I went to bed last night confidently expecting to wake in the morning and find Kerry more or less home and dry. The early leaked “exit” polls which I saw on other sites were, I now suspect, either false, possibly as an attempt to make a killing on the betting exchanges, or “tracking” polls from earlier in the day.
Last night, Kerry was apparently leading 50-49 in both Florida and Ohio only to lose the former 52-47 and the latter 50.5-48. Both these margins were of course within the statistical range of the polls but only a few showed a persistent Bush lead of around three points (Gallup was tied at 49).
I am like some others, disappointed by the result. I would have preferred a Kerry win balanced by a Republican-controlled Senate and Congress. I think the most effective period of the Clinton Administration followed the Republican successes in the 1994 mid-term elections.
Bush has received an extraordinarily powerful mandate in terms of control of the Executive and legislature and the worst excesses of the Republican agenda look set to be implemented in the coming year or two. The Republicans will of course bask in their victory but they should remember the cast-iron rule of politics “what goes around comes around”. It may well be that the 2006 mid-terms will be fought in much less favourable circumstances after which the Republicans will need to find a candidate for 2008. I would imagine Dick Cheney is excluded due to his health and I doubt Schwarzenegger will be available so that leaves Trent Lott or perhaps Giuliani.
As for the Democrats, this is their “April 1992” so to speak. There are clear lessons to learn and they need to start with asking why they lost. Was it solely Iraq or the war on terrorism, or are there deeper reasons? Some are already pointing to what could be regarded as a cultural divide within America. Many evangelical Churches actively worked to ensure congregations voted for Bush citing Kerry’s stance on abortion for example. The Democrats will need to come up with a strategy to counter this cultural conservatism and picking a northeastern liberal Senator probably wasn’t the best move.
Of course, the events of September 2001 changed the political climate and I do think if that event had not occurred and the election had been fought primarily on the economy and other bread and butter issues, there would have been a different result. Though the south and Midwest are predominantly Republican, there is little doubt that the Republicans benefited from what may be called a “war time loyalty” vote. Those who might not have supported the economic and domestic policies of Bush backed him because he is the commander-in-chief and the old adage that changing leaders in wartime is a sign of weakness might have weighed on many minds. Showing loyalty to the country in time of war means supporting the troops and supporting the commander in chief.
By 2008, of course, the world might be a very different place. Look back to 2000 – the Twin Towers were still standing and the name of Osama Bin Laden was known to only a few. There were factors that worked to the Republican’s favour this time that might not be in place next time and that should give them cause to reflect amidst the euphoria.
As I’ve suggested, the Democrats face the agony of defeat. As with Labour in April 1992, it hurts and will hurt for a long time to come. The question is really how the Democrats will react to the events of November 2004 and what lessons they will draw. In Britain, Labour found itself within a year holding a huge opinion poll lead courtesy of the ERM fiasco. When John Smith died so tragically, Labour made the key decision in electing a leader who set out creating policies and a Party not for the benefit of the converted but for the sole purpose of bringing in disaffected Conservatives. By 1997, Blair had convinced (or conned) a large section of the public into believing that the Labour Party was now a non-socialist party of the centre and centre-left.
For the Democrats too the lesson must be that they cannot keep going back to an increasingly culturally conservative people with the same liberal message promulgated by the same liberal people. Kerry has followed Dukakis in failing against Bush. The last two successful Democratic candidates were Clinton and Carter, both of whom were able to portray themselves as centrist outsiders (Clinton was also aided by the presence of Ross Perot, who drew off many Republican votes while Carter won in the shadow of Watergate). Picking Kerry was, for the Democrats, a genuflection to the Kennedy past and the northeastern liberal roots. The entire image has been undermined and the Democrats need a new start. It’s no good the Democrats picking another liberal next time. That candidate might appeal to the party faithful but it won’t appeal to potential disaffected Republicans in the heartland. The Republican majorities in states like Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado aren’t beyond reach for a candidate able to speak to the conservative Republican heartland and appeal especially to those cultural conservatives who will come to resent Bush’s economic policies.
For this reason alone, I think Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake. Edwards looked out of his depth in the campaign but he has time to learn and looks the most likely option short of Gore returning to the race or A.N Other or S.O Else coming out of the pack (from the Pacific Northwest perhaps?).
The lesson here is that politics isn’t just about winning and losing elections. It’s about understanding how to make your appeal and to whom and in what way. The Democrats have a long journey in front of them and time isn’t on their side. In 2006, the mid terms give the party an opportunity to regain ground in some key areas while the Republicans may struggle to hold all last night’s gains.
