Matthew Stinson had the unmitigated gall to read my mind about why a Democrat is likely to win the Presidency in 2008 and put it in the comments section of a post not even about said election:
JKC, I think the GOP is likely to run out of steam by 2008 for two reasons: first, there is no heir apparent to Bush in the party. Many of the high-profile GOP governors from last decade wound up taking low-profile cabinet positions in the current Bush administration; once exception would be Jeb Bush but I can’t see the public electing Bushes back-to-back. The second reason I expect a Democratic win in 2008 is the likelihood that the public will have the kind of domestic priorities that favor Democrats by that time — while the war on terror and containment of rogue regimes won’t be over by a long shot, the distance from 9/11 will be sufficiently great that doubts about Democrats and national security will probably be diminished.
I shall thus be forced to instead expound on these two thoughts.
First, as regarding the heir-apparent problem, it really does exist. It’s quite bipartisan, too; one thing that does not get nearly enough pundit time is the odd fact that there are really four national parties that share only two names – or perhaps it would be more correct to say that each party has two separate career tracks to power and influence. You can go to Congress, or you can go be a Governor. Switching from one track to the other can and does happen a good deal, but not always successfully.
Why this is important is because it is simply much easier to get elected President if you’re on the Governor track. The higher visibility of Congress is a double-edged sword; more opportunities to get your name out on the national level, but also more opportunities to screw up… and more opportunities to get more groups of people hating your name. It’s no accident that four out of our last five Presidents were governors… and the fifth was not precisely a wonder of the legislative branch (did GHFWB ever get elected to anything besides Vice President? It’s been a while). But the Governor track does not give you the opportunity to glom on too strongly to an existing President: it’s also no accident that both Reagan and Clinton’s designated successors were their Veeps. Bush is not going to be able to do the same with Cheney.
The second point is a bit simpler; it is my hope that the Democrats will have adopted better national security policy positions by 2008, and it is my further hope that they will be largely unnecessary national security policy positions, and I accept with good grace the fact that if both things come to pass* it will be likely that the Democrats will win the election. When all is said and done, I much prefer them to the party most likely to take their place.
A last note: the President’s Vice Presidential choice for 2004 is going to be important. I’m aware that Cheney’s the official guy, but the man has a continuing heart problem, so he could be legitimately dropped from the ticket without criticism. If that happens, Jeb Bush will probably not be running in 2008, but may in 2012.
I think.
Moe
*I suspect that the latter is going to be more likely than the former, but it’ll all depend on the upcoming election (three guesses who I think will have won).
Bush/Bush?
Would set off way too many freeper alarms.
Condi Rice seems to be VP of choice for east blogistan.
Good post, Moe. If we get a bunch of Bush’s in a row, would we get a Hedge or two? I’m visualizing big scary ones like in “The Shining”.
“Condi Rice seems to be VP of choice for east blogistan.”
A good choice, except for the lack of experience in elected positions.
Moe
PS: That happens, d-rod, sure as sunrise you’d start hearing about Shrubberies: (shaking head) it’d fit what we know about the stunted sense of humor of certain folks on the Other Side. 🙂
Nah, because in 2008, President Dean will be running for his second term. 😉
it is my hope that the Democrats will have adopted better national security policy positions by 2008
If by that you mean that they will be more likely to engage in expensive and unnecessary wars, turn their backs on the international community, and desert the carrot in favor of the stick I hope you are wrong.
Not to mention wasting valuable resources on expensive boondoggles like the plan to photograph and fingerprint everyone who enters the country… No: I hope that one of the first things the next President does (January 2005) is to repeal this idiotic idea of his predecessors.
Here’s some predictions for 2008: Jeb will flirt with running but won’t. The right-middle divide in the party will open up more without Bush’s skill in bridging the gap; you’ll find a wacky religious-right candidate (the Gary Bauer role), a more mainstream religious conservative (Ashcroft? Santorum?), a moderate that the media will fixate on (Romney, Pataki or Hagel), and a center-right establishment type (Frist, maybe, or more likely Bill Owens).
Also, Our Cruel Empress Hillary will unleash her army of lesbian Wiccans wearing blue United Nations helmets, who will impose mandatory same-sex unions and replace the American flag with a giant red flag bearing a hammer-and-sickle and a pot leaf.
Well, the pot leaf will be a nice touch.
It’s funny that I came to the same conclusions about 2008 from my center-liberal POV.
I can’t see the American electorate supporting a Bush Dynasty, especially in back-to-back presidencies.
Cheney’s health (if not his Halliburton ties) take him out of the picture for 2208. Condi Rice has proved so ineffectual at keeping the warring factions at Defense and State reigned in that she’s done. I thought Colin Powell might have had a shot, but I wonder if his son’s shenanigans at the FCC haven’t tainted his chances.
Oops… should read out of the picture for 2008.” My bad.
And Seth, if you think Ashcroft or Santorum are “moderate” religious conservatives, then you may have been a bit too close to some of those aforementioned pot leaves yourself. 🙂
I don’t know. The GOP is nothing if not disciplined right now; they could easily settle on one guy.
Also, while I think that if Bush wins now the Dems will probably win in 2008–we will very likely have an awful, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court by then. Rehnquist and O’Connor will retire, and Stevens or Ginsburg, and possibly both, will hold on as long as possible but be forced out by health reasons.
And just so y’all know, Roe v. Wade is the least of my worries (it’s almost a given, and I think the practical effects of the Supreme Court decision might be less than people realize.)
Well, they’re “moderate” religious conservatives to the extent that they aren’t quite Gary Bauer, they don’t spend their time attacking the party from the right, and are mainstream enough to be the Senate nominees from evenly-divided states. From where I stand they’re way, way far away, but from the vast middle of the country, the’re not ideologically outlandish.
One of the reasons that governors tend to be more likely to win the Presidency is that governorship is much better as a qualification — a governor is essentially a mini-President, who has to deal with a legislature, with the courts, with other states and countries. Anyone who fails at being a governor is almost certainly unqualified to be President. (One can be a decent governor but not big enough to be president — e.g., Jimmy Carter.)
Being a Congressman _doesn’t_ prepare you for being President the same way… you’re dealing with legislative debate and issue-framing, rather than Presidential picking subordinates and coordinating and executing policy.