Other Columns by Horace Cooper
Horace Cooper Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

When Conventional Wisdom Isn't
By Horace Cooper
August 17, 2004

Pundits are coalescing around the view that the election is John Kerry's to lose. While this may be conventional wisdom, it's neither conventional nor any particular evidence of wisdom. In fact, indications suggest that the outcome of 2004 will look more like the upset election of 2002 than it will the election of 1992. The most significant sign is the political party consolidation that is taking place in the US.

Just a reminder, remember the midyear elections of 2002. The election that should have been a welcomed oasis was an almost across-the-board loss for the Democrats. It yielded a 53-47 national preference for Republicans over Democrats. Catching most analysts by surprise, it resulted in the GOP retaking control of the U.S. Senate, maintaining and increasing their control of the U.S. House and taking control of a majority of statehouses and maintaining a majority of governorships. This across the ticket one party boost demonstrates that a "values gap" aids the GOP and hinders the Democrats. This new form of party consolidation has accelerated the decline of the venerable party of Jackson and FDR. The reasons for this should have led to a serious effort to recalibrate the party's philosophy and message. It has not.

In fact, many of the issues in play then continue to exist today except that Republicans are in a more favorable position.

Consider: Demographic trends continue to favor the GOP. The Republican Party is proving itself to be far more popular in the 21st century than in the 20th. As President Ronald Reagan was winning 49 out of 50 states in 1984, he didn't translate his landslide electoral support to the GOP. That has changed dramatically today. According to a recent Pew Research Center report fewer and fewer people wish to identify themselves as a Democrat and more and register as Republican. Once the overwhelmingly dominant political party in the U.S., only 31% of Americans now choose to identify themselves as Democrats, the weakest position of the party since the dawn of the New Deal.

As a phenomenon party switching for the last decade has become a one way street - from Democrat to GOP. Even now, little attention is being given to the recent switch in Louisiana by Rep. Rodney Alexander. But such a late switch signals far more about the shifting political winds than do the stalemated polls being circulated today.

Also, look at the United States Senate. Much attention is being given to the likely success of young African-American Democrat Barak Obama of Illinois. But more should be given to retiring Sen. Zell Miller. Zell Miller has been elected statewide in Georgia nine times as a Democrat. His recent comments to Tim Russert on Meet the Press are quite revealing. "There are [sic] things I think in the South that are going to change this election as far as how people view it. One is this is a part of the country as you well know, Tim, that is very pro-military. And they do not understand a person voting to go to war and then not supporting the troops. ... and how can a person say that they are for American values and for the American family whenever they vote or not vote but oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman? How can you say that you're for family values whenever you listen to Whoopi Goldberg get up there and talk about obscenities and vulgarities as far as the president is concerned and hear someone talk about the president being a thug and a murderer and then get up there and validate those remarks by saying these people represent the heart and soul of America? They don't." Lest one considers these simply the views of one Senator, take a look at the electoral landscape for the Senate this year.

In Georgia, Republican Johnny Isaakson is the favorite over Democrat Denise Majette. In South Carolina, Democrat Inez Tenenbaum trails Republican Jim Demint. And Republicans have the edge in Louisiana, North Carolina and Oklahoma too.

In fact, Earle Black, the noted Emory University political science professor doesn't even think that Edwards' selection makes a difference for the South. "I don't think he's going to swing any Southern states," Black says. "I think they want him in there because he carries Kerry's message so well with rural audiences and in places where there have been a lot of job losses."

The truth is that even if Democrats pick off a couple Republican Senate seats they are very unlikely to maintain their own seats in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. A sweep in these southern states would offset losses in Illinois, Alaska, and Colorado and still yield a net gain for the GOP.

Moreover the challenge for Kerry is a reality that winning for him almost by necessity requires victory in only a minority of states. Just to be clear, not a minority of the popular vote but a minority of the 50 states. While Bush could potentially win up to 35 states in a November victory, a Kerry victory wouldn't likely exceed 25. While this may seem to be an advantage, it is actually an electoral barrier. The low ceiling for Kerry limits his opportunities. There are between 20 - 25 states that he simply has little to no chance of carrying. Kerry has to win all of the remaining states that he possibly can in order to eke out an Electoral College victory. Bush on the other hand faces only 10 to 15 states that he can't reasonably be expected to carry. This situation gives him far more flexibility for building his electoral majority. And Bush has the added advantage of not needing a popular majority to do it.

Plus Kerry's victory in an era of political consolidation requires winning while likely losing Senate and House seats, whereas Bush's victory will likely lead to further expansion and consolidation for his party on the lower ballots. Swimming even in politics is easier going with the current than against.

Thus a tight race reveals Kerry's ceiling and Bush's floor, not the inevitability of a Kerry victory. John Kerry's failure to get a convention bounce, his disengaged rank and file Democrat support, and post 911 politics demonstrate far more cause for concern within Democrat party ranks than many analysts heretofore have been willing to acknowledge.

Much more useful than competitive midsummer polling numbers would be an answer to the question of why Kerry and by extension other national democrats have such a limited appeal in so many states in the country. Democrats have had an opportunity to reassess their public appeal after 2000 and again in 2002. They have chosen not to do so. By the time there's a Bush convention bounce, it will already be too late to do so this year.

When the major issues of the nation went unaddressed by the Whigs, the Whigs went away. Unless serious attention is paid to why their ideas and agenda are met with such broad hostility the oldest political party in America, the Democrats may face the same fate.

------------

Horace Cooper writes a regular political analysis column for United Press International and GOPUSA.com. He was praised as a key Republican strategist in Elizabeth Drew's New York Times bestseller "Showdown: The Struggle Between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House" and extolled as a "poster conservative" by Michele Mitchell in "A New Kind of Party Animal."

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.