Long before either party has settled on a
presidential candidate, fundamental factors that lay the groundwork for
next year's election — from anti-war sentiment to a drain in GOP-leaning
voters to the simple patterns of history — are creating significant
hurdles for the Republicans who hope to succeed President Bush.
Republicans' main hope: that the strengths of
their particular nominee and the weaknesses of the Democratic one will
offset their uphill climb.
"A Democratic candidate could go out there and
muck it up and raise questions about his or her competence or judgment,"
says Andy Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. "But
the landscape really is tilted in a Democratic direction."
As the Republican contenders gather tonight at
the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., for their
first debate, some of them acknowledge that the nominee who emerges from
their ranks isn't likely to be as fortunate as President Reagan. His
campaign for the White House in 1980 was boosted by a political climate
that had soured toward Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter amid angst
about inflation, energy supplies and American hostages held in Iran.
This time, setbacks in the Iraq war and ethics
scandals ensnaring Republican members of Congress "really demoralized a
lot of our electorate" in the 2006 congressional elections, says Kansas
Sen. Sam Brownback, one of the GOP hopefuls. "We've got to come up with
big ideas. If the Democrats did (that) and the war deteriorated between
now and the 2008 election, I think we'd have a really tough
circumstance."
In one of the best-known formulas to predict
presidential elections, devised in 1981 by historian Allan Lichtman, six
of 13 "keys" have turned against the GOP, enough to forecast defeat of
the party that holds the White House.
The formula — which takes into account economic
data, midterm election results, foreign policy developments, domestic
unrest and candidates' charisma — has accurately forecast the
popular-vote winner in the past six elections. Applied to previous
contests, it points to the winner in every election back to 1860,
according to Lichtman, a professor at American University.
He and other analysts say the political landscape
the year before a presidential election hasn't so overwhelmingly favored
one party over the other in a generation or more, at least since Reagan
won a landslide re-election over Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.
Democrats aren't assured a victory in 2008, but
they almost certainly face an easier task ahead than their Republican
opponents.
Here are five reasons why — and one factor that
just might boost Republicans anyway:
1. It's mostly about Iraq
One issue dominates the national agenda: Iraq.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last month, 43% of
Americans called the war in Iraq one of the most important issues in
determining their vote for president in 2008. That's nearly triple the
issue that ranked second, the economy.
Concern about Iraq is overwhelming even such
traditionally powerful concerns as health care, which ranked third at
10%.
There's more evidence: In a Gallup Poll last
month, 38% identified the Iraq war as the most important problem facing
the country. Over the past half-century, only inflation in 1980 and the
Vietnam War in 1968 reached higher levels of dominance during a
presidential election year.
In both those years, the party in power lost the
White House.
"At this point in time, it's the ballgame," Rich
Bond, a GOP strategist and former Republican national chairman, says of
Iraq.
The Democratic presidential field has lined up
against the war while the leading Republican contenders — former New
York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — defend the invasion and endorse
this year's increase in U.S. troop levels.
That's fine with Republican voters, who by 3-1
support the war. But it has cost the GOP support among political
independents, who by nearly 2-1 call the invasion a mistake. And it's
united and energized Democrats, who oppose the war by more than 4-1.
It's also helped push President Bush's
job-approval rating below 40%, where it's stayed for the past seven
months. That's the longest stretch of such dismal ratings for any
president since the beleaguered Jimmy Carter.
Republican prospects in 2008 depend on the
situation in Iraq turning around, says political scientist James Ceaser
of the University of Virginia. "If we can't see a light at the end of
the tunnel in Iraq," he says, "it's going to be very difficult to
imagine a Republican winning."
2. Excitement is contagious
Democrats are more excited about next year's
election than Republicans are: 59% of Democratic-leaning voters call
themselves extremely or very enthusiastic about the election, compared
with 50% of Republicans.
That enthusiasm gap, if it persists, would be an
asset for Democrats when it comes to turning out voters next year.
"You go to a Democratic event and they've got
more people and more enthusiasm, even for the second-tier candidates,"
says David Yepsen, political columnist for TheDes Moines Register
in Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucuses. (The Register
is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.) "If you took a
decibel meter to a Democratic event and a Republican event, you could
measure it: The Democrats make more noise."
Former Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie
says that with a president in his second term, the "out party" is
"hungry to get back in. That was the case for us in 2000 after two terms
with (President) Clinton, and they're feeling that with Bush."
Gillespie predicts partisan enthusiasm will
"equalize" as the election gets closer and Republicans unite behind a
candidate.
At the moment, though, Democrats are happier with
their choices.
In the USA TODAY poll, one in three Republicans
say they "wish someone else would get into the race," a level of
dissatisfaction that has fueled questions about former Tennessee senator
Fred Thompson or former House speaker Newt Gingrich jumping into the
race.
Among Democrats, fewer than one in five are
pining for someone else to run.
3. Fewer say they're with GOP
In 2004, when Bush won re-election, those
interviewed for Gallup polls through the year were slightly more likely
to call themselves Republicans than Democrats.
In 2006, however, Democrats outnumbered
Republicans by nearly 4 percentage points in the year's combined Gallup
polls. Add the partisan leanings of independent voters and the
Democratic edge rose to 10 points — the biggest edge for either party
since 1991, when Gallup began tracking which way independents "leaned."
"The Republican brand is a drag right now on
their party's candidates," non-partisan pollster Scott Rasmussen says.
The Republican Party now has a net negative
rating of 9 percentage points: 42% viewed it favorably, 51% unfavorably.
The Democratic Party has a net positive rating of 13 points, 55%-38%.
The shifts in partisanship mean Democrats have
gained a clear edge in such key states as Ohio, Florida and Missouri,
according to an analysis by Jeff Jones, managing editor of the Gallup
Poll.
He concluded that 33 states have electorates with
a Democratic advantage outside the survey's margin of error. Six have a
Republican edge.
In 2003, Republican-leaning states outnumbered
Democratic ones, 20 to 14.
In Ohio, Democrats have nearly sold out the 5,000
tickets to their annual fundraising dinner next week at the state
fairgrounds, featuring New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and costing
$150 to $2,000 a plate. Another 1,500 standing-room-only tickets are
being offered.
That breaks all records for the event, says Chris
Redfern, state Democratic chairman and a member of the Ohio legislature.
"We're seeing what we missed in the last 16 years
in Ohio," he says, "a great deal of enthusiasm and energy."
4. Money flowing to Democrats
Republicans traditionally have been able to count
on one sure advantage over Democrats: money.
Not this time.
During the first three months of the year,
Republican presidential candidates took in $53.4 million in
contributions. That would have been a record for this stage of a
campaign except that Democratic candidates took in $78.4 million —
nearly 50% more.
Since the Federal Election Commission began to
track contributions in the 1976 campaign, a Republican candidate always
has been the top money-raiser.
But at least to this point, Democrats Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama have surpassed Mitt
Romney, the best-funded Republican.
Democratic candidates have received contributions
from more individuals and shown more success tapping the Internet to
raise money.
The totals reflect both the enthusiasm of
Democratic partisans and the calculations of some donors who are
interested in currying favor with the side they believe is likely to
prevail on Election Day.
"The enthusiasm in the donor community for
Democratic candidates, party ID, presidential job approval are all
indicators that point to a better ground for the Democrats at this
time," GOP strategist Rich Bond says.
He sees a "turnaround point" for Republicans in
fundraising and other factors early next year, when a nominee emerges.
5. Hunger for change growing
In modern American politics, control of the White
House has swung like a pendulum.
Since World War II, the presidency generally has
switched from one party to the other every two terms: eight years of
Democrat Harry Truman followed by eight years of Republican Dwight
Eisenhower followed by eight years of Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon
Johnson, and so on.
The exceptions were Jimmy Carter's failure to win
a second Democratic term in 1980 and the elder George Bush's success in
holding the White House for a third straight Republican term in 1988.
Bush won by capitalizing on Reagan's popularity and Democratic nominee
Michael Dukakis' missteps.
That relatively steady pattern reflects not some
conscious effort by the electorate to take turns. Rather, after eight
years in power, administrations tend to run thin on fresh ideas, become
enmeshed in scandal or be forced to deal with the unexpected
consequences of controversial decisions made earlier.
The appetite for change may be the strongest tide
running against the GOP. "This country is so unhappy with the presidency
of George W. Bush that that is the central dynamic in the 2008
election," Democratic pollster Peter Hart says. "That is what gives the
Democrats an open opportunity."
By 2-1, those surveyed by Gallup say they are
dissatisfied with the way things are going in the USA. That's the
sourest climate in a presidential election year since 1992, when the
elder Bush lost his bid for a second term.
Asked in the USA TODAY poll who they would want
to see win the White House if the election were today, 51% of registered
voters said the Democrat, 38% the Republican — a landslide.
... But it's still a race to the finish
What sobers Democratic strategists and encourages
Republican ones is that the nameless Democratic contender does better
than the actual ones, at least for now.
While the generic Democratic candidate wins by 13
points in the USA TODAY poll, Hillary Rodham Clinton loses to Rudy
Giuliani by 5 points, 46%-51%, in a hypothetical head-to-head between
the two front-runners.
"It takes a horse to beat a horse," says Jack
Citrin, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.
In fact, Clinton defeated Fred Thompson by only
46%-40% in a NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll in April even
though only 45% of those surveyed knew who Thompson was. Views of
Clinton are so polarized that a significant number of voters will choose
even someone they don't know over her.
"Democrats have a tremendous advantage," says
Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster. Even so, he says, Democratic
candidates "have special obstacles they will have to overcome to take
advantage of the Democratic landscape."
After seeing her for eight years as first lady
and two terms as a U.S. senator, for instance, voters have set
perceptions of Clinton. Of 1,007 adults surveyed by USA TODAY last
month, 45% had a favorable view, 52% an unfavorable one.
To compare, Giuliani's favorable-unfavorable
rating was 57%-29%.
Some Democrats, remembering the optimism many
felt during the 2000 and 2004 elections, worry the party will find some
way to lose even in a friendly climate.
"As Democrats we'll work hard to fight with each
other, and the wheels will fall off," Chris Redfern, the Ohio Democratic
chairman, predicts jokingly. "We've got a lot of experience at losing
nationally."
"For
sure, it's going to be a tight election, as it has been in the past,"
says Ana Iparraguirre, an analyst with the Democracy Corps, a
liberal-leaning research organization. "But all the other measures
indicate that when the electorate starts breaking, the Democrats have
the advantage."
