July 18, 2007
WH '08: How To Pick A Candidate You Know Will Lose
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama each has more cash on hand than the entire Republican field combined, according to the latest campaign finance reports. It's only the second quarter, way too early for handicapping. But with check-writing closely mirroring the national polls, it might be time for Republican party leaders to embark on an awkward conversation.
Which candidate do you put forward for the White House when you know he's going to lose?
Republicans in particular do not enjoy political martyrdom. But at some point, party leaders may have to start mapping out a worst-case scenario that has them losing in the most advantageous way possible.
One objective will be to not lose by a margin so humiliating it's fit for the history books. A Newsweek poll conducted late last month showed Clinton and Obama beating Republicans Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in hypothetical match-ups by 5 to 10 percentage points. Pitting either of the Democrats against Mitt Romney, however, results in a bloodbath: The former Republican governor loses by 15 to 16 points.
According to a top Republican strategist who played a key role in the last three presidential elections, the party has abandoned candidates in favor of the big picture before.
In the 1996 elections, the two men tasked with ensuring that the newly Republican Congress stayed that way decided to forsake then-Sen. Bob Dole after calculating that the GOP challenger would probably lose to President Bill Clinton.
"Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour made a crucial decision not to reorient their fundraising at the party to help" Dole, the strategist said. He did not want to appear critical of the party and wished not to be named.
Gingrich, of course, was the House Speaker at the time; Barbour, now Mississippi's governor, was head of the Republican National Committee.
In the run-up to the 1996 elections, Clinton had the usual advantages of incumbency while Gingrich et al were trying to ensure the Republican Revolution wasn't an aberration. The public had already begun to sour on the new Congress, especially after a clash with Clinton over the budget led to a shutdown of the federal government. Polls showed Americans blamed GOP lawmakers and not Clinton for the shutdown, and Gingrich's negative poll ratings far outpaced the president's.
"They made the decision that Dole can't win, we've just taken over Congress," the strategist said.
In 1996, Democrats' fundraising success astounded the political establishment. Dole won the nomination early in the cycle because party leaders felt it was "his turn," not because there was a huge swell of support for him. His campaign petered out relatively early as a result. Rather than infuse him with a boost of cash and support, the strategist said, Gingrich and Barbour opted to protect their new majority in Congress instead.
This election cycle, Republicans risk losing not only the White House but also the power to foil the Democratic agenda in Congress. It's easy to forget that a majority of GOP voters still stand by President Bush and the Iraq war. Anti-war sentiment seems pervasive these days, but the GOP's base isn't just going to hand the reins over to the Democratic Party.
The strategist, who has not worked for any '08 candidates so far, acknowledged that the GOP has a lot to overcome now, but stressed that the general election is "an eternity" away. Besides, if Hillary Rodham Clinton tops the Democratic ticket, "That would have an explosive effect on Republican giving that would wipe out any potential deficit" in the GOP's coffers, he said.
Perhaps. But with independent-minded Republicans and Republican-leaning independents largely siding with Clinton on the Iraq war, it's hard to imagine the GOP catching up with the Democrats in fundraising before the primaries are decided.
Although it's a truism among political operatives that presidential elections are decided in the last 90 days, the Gingrich-Barbour meeting occurred in the summer of 1996. That's more than enough time to amass resources and mount a comeback. But "I don't think anybody regrets doing what we did, because it worked," the operative said.
Similarly, a case could be made that losing in 2008 could end up working for the GOP. As several prominent Republicans noted before last year's midterms, the party's troubles can't all be blamed on Iraq and Bush. Two years is hardly any time at all, as the Senate Iraq debate now suggests. It's probably not long enough to regroup, and it's probably not long enough for the Democratic Congress to anger constituents so much that the nation begins to tilt back to the right.
Even though the Republican field is famously wide open [PDF], the GOP fundraising machine can be expected to kick in once it's down to a nominee. For the first time in a good long while, Republicans will have to think about who they will rally behind to face off against a Democratic candidate with a more popular message on Iraq.
That decision could have far-reaching consequences for the party's dominance, and getting there will be anything but easy. The strategist insisted that throwing candidates under the bus was out of character for the RNC, but he couldn't speak for other factions in the party.
"At some point, does [House Minority Leader] John Boehner tell his business community friends that 'Candidate X' can't win? People are trying to find 'The Way' with President Bush at the center of policymaking, and that's difficult because he is the ultimate policymaker."
Graphic: Reuben Dalke
Posted at 4:32 PM
Posted to:
Bush Administration, Campaigns, Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, President Bush, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani, WH 2008
Share via
