This Just In: Bush Defeats Clinton

The election of 2002 was a curious affair. It was a contest between two sets of candidates, none of whom appeared on any ballot, anywhere. Yet in that contest, the lead race was the overwhelming defeat of former President William J. Clinton by President George W. Bush. In the other national race, sort of a “Vice Presidential” one, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani handily defeated the tag-team of Senators Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle.

Before we get into that, some words are in order about the candidates who were on the ballot, and who won or lost public office because the voters wanted them – or did not want their opponents. I predicted on radio and in print that the Republicans would hold the House and gain five seats. I also predicted that the Republicans would retake the Senate and would gain two seats.

I was right in the direction of both numbers, but wrong in the amounts. There was a surge the last weekend both toward the Republicans and against the Democrats which I did not foresee. Nor did anyone else. All the “experts” were wrong on this.

In the Senate, I called the Republican incumbents to win in Arkansas (which was a loss) and to lose in Colorado (which was a win). In addition, I thought the foot dragging by the former Republican Senate incumbent in New Hampshire would wind up making the man who defeated him, Rep. John Sununu, lose narrowly to Governor Jeanne Shaheen, (I was wrong. Sununu won. About half the experts were right on this one.)

A three-seat Republican gain changes the chemistry for the remaining Senate race, the runoff in Louisiana between incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican Suzie Terrell, Commissioner of Elections. Before November 7th, I predicted that Landrieu would be forced into a runoff, but would win on 7 December. I now change that prediction to a loss for her. Here’s why:

In all of the ten Senate races that seemed close in the weeks before the election, both the Democrat candidates and their surrogates and supporters argued repeatedly that their victories were necessary “to prevent the Republicans from taking control of the Senate.” That argument is now entirely off the table. Even if one assumes that either, or even both, of Senators Chafee and McCain will “pull a Jeffords” and cross the aisle to vote for the (soon to be former) Majority Leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, he still loses. The Senate is now safely Republican until 2004.

So Democrats no longer have any incentive to support Landrieu to preserve Daschle’s position which is irretrievably lost. Instead, the runoff election in Louisiana will focus on the degree to which Landrieu does, or does not, represent the thinking of the people of her state. Even the gender gap, which many Democrat candidates for many offices have relied upon, is gone; her opponent is a woman. Couple those facts with the point that the national Democrats are nearly tapped out but the Republicans still have money to spend. The bottom line is, Landrieu should be defeated, increasing the final Republican gain to four seats.

In the House, the pro-Republican surge that I did not see not only gave them a majority of the close races (which I had predicted), but gave them several surprise upsets. So instead of the five-seat gain I had predicted, the Republicans will gain either six or eight seats.

According to CNN on Friday morning, four House seats are undecided. In Texas 23 and New Mexico 01, the Republicans have a substantial lead with all votes counted. In Louisiana 05, the leading candidate was the Democrat. But under that states’ unique election law, there will be a runoff between him and the leading Republican. Since the votes for all three Republican candidates were about 2-1 over both Democrat candidates, the Republican should win handily.

In Colorado 07, the Republican has a lead of a few hundred. Being both conservative and charitable, give the Democrats that seat for now. That would be a net Republican gain of six seats, and a total of 226 of the 435 House seats. This is a comfortable margin, rather than the squeaker of 5 votes that the GOP had at the beginning of the current Congress,

And what was the cause of the pro-Republican surge? It was the two contests I mentioned at the beginning, between the “candidates” who were not on the ballot.

Historically, Presidents take losses in their Party in the midterm elections of their first term – sometimes substantial losses. The last time this pattern did not hold true was in 1962, when the Democrats gained in both Houses while President Kennedy was in the White House. The unusual event in that year was Kennedy’s facing down the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, the normal advice to all Presidents in their first term is to give token endorsement to their Party’s candidates in the mid-term election. They should not go out in the hustings and put their prestige on the line, because almost certainly they will be embarrassed and weakened.

George W. Bush did not follow that advice. He went against the lessons of history and vigorously supported 26 particular candidates for House, Senate, and Governorships. And almost all of them won, some of them in surprise upsets, like Senator-elect Saxby Chambliss in Georgia. (Why is it that Southerners tag their children, both male and female, with names like that? I won’t even mention some of the names that have passed down the generations in my own family. But I digress.)

Former President William J. Clinton, believing that he was still popular with the American people and knowing the historical trends that favored the Democrats, also went out into the hustings in favor of many of the candidates that Bush opposed, plus some others. His list of favored candidates suffered mostly defeats, even those who were generally favored to win.

In short, even though neither President Bush nor former President Clinton were on any ballots anywhere, they “ran” against each other for the first and only time, in 2002. And Bush won a landslide victory. A measure of how comprehensive that victory was, is this: For the first time since 1930, the Republican Party holds the White House, a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House, a majority of the Governorships, and a majority of the 7,382 state legislator positions. (Independents, as always, hold a majority of all elected positions in the US, because almost all of the roughly 250,00 citizens elected to all public offices at the local level, run as independents.)

On the Governorships, CNN on Friday shows the Republicans with 24, the Democrats with 21, and five races undecided. In Alabama, CNN shows the Democrat with a slight lead. The official returns actually give the Republican a slight lead, and the Democrat has already called for a recount. In Arizona, the Democrat has a substantial lead, and I have no idea why CNN has not called this race. In Oklahoma and Oregon, the Democrats have slight leads. In Vermont, the Democrat conceded yesterday, but CNN has not caught up with that news.

So the Republicans should wind up with at least 26 Governors to 24 for the Democrats.

There was a second “national” race conducted in this non-presidential year. The Republican was Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York. He campaigned with and for even more Republican candidates than did President Bush. His candidates also had overwhelming success, and he even helped one who lost. Against all predictions and polls, Republican Bill Simon made a real contest of his ultimately unsuccessful run against Democrat Governor Gray Davis in California.

And who was Giuliani’s opponent in his national “Vice Presidential” campaign? It was a tag team of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Daschle campaigned in person, and mostly for Democrat Senate candidates. His message was always the same, “Elect this man/woman to prevent the Republicans from taking over the Senate.” His dedication in this effort was indicated by his showing up at the Minnesota campaign headquarters of the late Senator Wellstone before the bodies of the eight people killed in the plane crash had gotten cold.

Senator Clinton’s campaign was less a matter of personal campaigning (other than in New York, where she vigorously supported the disastrous campaign of Carl McCall for the Governor’s job) and more a matter of financial support. All four of the Democrat House candidates that she supported with her maximum of $5,000 from her own political action committee, were defeated. Most of the other candidates she supported with lesser sums, also lost. In short, the tag team of Senators Clinton and Daschle suffered the same landslide loss against former Mayor Giuliani as did Clinton (him) against Bush.

The clearest indication of how bad the debacle was, came in Maryland. That state, where I spent most of my years, has a 2-1 Democrat edge in registration. In addition, the Democrat candidate for Governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, was a woman and a Kennedy (her consistent use of her middle name is a solid clue). The last Republican elected Governor there was Spiro Agnew in 1966. (Does anybody here besides me remember Spiro Agnew? Heck, I even remember one Republican Governor before that, Theodore Roosevelt McKeldin. A scant few of you will recall his magnificent nominating speech for Dwight Eisenhower at the 1952 Republican Convention, “Ike is coming! Ike is coming!” But I digress again.)

Even without the vigorous support of Clinton (him) and Clinton (her), Townsend should have won in Maryland in a walk, without breaking a sweat. Instead, Rep. Robert Ehrlich defeated her, with the support of Bush who put his prestige on the line in a race few thought could be won.

The reason I said that 2002 was the last national campaign of Clinton (him) is found partly in Maryland, partly in Minnesota. Even though former Vice President Walter Mondale was obviously a retread with not many miles left on him, the circumstances of his selection to replace the late Senator Wellstone should have made that race, like the Maryland one, a walkover.

The critical event in that campaign was the “memorial” allegedly for Wellstone but in fact a rompin’, stompin’ rally for a Democrat victory at any cost. The critical image from that event was Clinton (him) yukking it up with Mondale and his wife. That showed not just Minnesota but the whole nation the true face of these Democrat “candidates.” It was an ugly face, a power-hungry face, a face with no apparent sense of decency or humanity.

I do not think that any Democrats for any offices will again allow Clinton (him) to support them personally and publically. The only exception may be African-American candidates, and that exception will only apply as long as most African-Americans remain under the delusion that Clinton (him) has any real interest in them other than as stepping stones to victory for him and his cronies. And even that is changing.

In time, Clinton (her) will reach the same point in the perceptions of the public and of candidates. Daschle has already reached that point. I sincerely doubt that any Democrat candidates for the Senate in 2004 will welcome his visible and personal support. More likely, if he ventures into their states, they will ask him to carry a bell, ring it, and cry out, “Unclean. Unclean.”

Here we are near the end and I’ve said nary a word about Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, hand-picked by Clinton (him) and intended to help shepherd Clinton (her) into the White House, probably in 2008. McAuliffe should have been convicted of any of three felonies, disbarred and jailed. The Democrats should never have put him in a position of authority, because of his background. But they did.

Now, the Democrats will fire McAuliffe for incompetence, which is the right decision for the wrong reason.

The Democrats’ Minority Leader in the House, Richard Gephardt, has announced that he is stepping down. The leading candidate to replace him is Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. She will be presented as the “kind and caring face of progressive government.” I know her as the daughter of one Baltimore Mayor, and the sister of another. I remember the multiple corruption charges and one rape charge that were dismissed or squashed when her family, the D’Alesandros, ruled Baltimore with an iron fist, including its courts and prosecutors.

Therefore, I was not surprised when she became the only female in the House to support the disgraced and now defeated Rep. Gary Condit. Her true modus operandi is Democrats uber alles. Nothing will really change when she replaces Gephardt.

In the Senate, the Democrat leader will apparently still be (now) Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who remains unrepentant and unbowed. He intends to lead the Democrats in defeat, just as he led them into defeat. Two new Senators will be sworn in when that body meets in a lameduck session within the month, Republican Jim Talent of Missouri and Independent Dean Barkley of Minnesota. (The latter was named by Governor Ventura to serve out the remainder of the term of the late Paul Wellstone.) The Senate will be reorganized then, with new Chairmen for all Committees and Republican majorities on all of them.

In a press conference Thursday, President Bush named as three top priorities in this lameduck session, passage of the Homeland Security Bill as adopted by the House, confirmation of judges he has nominated for the federal bench, and passage of the budget, already adopted by the House. The only way that Daschle can prevent these things from happening is to lead a filibuster in the Senate and shut it down from conducting any business whatsoever. Whether he will attempt this self-destructive tactic is unknown. Odds are, an insufficient number of Democrat Senators will be willing to be led over this additional cliff by this failed leader.

The crushing, almost unprecedented defeat of the Democrat Party in 2002 may be both a blessing in disguise for them, and a gift to the American people. It may, I repeat may, be sufficient to instruct the Democrats that they cannot usually win with either dishonest or incompetent candidates. (There are exceptions to every rule, and Senator-elect Lautenberg from New Jersey is the exception to the “incompetent” part of that rule.) There are honest and competent Democrats. Senator Zell Miller, whom I’ve written about before, is a fine example.

If the horrible lesson of 2002 teaches the Democrats to come up with far better candidates, both they and the nation will benefit. If they do not learn that lesson and improve the caliber of their candidates, the nation will still benefit, as even more Democrats are buried in the elections of 2004 and beyond.

Post Script: I have said nothing about Al Gore. No need to. He is now officially irrelevant. Even if he does run for President in 2004.

I enjoyed reading this. Thanks for the post. I have a concern that I seem not to be able to articulate without appearing to be anti-Libertarian Party. The Libertarian vote, as small as it is, continues to play a part in keeping Republicans out of office. Specific races like South Dakota and Oregon trouble me. I'm piggybacking this post because I don't know where to go for the answer. What is the future for Libertarians? Their policies in the past have mirrored Republicans. What changed to make them as vicious (verbally) as Anarchist?

This Just In: Bush Defeats Clinton

One of the more interesting untold stories of the 2000 election campaign was this: polls taken in the months leading up to the presidential election seemed to indicate that Clinton would have lost to George W. Bush if they had faced off in 2000. Even more remarkable was that the same polls indicated that Clinton would have lost to George H.W. Bush as well!

According to CNN on Friday morning, four House seats are undecided.

AS USUAL, CNN IS WRONG! It appears there will be a run-off election for the House Seat of American Samoa, between Incumbent Eni Faleomavaega and Daniel Landkilde.

See you in December, Billybob!

Pookie & ME

"...the Democrats will fire McAuliffe for incompetence"

I disagree with this piece of conventional wisdom. McAuliffe is Clinton's man, and firing him would be an admission of failure by Clinton. I don't know if that's possible for him. Also, Clinton needs for one of his minions to run the DNC. Controlling the funds is his main method for controlling the party. If not McAuliffe, then who? Yes, I'm sure the party want's to ditch McAuliffe, but it's not up to them.

Historically, Presidents take losses in their Party in the midterm elections of their first term – sometimes substantial losses.

There is a reason why this pattern did not hold during this election, and it was not just because Republican candidates did better than expected. Most new Presidents have been elected with a number of new members of Congress as well, and these new Congressmen are vulnerable in their first re-election test two years later.

Bush did not sweep into office in 2000 with a large number of fellow Republicans (in fact, his coattails were "negative"), so in the 2002 there was very little "low-hanging fruit" for the Democrats to target.

The Senate is a different story altogether -- there is no way the Democrats should have lost control of the Senate, given the substantial difference between the number of Republican and Democratic senate seats that were being contested this year.

The critical image from that event was Clinton (him) yukking it up with Mondale and his wife. That showed not just Minnesota but the whole nation the true face of these Democrat “candidates.” It was an ugly face, a power-hungry face, a face with no apparent sense of decency or humanity.

Kudos to the writer who described the "memorial" by comparing it to the cantina scene from Star Wars.

So, the Republicans gained three seats, rather than the two I predicted. CNN and others say a gain of two, but they are still listing South Dakota as a win for Democrat Senator Tim Johnson by 527 votes over Republican Rep. John Thune. I’ve read many of the facts on the vote frauds in four counties of that state, on and off the Indian Reservations. I believe the vote totals will be corrected to remove the fraud, and that will give Thune the win.
A three-seat Republican gain changes the chemistry for the remaining Senate race, the runoff in Louisiana between incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican Suzie Terrell, Commissioner of Elections. Before November 7th, I predicted that Landrieu would be forced into a runoff, but would win on 7 December. I now change that prediction to a loss for her.

From your mouth to God's ear.

I disagree about McAweful however, tha rapist has indicated he will fully support keeping Terry as the head of the DNC.

It will be interesting to see if Clinton now helps to destroy the party, Trying to following his view of the world: he feels HE is the reason they won and they can't/shouldn't ein eithout him. This could be fun.

How do you think Ford will do against Pelosi, I think he would be a much more formidible opponent. Do you think the goal is for him to be majority whip inexchange for delivering the CBC to Pelosi? It seems to me he is being groomed to become the first Black Demrcrat Presidental Nominee in 2012 or 2016, depending on what happens in 2008.

I'vr always wondered why nobody ever asked Slick how he felt about Dubya still getting more than 3 million votes more than he did...

1996 William J. Clinton, Democrat 47,401,185
Robert Dole, Republican 39,197,469
H. Ross Perot, Reform . . . 8,085,294

2000 George W. Bush, Republican 50,456,169
Al Gore, Democrat 50,996,116
Ralph Nader, Green . . . 2,695,696

I didn't even look at the races for "Congressman" from Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, and such. Per the Constitution, only Representatives elected from "states" have voting rights in the House. The others are there as observers. Also, they don't get to vote for whomever will be Speaker of the House.
CNN has several flat-out mistakes on its website as of this morning concerning the Senate, House, and Gubernatorial races. I did some serious homework to get the stories all straight after starting with CNN's charts and then checking everything.

Congressman Billybob

Click for preview: "to Restore Trust in America" which predicted in August the theme of President Bush' press conference, yesterday.

In Colorado 07, the Republican has a lead of a few hundred. Being both conservative and charitable, give the Democrats that seat for now.

Well I'm not that charitable so I'm putting this in the (R) column where it belongs.

I do think the author is too optimistic on South Dakota. We shall see but I can't see this race being overturned unless voter fraud is documented and people go to jail for it. For some reason, voter fraud is rarely taken very seriously in this country. Maybe it's a can of worms that the powers-that-be do not want opened.

I like the run-off system that Louisiana uses. This ensures that the winning candidate gets more than 50% of the vote and all that nonsense about "not having a mandate" for winning candidates that poll under 50% will finally go away. I would like to see it applied nationally.

Imagine, the last three presidential elections would have runoffs. Clinton - who never achieved the 50% threshold - likely never would have been president. (I personally think Gore would have fared less well in a run-off situation as well.)

Every time I write, even something as serious as a Supreme Court brief, I try to put in at least one laugh line to let the reader know that I'm a real human, not just a policy wonk.
The "Unclean" line was my wife's favorite line, also. And she's the best editor I've ever had. As I've said to her, "You're a good house but a tough audience."

Billybob

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.