Republican uberpollster Frank Luntz has some grim news for the Republicans in today’s Los Angeles Times. Basically, Luntz says, the Republicans have almost no chance of winning the White House in 2008.
A GOP victory is not absolutely out of the question, of course, but getting there would take a forward-looking agenda, unparalleled message discipline, a strict focus on the millions of independent voters, an innovative candidate and campaign and a lot of luck.
In other words, don’t bet on it.
Luntz spends the first part of his article laying out the grim facts. Party control of the White House has switched six times since World War Two and the GOP is in worse position than any of those unsuccessful governments. The country is intensely pessimistic and they give a Democratic president an 18% generic advantage over a Republican. That number, along with Bush’s abysmal poll numbers, has not been seen since the Watergate era.
Luntz attempts to offer some advice and some hope, but it is very thin gruel.
His prescription?
- Empathize with and embrace the fed-up nation.
Develop a message of hope.
Be authentic, lead like Reagan.
‘Articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity specifically tailored to voters in the industrial heartland’, and win Ohio.
For Luntz, this ‘strategy’ is uncharacteristically lacking in message specifics. And, at first glance, it appears impossible. Let’s consider what a GOP candidate would have to do to meet these requirements. To truly empathize with the ‘fed-up’ public the candidate must acknowledge the public’s extremely dim view of the Bush administration. To do so in an ‘authentic’ way they must be clear and consistent and not try to have it both ways. Their critique of the Bush administration must by unequivocal. Then they must somehow unfold this scathing critique in a hope-filled manner. Finally, they must address the economic anxiety of the heartland, and particularly Ohio. But, on what grounds?
Let’s look at Robin Toner’s piece in today’s New York Times, discussing the revival of economic populism in the Democratic Party:
The case for populism is made most powerfully by the Democrats who were elected to Congress last fall. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who defeated a Republican incumbent with an attack on the trade and economic policies of recent years, said he was convinced that the populists were on the rise. He noted that he carried Ohio by 12.5 percentage points two years after John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lost the state by only about 2 percentage points, and with it the presidency.
“That’s because of the economic populist message,” Mr. Brown said. “They voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”
‘Or anybody else’. That’s the problem for any Republican that wants to win in Ohio. To do so they must overcome their party’s opposition to the minimum wage hike, cheaper student loans, cheaper prescription drugs and expanded access to health care, and their unwavering support for free trade. And they must do this, according to Luntz, in an authentic way.
Let’s look at Luntz’s call to ‘articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity.’ Again, the candidates have to be ‘authentic’. Can Guiliani and Romney articulate an authentic pro-life position after they spent their careers as pro-choice pols? Can Fred Thompson be authentic after working as a lobbyist for pro-choice groups? No. Can Fred Thompson plausibly call for government accountability after lobbying for Scooter Libby? Can Guiliani do so after lobbying for Bernie Kerik? And how can any of them be ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ and make any kind of populist pitch for ‘economic opportunity’ in a place like Ohio?
Luntz’s conclusion is basically correct.
Without the support of the anxious working class, Ohio will also turn deep blue. And so will the United States.
The success of the Republican Party since 1980 was to eschew definition or brand. Whatever hopes, dreams and aspirations people saw in themselves were seen in the Republican Party. That’s all gone now. The Democrats didn’t win in 2006. The GOP lost. And for the party to keep the White House in 2008, it will require a Herculean effort.
Yes, it could happen. No, don’t count on it.
Given the current constitutional gridlock on Capitol Hill, the Republican contenders won’t even make a good faith effort to follow Luntz’s advice, which would be unlikely to work in any case.
Well, the GOP can always hope for another 911 style “terrist” attack to change their fortunes. Indeed, for many of them (i.e., Cheroff) that seems to be exactly what they are hoping for.
.
The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11
A military intervention is just one tool of government. There are also economic sanctions and diplomacy, for which Sullivan’s model doesn’t account.
The challenge for the government is maintaining support for a conflict when people don’t perceive a threat – of a failed state falling into the hands of extremists, for instance – particularly as Canadian deaths are rising, says historian Delaney.
It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.
“If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this is necessary.”
A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset
Sullivan’s model is quite “intuitive,” says James, director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Southern California. “Bigger, wider war aims are way harder to pull off. You can’t just invade somebody, get rid of a nasty dictator and get rid of everything else that went along with him.”
Others are more skeptical about Sullivan’s study. “I look at this and see it has a formula, and I’m immediately turned off,” says Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston. “Every situation is different, and you can’t reduce it to a series of equations.”
Delaney, a historian, says one must account for culture, context, technology, even the weather. “There are so many variables, you can’t predict how something is going to turn out.
“Models generate good questions but lousy answers.”
Cindy Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law
In this video a guy confronts Cindy Sheehan, and acts as if he is loaded with facts. He actually makes himself look foolish and in one instance he tells a Vietnam Vet. to stop taking government money if he hates America so much. It’s classic when he says he’ll enlist if they needed him. And the truth is the Army does need him ‘Military Misses June Recruiting Goal‘. Typical unyielding pig headed conservative BS
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."You know, people have been saying this for so long… but stop and think for a moment what you are actually saying. IF there were some kind of terrorist attack… explain to me again why people would then rally around the Republican Party?
given the recent revelation from sen conrad (d-nd):
and reid’s breaking announcement re: the threatened filibuster on the iraq withdrawl:
luntz’ strategy is pretty much dead on arrival, on all counts.
as to steven’s thought’s that the gop is hoping for “another 911 style ‘terrist’ attack”…l would posit after 6 years or big daddy’s gonna protect you from BushCo™, that were that to happen again, on their watch, that it would hasten the total demise of the gop as it is constituted today.
they’ll play the fear card for all it’s worth, it’s all they’ve got, but at the end of the day, they’ve got to be scared shitless of that scenario, posturing aside. it’ll be pitchforks and torches on the WH lawn…l doubt the american public would accept any more excuses.
lTMF’sA
The Bush Presidency was the laboratory of conservative ideas. Every single one of them was an abject failure.
Republicanism is a morbid illness. Even polster Luntz confirms exactly how grim the diagnosis is for Republicanism with his three analytical points.
The electorate is the most pessimistic in a generation. It is so because of Republican policies, Republican wars, and Republican corruption.
The president’s approval ratings are barely hovering in the upper 20s, an all-time low, having plummeted since his reelection less than three years ago. Republican president is the “bad seed” and everyone knows it, Republican or not. Buyer’s remorse is rampant and growing. Republican candidates for any office can consider themselves tarred and feathered with Bush. [Democratic candidates need to include that in their mantra.]
When asked what party they will vote for in the 2008 presidential election — a “generic ballot” question that does not include any candidate names — voters choose the Democrats by a sizable 18 percentage points, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. The pulse of the Nation has been taken; indeed, it is sick — and tired. Nixon poisoned Republicans and he got us out of an unpopular war, but Bush has stabbed a nation in its heart. Plus, he is keeping us in an unpopular war, even trying to expand that war to an even more unpopular involvement with Iran.
Kiss. Of. Death.
Never underestimate the public’s latent prejudice. There is a high probability that a black and/or a woman will be on the ticket in one or the other of the slots.
Both candidates will bring out the most bigoted nature in the “silent majority”.
Clinton, especially has very high negatives. Typical remarks are that she is too “aggressive” or other code words for anti-feminism.