The party that is shut out of the White House is always in a certain sense desperate to win a presidential election, but there are degrees. After eight years of Reagan and four years of Poppy Bush, the Democrats were pretty damn hungry in 1992. Nevertheless, they still needed help from Ross Perot.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a hungrier party than the Democrats in the 2006-2008 period. That era defined desperation.
So, I don’t see the Republicans as being particularly hungry in 2012 after a mere one term of having a Democrat in the Oval Office. They’ll want to win, but they won’t be willing to put aside all differences, hold their noses, and vote for the most electable candidate. No matter what happens in the midterms, they’ll be having a contest to see who can be the most radically conservative candidate.
On the other hand, if they really bomb in the midterms, and particularly if the upstart Tea Party candidates do particularly badly, there will be a rather strong internecine fight among the GOP candidates for president. That will be a much different dynamic than if the Tea Partiers do extraordinarily well. If they do well, then dissenting Republicans will shut up much like Prussian officers shut up after the Ancshluss. They’ll think “Hey, maybe I think this is insane, but it seems to be working.”
It’s hard to say with certainty which outcome will be better for Obama’s reelection prospects. The midterms of 1982 and 1994 actually helped Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in their reelection campaigns. So, losing badly this year could wind up being a blessing in disguise. But I think it will be healthier overall if we had a closer election in 2012 because the traditional Republican Party still has a pulse.
I imagine a party where Dick Lugar could win the nomination for president. I’d rather beat Lugar narrowly than take 40 states from Palin. Why? Because I’m a Democrat, but more importantly I am an American. The health of our politics matters to me.
