Early Stirrings of a Republican Revival
A few strange things have been happening — voters now believe that energy policy is more important than Iraq Sununu is catching up with Shaheen in New Hampshire; Norm Coleman has a solid lead over his Democratic challenger in Minnesota, though that race is likely to change shape; and, most significantly, John McCain has been gaining in Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota, despite his extreme crankiness and not-always-effective messaging.
This looks like the beginning of the two-party system righting itself — in the Feiler Faster spirit, we’re slowly getting back to 50-50. The mix of issues that are keeping Republican heads above water is different from what we’ve seen during the Bush era, and more attractive in some respects: spending restraint is making a rhetorical comeback, and pushback against environmentalists is taking the place of pushback against social liberals. Given mre straitened economic circumstances, this makes sense. Social issues — for liberals and conservatives — tend to be voting issues for the relatively affluent. If the goal is to move blue collar voters, job impact is what counts.*
Then there is this result from a recent Rasmussen poll, as described by Michael Barone:
He now shows that voters believe the United States is winning rather than losing the war on terrorism by a 51 percent-to-16 percent margin. A year ago, in July 2007, the numbers were 36 percent to 36 percent.
So the Republican position on national security, which briefly looked as though it would become toxic to non-conservatives, is making steady gains. The McCain campaign needs to draw these strands together and help Republican congressional candidates get within fighting distance of their Democratic opponents, to lay the groundwork for wins in 2010 and 2012. Because of the uneven impact of the economic downturn so far, Republicans need to pay particular attention to … Sam’s Club voters.
This reminds me of Patrick Ruffini’s characteristically insightful remarks concerning a McCain Michigan-Ohio strategy:
To some extent, McCain should not get too distracted with defending his home turf. If this election becomes about Florida, we lose. The same is also true of swing states du jour Virginia and Colorado, which are still slightly to the right of the country, though they used to be 3-5 points moreso. If the narrative is about those states exclusively, the media will force McCain to play defense the next four months. McCain can’t let this happen.
This is one reason, incidentally, why I find the Cantor for VP rumors unpersuasive, though I certainly think the rumors raise Cantor’s stature, which is a good thing: he is a conservative who can speak suburbese, which is increasingly rare. Back to Ruffini:
In a state-by-state situation, it’s hopeless to try and compete as though you’re 5 to 10 points behind, trying to rebuild strength in states you’d easily win in a close race. Instead, you compete as though you’re 1-3 points behind, and seek to throw the opponent off balance in some big states he needs to win. The logical conclusion here is a maniacal focus on Ohichigan, heart of Bitter America.
And that could be what’s going on in the McCain campaign now. What looks like a somewhat shambolic campaign has actually been tightly disciplined about pursuing an Ohichigan strategy.
A brief note re: foreign policy: As Barone argues, it could be that the widening gap on winning the war on terror means the issue is moving off the table, but I doubt it. One very good thing is that the Gates defense policy, chastened yet forthright about the central importance of American power, is far more attractive (and sound) than the Rumsfeld defense policy. My hope is that the post-Bush Republicans will remain very tough on national security — that is, that they will reject the new Bush-Obama “carrots-and-carrots” consensus on Iran — but that they’ll also continue in the Gatesian direction, emphasizing that resources need to match commitments. The rhetorical multilateralism of the national security left has been allowed to obscure its substantive unilateralism. There’s no political percentage in correcting this misperception, really, but I often wonder why conservatives don’t press this point harder in elite discussion.
- This is why I’m planning on changing my name from Reihan Morshed Salam to Reihan Jobs Salam. It is not, rumors notwithstanding, that I’m trying to get my hands on Steve Jobs fortune by claiming to be his long-lost Bengali half-brother.
What is suburbese? Is there a suburbese-English dictionary somewhere?
— The Reticulator · Jul 26, 04:08 PM · #
Why the assumption that energy policy cuts in favor of the GOP? It’s entirely possible that it works against them— since they’ve been the party in power for most of the decade (see: Jimmy Carter, late 70s). And it’s not as if McCain or the GOP in general is proposing anything new and exciting. The message is pretty much: Let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing, just more of it.
— Jon · Jul 27, 12:03 AM · #
Actually, that July 14-21 Quinnipiac Poll that supposedly shows McCain starting to catch up to Obama in Michigan, Minnesota and Colorado:
(1) Contradicts the recent daily nationwide polls by Gallup and Rasmussen that show Obama re-widening his lead in recent days, and the July 18-21 NBC/WSJ poll that shows him maintaining his earlier 6-point lead.
(2) Actually shows (Questions #16 through 25) the people in those same three states regarding Obama as superior to McCain on energy policy — because, while they support increased offshore drilling by a landslide, they support renewable energy and energy conservation by a tremendously bigger landslide (margins fully 50 points bigger!)
(3) Shows people in all three states opposed by landslides of about 20 points to pulling out of Iraq on “an 18-month deadline” — which might be very encouraging to the GOP, except that it seems to clash radically with that nationwide NBC/WSJ poll, which showed a landslide of 60-30 in favor of “setting a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.” (There are several possible explanations for this. One or both polls may be simply screwed up; the voters may favor a “timetable for withdrawal” that’s longer than 18 months; or al-Maliki’s public agreement with Obama — which the NBC poll actually told its respondents about before asking them the timetable question — may have swung a lot of voters back to Obama’s position in just the few days between the Quinnipiac poll and the NBC one. If it’s the latter, then Maliki may very well have swung the election for Obama in one move.)
Nor should we fail to mention that:
(1) Rasmussen ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/52_say_bringing_troops_home_more_important_than_winning_the_war ) also shows, on July 23, a 52-38 margin that “bringing the troops home from Iraq” is more important than “winning the war” — and an actual increase since last month in the landslide majority of Americans (currently 63-33) who want the troops “brought home within a year”, which clashes radically with Quinnipiac but agrees with the NBC/WSJ poll. Barone, needless to say, carefully avoided mentioning that.
(2) The generic nationwide polls on Dems versus the GOP in Congressional races are failing to show any movement toward the GOP at all ( http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm ) — with the possible exception of Rasmussen’s, which shows the Democratic lead there tightening from 13 points to 9 over the last month (but which also showed the GOP within only 4 points of the Dems a few months ago, after which the gap rewidened.) Rasmussen, by the way, also shows Franken running neck-and-neck with Coleman in Minnesota (although, given Franken’s bumblings, I definitely expect Coleman to win that one).
— Bruce Moomaw · Jul 27, 11:11 AM · #
@Jon: We actually haven’t been drilling domestically for some time. We’ve been pumping oil from old wells, but a combination of lefty environmentalism and bipartisan NIMBY-ism means that new wells (and refineries) are not being approved and built. The upshot is an artificial crimp in the global oil supply, meaning an increase in prices as demand in India and China increases, and an over-reliance on imported oil, especially from unsavory places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
So to claim that opening more wells is more of the same is a canard, because we haven’t been opening wells at all, and the fact that we haven’t is a significant cause of our energy troubles. Refusing to drill is more of the same.
If McCain can cast the energy question in this way, then energy may be a winning issue for Republicans. By supporting new offshore drills, and possibly re-examining his position on ANWR, he seems to be doing just that.
@BM: Does McCain not support conservation and renewable energy? Because if he does support those things in addition to increased drilling, then the poll says McCain wins on energy.
— Blar · Jul 27, 06:34 PM · #
As Bruce Moomaw suggests you are cherry picking data points isolated in time. It’s not to say that you aren’t right, but it would be foolish to make any kind of statements based on such scant evidence. Weekly poll results mean nothing in isolation, especially this early in the campaign. Not that I’m an expert or anything. ALthough I do pretend to be one when commenting.
You can be way to clever trying to handicap these kinds of things, looking sub-rosa for viens of counter-intuitive information. All the usual candidate independant indicators point to Obama. Plus he’s really good at being a candidate: aside form the presentation stuff, he’s created a great organization and has shown tht he can learn on the fly. None of that can be said about McCain.
And beyond his candidat-ability, what about McCain idiot-ability. How can I take him seriously when he puts out crap like this “Obama hates the troops ad”:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_ad_obama_isnt_there_for.php
This is the kind of crap that Obama is talking about when he’s talking about change. It’s a change in tactics. This is mostly why people like him. Most people hate the BS that comes with the traditional politician. That’s wy he’s got conservatives who don’t agree with him on any policy matters saying they are thinking about voting for him.
— cw · Jul 27, 07:16 PM · #
The point is, even if McCain loses, this won’t be the Democratic “wave” election that Kos keeps going on about. Despite the optics and Man Behind the Curtain antics of the Obama Campaign, we are nowhere near being close to any kind of realignment.
Of course, much of this depends on the grabastic McCain Campaign righting its own ship. This hope would be akin to the World Zionist Congress inviting Ahmadhi-Nejad to be toastmaster at its next convention.
— section9 · Jul 27, 07:28 PM · #
The idea that the Republican brand is now making a comeback because of the alarm the GOP is feeling at the state of the nation is absolute BS…the small noises that they’re making about re-regulation and the environment mean NOTHING…
Trying to separate themselves from the walking dead corpse that is George Bush will not help them in the least. They are still the party of the power structure that has bled this country dry for decades, and mouthing soothing platitudes wihout any positive moves towards actually helping the middle class will not bring them back to life…
I for one hope they pay a huge price for this looting of a whole country, but I doubt it…
— wagonjak · Jul 27, 07:39 PM · #
I think you’re overthinking things. On the issues where the GOP is making a comeback, it’s doing so because a) the Democrats are beginning to seem just as clueless on the economy as the current Bush crop of Republicans and b) a Gatesian direction in US foreign policy combined with the surge actually working is making the Republicans seem like the party of foreign policy grown-ups again.
In this sense, little has changed in the past forty years. Americans vote for whichever party gives the best deal to the middle class and acts like adults on national security. When the Republicans want to bankrupt the country democratizing the world and eliminate the Department of Education, people vote for Democrats. When the Democrats oppose economic development that would help the middle class to save the caribou and suggest burning all of America’s nuclear weapons, people vote for Republicans. Social issues, if anything, are distractions that usually hurt their proponents. Democrats got burned by gays in the military in the 1990s and Republicans got burned by gay marriage in the 2000s. Most Americans don’t want government to dictate the country’s values and when one party or the other tries to do so, it ends up paying for it at the polling place. The lesson: there’s no majority party, and no realignment, and the great American middle will vote for the party of the grown-ups, which will change every couple of election cycles, and will generally keep government divided so that the crazies on both sides can’t do too much harm.
— DaveG · Jul 27, 07:58 PM · #
I’m not “overthinking things” DG…I just read newspapers, magazines and blog every day so I pick up the real story behind the “fair and balanced” BS we get from much of the media…
While I’m with you that the Dems have let this country down in many ways, it’s been the wholesale looting of the country for the last seven and a half years under Shrub that’s brought us to this perilous point, this on top of the assault on the working man and the middle class for at least the last forty years…Ronnie’s assault on the air traffickers union and the Right to Work laws passed earlier in many states (my state of Arizona was one of the first) signaled the decline of union’s power in the US.
Maybe I “overthink” Dave, but I think you oversimplify and deliver the “fair and balanced” faux message.
— wagonjak · Jul 27, 08:47 PM · #
Face the Facts: McCain wants the war to continue ad nauseum and Coleman is the drive-up window for influence pedaling. The ultra-right hawks and the military industrial contractors do not want to see this war die. There is “plenty of big money to be made” in war profiteering. A great book that just came out, “Democrat Down”, details the history of this madness and the lengths they will go to (assassination, feeding our children to the enemy) to promote war and civil unrest. Check this book out – a must read for political historians and conspiracy buffs:
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fStoreID=1210015
Mars
— Mars451 · Jul 27, 09:00 PM · #
wagonjak:
I was referring to the OP, not to you. In fact, I hadn’t even read your comment until now.
— DaveG · Jul 27, 09:54 PM · #
Reihan, Leigh and i are still looking to hear u explain away McCain’s last senior moment where he confused Anbar and Baghdad, apropos of confusing the Sunni and the Shi’ia.
Forthcoming?
— matoko_chan · Jul 27, 11:29 PM · #
People like Matoko and Mars above do more to inspire Republicans to vote than anything Obama can make up – and with turnout being so important, and Obama’s base often being so infantile, there’s always hope that McCain can win.
For a year we’ve been hearing about “Change” and “Hope” from a man who has proven himself to be nothing more than a Chicago politician who can make sweet love to a teleprompter. Anyone I hear parroting his propaganda this late in the game I have to assume is still wearing pull-ups. Anybody half-serious who looks at the political environment right now sees an inept Democratic leadership pitted against a desperate Republican party that still isn’t convinced it can’t pork its way back into power. It seems the only party with principles doesn’t trust them any more, and the institutional left in this country sold its soul long ago. There’s precious little to look forward to in November, but at least I know what I’m getting with McCain. Who’s Barack Obama?
Barack Obama is an unreconstructed liberal, and listening to his speeches is like listening to a man stirring from a coma that began in the 80’s. America is not that liberal. His speech in Germany was especially simplistic, and I think the arrogance that exudes from him will ultimately turn away enough of the electorate that desperation will drive him to such pandering that he alienates the rest. I think the more exposure he gets, the more voters will come to understand this…
— Shane · Jul 28, 12:15 AM · #
Shane, my comment was not meant to be a pro-Obama statement. It was simply pointing out the fact that the American voter does not take the time to take a critical look at the candidates, accepts the status quo, and in doing so has surrendered a good chunk of our democracy over to what James Madison called “factions”. We now call them special interests. I don’t pretend that either candidate will make a difference. BTW: The title “Democrat Down” is rather misleading. It covers 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, rather non-partisan. : And yes, there is an ultra right wing militaristic party. See Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Andrew Card, etc… Mars
— Mars451 · Jul 28, 12:26 AM · #
Shane
The conservative talking points about Obama crack me up: He’s a liberal. He’s a politician. His speech to those 200,000 germans didn’t have enough policy proposals. And worst of all, he’s arrogant. Ouch!
These are slurs? You call that demonization? These are like mild qualms or soemthing. Mild qualms pronounced with a forced sneer.
— cw · Jul 28, 01:35 AM · #
The careful cherry-picking of poll results by “Bruce Moomaw” and “cw” remind me of the frantic efforts at damage control in Spring 2007 when the Democrat-controlled Congress was starting on its way to the worst approval ratings in history.
At the time the warning signs were clear, yet the Left instead made excuses. “Congress is unpopular because the Iraq War is unpopular,” went the Standard Alibi. “If only they would force a withdrawl of all troops, Congress’ approval ratings would soar.” You don’t hear much about that spin any more.
By all means I would like to encourage “Moomaw” and “cw” to continue to hide their heads in the sand. Let them dream of a 57-state landslide for the Messiah. Hubris will be their downfall.
— Mwalimu Daudi · Jul 28, 01:46 AM · #
lol, let us now address the arrogance of putting one’s self forwards as the optimum candidate for one’s party and one’s country at the age of freakin 72 years old.
isn’t that the ultimate in narcissism? and guess what? the senior moments will be gettin more frequent and harder to spin, Shane.
McCain is even older than Reagan. He should do the honorable thing and make Reagan’s pledge to step down if he develops full blown senilia.
— matoko_chan · Jul 28, 01:28 PM · #
Mwalimu Daudi:
Dude. Wake up and smell the cole slaw.
— cw · Jul 28, 06:35 PM · #
To Mwalimu Daudi: obviously it’s time for me to present ALL the recent polls, which continue to show that Congressional Dems are more popular than Congressional Republicans by landslide margins — and that a great deal of Congress’ current unpopularity still comes from voters angry that Congress isn’t anti-Bush ENOUGH:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot
In short, wishful thinking has already been M.D.‘s downfall.
— Bruce Moomaw · Jul 29, 03:19 AM · #
For whatever it’s worth, Rasmussen’s poll today shows the Dems re-widening their Congressional election lead: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot .
— Bruce Moomaw · Jul 29, 10:34 PM · #
Trust me, being related to Steve Jobs is not worth the money.
— Jack East · Jul 30, 02:39 PM · #