What If ...?
The latest RCP national average has McCain up by 3.2 percent and Obama leading McCain by 43 electoral votes. We have good reason to believe that Obama will perform well in a number of Southern states that he is nevertheless unlikely to win, a prospect that has led some to anticipate a scenario in which McCain-Palin wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote — a nightmare scenario, in my view. But what if Obama-Biden wins the Electoral College and McCain-Palin wins the popular vote? There’s a part of me that would love to see this happen.
(1) Liberals are eager to win back the White House. After two terms of Bush, they are convinced they can do a better job. It’s not obvious to me that this is true, but I do sense that we need to let the left let off some steam, so to speak. I think the climate of distrust and anger that pervades our politics really is toxic, and a Democratic president might do something to remind the center-left that governing isn’t easy, particularly under straitened economic circumstances and with US forces engaged in hotspots around the globe.
(2) A popular vote win and electoral defeat by the McCain-Palin ticket would encourage cross-partisan empathy. Also, it would keep Republicans energized and eager to reinvent the party.
That’s the thought, at least.
Reihan, I’m sure that you wil consider this unduly alarmist, but I’m convinced that the Republicans, confronted with such a scenario, would do everything that they could to overturn the result. Ultimately I think that they wouldn’t be successful, but, human nature being what it is, the process would have the opposite effect that you would desire. Cross partisan empathy would be the LAST thing you would see.
(I’d add that the result you predict would be the RATIONAL outcome, but, as events continue to prove, most people (on both sides) are not rational.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 08:17 PM · #
If memory serves me right, that’s the exact scenario the GOP was expecting down the stretch in 2000, and they certainly didn’t appear to be working up anything like cross-partisan empathy. Given a peg like that to hang the notion of “illegitimate president!” on, I would expect four years of scorched earth.
— jon · Sep 8, 08:38 PM · #
On the other hand, it’s possible that the GOP could learn from the bad example of the Democrats in 2000 and take the higher ground should a similar situation transpire against them. But I agree, we should curtail our optimism until we have reason to validate it.
And if you are talking not about parties but constituents, then forget it. Kerry graciously conceded in 2004, but his base sure tried to raise a stink, and I cannot imagine that the Republican base would behave any better.
— Blar · Sep 8, 08:44 PM · #
If the Democrats win the electoral college and the Republicans win the popular vote, the only thing I’m certain would occur is a race by each side to label the other hypocrites by contrasting their reaction in 2008 with their reaction in 2000. Likely, this would involve comparing conflicting quotes of a high-profile politician/pundit in each of those elections, and imputing his hypocritical attitudes upon everyone in his political party. If it proves impossible to find contradictory quotes from the same person, expect people to compare the comments made by one person in 2000 with another of the same party in 2008.
— Mike · Sep 8, 09:10 PM · #
Gosh, “straitened economic circumstances” and overextended US forces do make governance difficult. If only there were some way to have anticipated that . . . !
— Jason · Sep 8, 11:05 PM · #
When a friend of mine was graduating from college with a political science major, it was right after the nightmare of the 2000 election. Everyone said to him that he should try to go and get a job in Washington, because the Republicans would be eager to hire Democrats, build a moderate cabinet, and create reconciliation politically. What happened instead? Bush chose the most reactionary cabinet in modern American history and the Republicans proceeded to do everything they could to score cheap political points and bury the Democrats. Whatever else is true, it’s true that the Republicans, in the last couple of decades, have decided to turn politics into bloodsport. All the time, every time, they will do whatever they can to win. Dirty politics is politics as usual for the Republicans.
I think that there is process and their are politics. Process is where I want “heterodoxy” from my conservative friends, not politics. Political heterodoxy means that you concede certain issues to the other side. Procedural heterodoxy, for Republicans, means that you stand against the Republican orthodoxy of dirty politics. Until principled conservatives really make that their goal— until the really make a meaningful stand against business as usual— we won’t have a real election of ideas, and any meaningful hope of building a new way. It’s on the young conservatives. The question is, do they love right process more than they love winning?
— Freddie · Sep 8, 11:19 PM · #
Whatever else is true, it’s true that the Republicans, in the last couple of decades, have decided to turn politics into bloodsport. All the time, every time, they will do whatever they can to win. Dirty politics is politics as usual for the Republicans.
The Democrats, of course, have no culpability for anything.
— right · Sep 8, 11:49 PM · #
“it’s true that the Republicans, in the last couple of decades, have decided to turn politics into bloodsport.”
That decision was made in 1987, in the way the Democrats handled the Bork nomination. Some of us (like myself) learned then. But there are too many Republicans who still think it’s just a game, let the best player win. There are still too many who don’t realize the Dems play for keeps — that they will do anything and everything to win. But some have learned.
— The Reticulator · Sep 9, 12:58 AM · #
Reihan….there is a visual epiphany coming down the pike for the electorate.
The handshake at the first debate.
McCain’s bio has him at 5’6 1/2”.
The scoliosis that rounds his back has likely robbed him of an inch.
He is taller than Palin, inspite of the fugly prairie bun and the 3 inch heels.
The millions of voters tuned into the debates will be treated to the in-frame spectacle of Obama and Biden gracefully and courteously bending to shake the diminutive hands of Team Dwarf.
We elect tall people.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:07 AM · #
Like I said to Manzi on the last thread, it doesnt take a rocketscientist to figger it out Reihan.
Its the cudlips vs the l33ts.
Sure theres more cudlips.
But Thom Jefferson was a l33t.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:28 AM · #
i had best address this also, since the cudlips squeaked out a victory last time.
in 2004 Rove and Bush farmed flyover country for votes and sold the soul of the republican party to the theocons.
and you are never getting it back.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:33 AM · #
This is insane, Reihan. Even if I’m inclined to give you the economy for the sake of argument, US forces don’t just magically get “engaged in hotspots”. The Republicans have chosen to fight at least one idiotic war and, while we agree that it’s hard to govern successfully when you’re fighting an idiotic war, that’s endogenous to the question of governance.
— Ryan · Sep 9, 12:47 PM · #
Even if I’m inclined to give you the economy for the sake of argument, US forces don’t just magically get “engaged in hotspots”.
Well sure there’s no magic involved, but the plural use of “hotspots” suggest that Reihan is not only referring to Iraq. Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, Korea, the Balkans, Colombia, Haiti, and the horn of Africa would be just a few of the many hotspots the US has non-magically become engaged in under presidents of both parties in the past few decades.
Why you think this would magically not be the case in an Obama administration is not well-explained in your comment.
— right · Sep 9, 05:32 PM · #
Re: That decision was made in 1987, in the way the Democrats handled the Bork nomination.
Robert Bork is on record as stating that he considers the 9th amendment a mere “ink blot”. If dismissing an entire constitutional amendment, part of the Bill of Rights no less, in such a manner does not disqualify one from the Supreme Court, I don’t know what would. IMO, a man with such views is unfit for any judgeship.
— Jonfraz · Sep 9, 11:34 PM · #