moderate candidates include, in no order, McCain, Pataki, Guiliani, Hagel & Mitt Romney. Schwarzennagar may have designs on the White House, but the Constitution may be too formidable. The conservative candidates are Frist, Santorum, Gingrich, Brownback and Lamar Alexander. While all are good candidates, the conservatives may be more unpalatable to the American people than a moderate would be in 2008. New faces of the Republican Party appear to be their future instead of the older more established conservatives of the past. Perhaps the Republican’s may try to mix and match a Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket with a moderate or a conservative. Nonetheless, unless they can steal a blue state with a conservative (Santorum, PA) or moderate (Guiliani or Pataki, NY), they may need to turn to a moderate in perhaps the southwest or Midwest elements of their party. For Republicans, moderation may in turn alienate the conservative and religious south. It is a dicey political experiment that just may split the Republicans in 2008, and open the door for the Democrats.

Fifth, President Bush 43 will moderate his strong stands on abortion, gay marriage and race issues in his second term. He may first do this by publicly reaching across the aisle to Democrats in a show of political reasonableness. He has begun such a posture in Europe as well. Additionally, Bush 43 may moderate his stand on these issues privately in the backrooms of power politics. Publicly, he may attempt to stand firm on these issues. He may have no choice. If he moderates publicly, he may alienate his conservative and religious base. If he doesn’t proceed in a moderating manner, he may split the Republican Party in 2008 as well. That political decision may doom the 2008 Republican nominee. President Bush is in a very polarized situation politically. He may in fact be in a Catch 22.

Additionally, in the second term, Bush 43 will be able to complete this move away from religion and race issues as he focuses the world and the country on foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, terrorism & nukes). He will also be able to blame the Democrats if any judicial nominees don’t get passed the Senate. He will cite religious grounds as the reason for it. Also, if the Gay Marriage amendment fails, he will blame the Congress and specifically the Democrats.
Moreover, Bush 43 will attempt to solidify his popularity with the population of the electorate that voted for him in 2004 based on the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens and moral issues (Catholic, Evangelical, Abortion & Gay Marriage). Nevertheless, for Bush 43, speaking Spanish is one thing, getting the support of Hispanic Voters is quite another. In this move to solidify himself politically with Hispanic Voters, Bush 43 will get major opposition from the conservatives in his party. They are very much against immigration to the United States by our southern neighbors. If conservatives push Hispanic Voters away on this issue while hoping that they will vote Republican on moral issues, this may not bode well for the Republican nominee in 2008.

Nevertheless, President Bush may make some public initiatives toward fulfilling his spoken and unspoken promises to the religious right. They voted for him, and he may need to reward them. The religious right may in fact be satisfied with just having Bush 43 in the White House. They may be confident that if anything happens in the future, he will make the morally "right" decision as president. They go to sleep comfortably now on that reassurance. If Bush moderates in any way personally with any political decision, he may do a "read my lips, no new taxes" turn around with the religious voters of the Republican Party. In turn he will hurt the next nominee of his party in 2008.

Sixth, the terrorism issue is easy for Democrats. Fighting terrorism is an American Issue. Fighting terrorism is a two party issue. Democrats need to embrace fighting terror even more than the President. More public announcements on the defense of the nation against terrorism will make the Democratic Party look strong not weak. Nobody is against America in the fight on terrorism. Fighting Iraq is a different story. Democrats must make their position on terrorism clear every day in the media markets of the US. Voters in 2008 need to believe that patriotism and fighting terrorism are one in the same, and Republicans and Democrats stand together on that issue. Recently, Howard Dean debated this point with Richard Perle at Pacific University in a fervent speech. Dean was adamant on defending America against terrorism. He made it clear that Democrats will not allow Republicans to frame the debate that Democrats are weak on terrorism. Perhaps Dean has illustrated his public persona as national chair already!?

Seventh, while the Democratic Party adores the Clintons and would even go courting with John Kerry again, the Moderate Democrats hold the future of the party in their hands. Moderates make look politically to the middle but in reality, their issues, when they get into the White House, will be the same FDR initiatives of the New Deal (health care, jobs, benefits, social security, education, civil liberties and less theocracy on moral issues). Liberals will look like moderates if the US continues to have Bush 43 and the religious right calling all the shots in Washington. As a nation, the United States looks forward to changing parties after eight years of one party leadership in the White House. But more importantly, unless there are tumultuous events in the country, the political change in the White House may be more gradual and moderate than extreme.

The moderate Democrats include Bayh, Warner, Biden, Vilsak, Edwards, Clark and Richardson. Any combination of those individuals on a national ticket will be a great asset for Democrats to regain the White House. In the Democrats’ heart, they would love the Hillary & Bill show in reruns, but the country is hovering in the middle of the road politically right now. If the Republicans stay hard to the right, the left will look like the middle. Senator Clinton may in fact be the Democratic nominee as she stakes out moderate positions in the years before the 2008 run. If the Republicans turn to the middle, then the nation wins.

The moderation of the Republicans will afford the potential for victory to any Democratic candidate mentioned earlier because the Republicans may very well split their party for 2008 with a moderating tone. Democrats split themselves in 1968 when conservative Democrats went to Wallace instead of Humphrey. In 1992 and 1996, many Republicans can point to Ross Perot as a similar type of candidate that cost Republicans the White House in those years. In both scenarios, the party with unification towards the moderate views of the nation will win the White House in 2008. The New Deal is coming again, but the real deal now is moderation for the Democrats. The New Deal will begin once Democrats regain the White House, and the nation will be ready for the initiatives that Democrats will put forth.

*: some numbers approximate: verification pending. It will not be a great variance.
*2: state victories vary between the 1992-2000 elections. The ability to carry these
states is the significant point.
">Link