James Vesely has an interesting piece in the Seattle Times on why 2004 is looking more and more like 1996. While I’d argue that the left is more partisan today than the right was in 1996 (although I’m certain many would disagree) the overall themes of these two elections are eerily similar. The GOP of 1996 had a visceral dislike of Clinton and could never understand why the American people kept electing him. They tried to pin Clinton as a radical when his record (moved by a GOP Congress to be sure) was relatively moderate. They ran a Senate war hero who was a downright bore, and lost the election because their message had no resonance outside their own partisans.
The Democrats are doing exactly the same in 2004. It’s almost laughable to paint Bush as some kind of arch-conservative when real arch-conservatives are balking at his moderation. The Democrat’s run is fueled on visceral hatred for the President and a sense that America is somehow on a wrong and dangerous track and only the Democrats can save the country. Even John Edwards speaks about "two Americas" as though those people who make over $200,000 a year (or often less than that) suddenly lose all understanding about what America is. Campaigns of fear and partisanship tend not to do well in this coutry, especially when countered by an opponent offering a positive vision for the future.
Many Democrats are saying that they’re trying to emulate the successes of the conservative movement in the last few years – instead they’re doing an admirable job of emulating one of its greatest failures.
Of course, here in South Dakota, where Bush is as popular as he is anywhere, his approval rating has dropped to 47%. Although Kerry wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of beating him in this state, when a Dem closes to a single digit gap in a state as consistently red as SD (like Clinton did), the Republican candidate has problems…
But it’s certainly early in the year. Daschle’s still polling 7% ahead of Thune, and Herseth is about 27% ahead of… whoever.
Well, Herseth might as well be measuring for her new office curtains… the patsy running against her doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. Thune has a chance against Daschle, but that’s going to be a major fight.
As for Bush’s approval ratings, considering that he hasn’t even started to campaign, it’s not surprising. When the media coverage is constantly negative, you really can’t expect much else. We’ll see where the numbers go when the general election starts in earnest…
“Well, Herseth might as well be measuring for her new office curtains… the patsy running against her doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.”
Larry Diedrich is more than a patsy, unfortunately- he’s been considered one of the up-and-comers in the state’s party. Running him against Herseth is a mistake- the party leadership should have put a perennial also-ran up against her, like Dick Brown (who, I have on good authority, was more than willing to be Ms. Herseth’s punching bag).
Of course, since the fall of Janklow, the state Republican party has been leaderless- which should manage to buy South Dakota populism at least another generation, before it finally collapses from the death of the state’s farm economy, for good or for ill…
“They tried to pin Clinton as a radical when his record (moved by a GOP Congress to be sure) was relatively moderate.”
1.) Way to recognize that Clinton did not govern as a Liberal.
2.) Are you sure you want to head into this campaign caling Bush’s record “moderate”? Was Reagan a “moderate?”
The general perception of Bush is to the right of Reagan on a wide array of issues. Runing as a moderate seems like about as good an idea as running a negative campaign against John Kerry based on Vietnam.