This is Part II of a continuing series of posts on the increasingly likely possibility of a second Clinton presidency.
Yesterday, I discussed Hillary’s unforeseen strength in the border states that voted for President Bush in 2004, such as Ohio, Missouri, and West Virginia. To understand Rodham’s strength in these states — a region that voted against both Al Gore and John Kerry — one must understand just what sort of campaign Hillary is running. Hers is not the campaign of a northeastern patrician or a DC insider, despite the fact that she represents a northeastern state here in our nation’s capital. Instead, Hillary, much like Richard Nixon in 1968, is running a campaign that will attempt to change the electoral template by appealing to light red and purple territory with policies that will likely offend Blue America. Hillary’s reasoning is as cunning as it is brilliant: just as Nixon ran a southern strategy that attempted to capture the longtime Democratic bastion of the south, Hillary is planning to run a northern strategy, one that turns the midwest and border states solid blue with a message of economic populism and pragmatism, social moderation, and a “to hell with ‘em” hawkish stance on foreign policy.
As our first exhibit, allow me to direct you to a recent piece detailing Hillary’s classic Clintonian triangulation on trade. Money quote:
Just how far apart are Mr. and Mrs. Clinton on the question of global economic integration? The gap is yawning. For the former president, three sweeping and historic trade agreements did much to cement his reputation as bone-deep internationalist: the passage of NAFTA, the ratification of the Uruguay Round of the gatt, and the extension of permanent normal trading status to China and its inclusion in the WTO.
But for the current senator, much of this apparently seems dubious, at least as a road map to the future. ?We just can?t keep doing what we did in the twentieth century,? she told a reporter from Bloomberg, adding that we may need ?a little time-out? before the enactment of any further trade deals. Accordingly, in 2005, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Last month, she announced her opposition to the South Korean Free Trade Agreement. She has backed legislation that would impose trade sanctions on Chinese goods unless Beijing stops holding down the value of the yuan. She has even repeatedly spouted skepticism about the wisdom of NAFTA?while stopping short of blaming her husband for its deficiencies. ?NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton administration,? she informed Time magazine. ?I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.?
This sort of language will make midwestern Perotistas giddy while Californians cringe. The column goes onto suggest that Hillary’s likely stance on globalization will to declare it a pox on all houses unless the state starts spending more on education, job training, health care…the list goes on and on. And of course how can any of this be done without tax increases? After all, if the Clintons care about anything, it’s the deficit. A Hillary presidency means higher taxes, more spending, and a skepticism of economic globalization. If done right, this sort of pragmatic populism will play very, very well in the midwest and border states, from Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the north to Ohio, West Virginia, and Missouri along the Ohio River.
But wait! Will the most sensible part of the country vote for a vehement social liberal? Will these states entrust our national security to a Democrat, a party that we haven’t trusted during a time of war since 1968? The short answers are yes, and yes. First, Hillary isn’t running as a social liberal. Like her husband, Hillary is running as a social liberal who sounds like a social moderate. Hillary remains 100 percent pro-choice, but when she talks about abortion, she discusses how unwanted pregnancies shouldn’t occur in the first place. She throws in a religious principle or two. Like her husband, she convinces her audience that she thinks abortion is evil. Just like they do. She just won’t do anything to stop it. It worked the last time around. It will likely work again. Remember, Bill Clinton won every Great Lakes state minus Indiana and much of the south.
As far as foreign policy goes, Hillary has been very effectively positioning herself as a hawk in the Democratic field, which isn’t difficult given that most of the Democratic contenders don’t even think the war on Islamism exists. But here’s where it gets interesting. I think Hillary will attempt to run to the right of the GOP nominee on defense, both by playing up the failures of the Bush Doctrine, as well as by painting the eventual GOP nominee as idealistic and Wilsonian, while Hillary will attempt to come across as realistic and ready to blow our enemies into the deepest level of Tartarus. This is the fear: while Rudy (or Fred, or whoever) talks about nation-building, Hillary talks about bombing the monsters who threaten the West back to the Stone Age. Americans, an isolationist bunch with an inherent skepticism about foreign entanglements, may just decide to back the hawk in the race who is saying, “to hell with ‘em!” Oddly, that will be Hillary.
Electorally, the reason the Northern Strategy is so brilliant is that it basically allows Hillary to take off the table almost all of the light blue states from 2004. President Bush lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota by less than 5 points each. These are all states that would find an economically populist, domestically pragmatic, socially disinterested foreign policy realist very enticing. Additionally, this strategy also pulls in the light red Ohio River region for the same reasons, meaning that the GOP loses red states and finds itself with virtually no purple states to replace them with.
There is one obvious danger for Hillary, and that’s that the northeast and west won’t take kindly to her abandoning her husband’s economically conservative, socially liberal platform. That’s where the GOP comes in. A nominee like Rudy could appeal to the “South Park Conservative” vote in the mountain west, the west coast, and the northeast, flipping formerly solid blue territory to make up for the GOP losses along the Ohio River and making sure that we hold Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. What Hillary is banking on is that Rudy’s embrace of the Bush Doctrine will be so abhorrent to northeasterners and Left Coasters that they’ll take a little Jim Webb populism to avoid another four years of foreign adventures. Given the state of the polls in this country regarding the war in Iraq, and given the natural isolationism of the northeast, Hillary’s calculations may just prove to be right. And that would make her the 44th President of the United States.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I agree DaveG. However I believe that no nominee can afford to lose the Upper South and Lower Midwest. There just aren’t enough EVs outside of that region to make up the loss.
Republicans will need some type of acceptable populism to hold the Red states of the lower Midwest and Upper South. Having a Midwesterner (or Upper Southerner) as VP is an essential.
It’s really too bad we don’t have a real Midwestern candidate to compete with Hillary and Obama on their home turf (the Midwest).
We’ll have to figure out something besides the 2004 GOP agenda to win in 2008.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
DaveG _ is this armchair analysis, or do you have sources in the Clinton campaign? From the positioning perspective, this strategy would be very risky. It is true that Hillary tried to run to the center the minute the midterms were over. But the nomination is dragging her back to the right. IF she executes what you are suggesting, she is wide open for challenges from the anti-war left. The Green party, Unity 08, and maybe even a failed nominee like Mike Gravel in an independent campaign would attack from the left.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
EGS: If Hillary wins, I say Pawlenty in ‘12.
Cougar: I have no sources in the Hill campaign. I’m just making inferences based on the aggregate of what I’ve read about her campaign over the past few months. I’m also assuming that, given a myriad of choices, Hillary will pursue the shrewdest of options. It’s a shame that no GOP candidate has yet to rise with the political instincts of the Clintons.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I actually was part of a ‘Draft Pawlenty’ movement in 2006 and was very dismayed to see him back McCain. After having my initial candidate back out I’m waiting before I support another one.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I’m not so sure about all pf this reasoning. For example, on foreign policy, I fail to see how it is that Hillary can come out with a “blow ‘em to hell” plan when she’s run so far to left during the primaries. Elaborate, if you don’t mind.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
When has Rudy or Fred ever talked about nation building?
In fact, Rudy was pretty specific at the debates and in interviews that he’d be willing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran.
If you look at his Foreign Policy team that he announced today, none of them are in favor of nation building or have ever really bought into Bush’s democracy project. Some of them are on record as explcitly criticizing it and calling for another direction.
Hillary may have a lot of things going for her, but there’s no way she’s going to appear tougher than Rudy or Fred when it comes to blowing stuff up.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Jim: Rudy mentioned nation building during the most recent debate.
TX Con: I don’t mean Hillary will come out as someone in favor of, say, bombing Iran. It wouldn’t be politically smart of her to do so anyway, as I doubt most Americans favor such a move. What I mean is that she’ll come out as a Bush 41/Scowcroftian type, with a realist foreign policy that looks out only for America’s interests.
People are mistaken if they think Hillary will come out as a McGovernite. The Clintons are smarter than that.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
DaveG,
Interesting analysis, and one that I think is largely apt. I don’t believe any Republican can flip the west coast states, economically populist Democrat or not. The battlegrounds in 2008 will rightly be the uppermidwest, the midwest, and possibly in the case of Rudy, the northeast. The calculations here are somewhat unpredictable, but here are some of my thoughts. Rudy is likely to carry NJ and possibly Connecticut in a general election. I continue to believe he has very little chance in Pennsylvania, despite it’s historically purple nature. It’s purple in all the wrong ways (economically populist, socially conservative). NJ however happens to be prime Rudy territory and unless he’s facing Hillary, he has it in the bag (and even then ought to have a better then 50% shot). Connecticut is a reach, but potentially doable. That’s it. Rudy’s not terribly likely to carry any upper-midwest states (or at least no more likely then other Republicans) because, again, he’s the wrong sort of moderate for that region. So let’s assume Rudy wins NJ and CT, and loses the vulnerable states you mentioned plus Arkansas. He wins with exactly 270 electoral votes. Well, is the scenario likely? Not particularly. I doubt that many objective observers contest that Rudy is the most vulnerable Republican in red states. At best, he’s equally as vulnerable as Romney, and considerably more vulnerable then Fred. There’s a better chance that he loses another red state, any red state, then there is of him winning CT (where he likely has less then a 30% chance currently).
Let’s move on to Fred. He has a peculiar and powerful populist appeal at the moment. Provided he doesn’t fizzle, he’s likely to be more competitive in states like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and even Pennsylvania then Rudy would. Also, as Dave has mentioned, Fred keeps fairly quiet about his social conservatism, another trait that agrees with the upper midwestern voters. Could he win any of these states. Maybe? Let’s, for the sake of argument, give him Wisconsin, a state that Bush very nearly won, and a state particularly vulnerable to folksy populist demeanors (Hillary might be economically populist, but has nothing like a folksy, populist demeanor). Now let’s also assume that Thompson’s strengths in the upper midwest allow him to retain Ohio. Now, if he loses Missouri and West Virginia, he still wins by a fair margin. Even if he doesn’t win Wisconsin, he’s still competitive. And unlike Rudy, he has a more then fair shot of retaining all the remaining red states.
Now, let’s consider Romney. I’ve been following his progress fairly closely for obvious reasons, and I’ve noted something that others seem to have missed: his trade rhetoric is subtly, but meaningfully, different from that of Giuliani and McCain. Indeed, he talks, much like Duncan Hunter (and has praised Hunter particularly on the issue) on the need to make sure trade agreements with China are “fair” and that they don’t inflate their currency. He’s also said, flat out, that he will not sign trade agreements that he believes don’t benefit the US. It’s a position that leaves him still in the free trade camp, but allows him to have significantly more appeal in the Great Lake region, and perhaps in Pennsylvania. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, he wins Michigan, his home state. He’s unlikely to be able to play a populist more generally, because of his riches, but should be able to carry Michigan. Now what? Well, if he loses the same three states you speculated any Republican would lose, he still loses the election. But, Romney has another card up his sleeve potentially. NH. So if he wins NH, Michigan, and loses Ohio, Missouri, and West Virginia we get…a dead tie in the electoral college. But, Romney faces the same problems in other red states as Rudy. There’s a fair chance that he’d lose at least one more red state.
So my conclusion? Ironically, the Southerner has the highest ceiling, and probably the best path to the presidency. He’s also of course, the candidate most likely to reveal himself as a lightweight, and therefore the candidate with the lowest floor. And the chance that he’ll eventually meet that floor depend on how conservatives greet and treat him now. As I’ve said before, I don’t think Fred Thompson is qualified to be president, and would be a remarkably mediocre one. I think in virtually every respect Romney would be markedly superior, and in most Rudy would be. But, if all conservatives care about is electability, we ought to get behind Thompson now, and attempt to allow his populist, folksy, man of the people schtick has a chance to solidify in the public consciousness, before the scrutiny can derail him.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Pennsylvania and Florida are the key states–I like Rudy’s chances in both.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Very perceptive Matt. I’m a bit more pessimistic though. I suspect the main issues in 2008 won’t favor Republicans.
If we’re still in Iraq, National Security will be a wash. If we’ve scaled down in Iraq the issue will lose its salience.
The domestic plate of issues do not favor us.
A candidate open to reform (Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty) would have had good chances.
The question is whether any of the candidates will sell a reform package that doesn’t sound like the Democrat’s on the cheap.
Barring that I assume we’ll have a Democratic President in 2008 and more Democratic Senate but a closely divided House.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I tend to agree with Matt above and it’s why I’ve been saying that Fred will win the nomination rather easily.
That said, it’s going to be tough for any Republican in 2008.
If you know about the 13 keys that political scientist Allen Lichtman has written about and that have coreectly predicted every Election since 1860(popular vote-wise hat is)they favor the dems right now.
For it to turn to the GOP, Iraq needs to be significantly better, Iran’s nukes have to be taken out, or Bush has to get a 3rd conservative appointed to the SC, none of which are likely to happen.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
To remove any remaining confusion over what I mean by Hillary the hawk, let me put it another way. Hillary will run as Jim Webb in 2008. She’ll run as a fiscally populist social liberal who talks like a social moderate, and one who is distinctly in the Bush 41/Powell/Scowcroft foreign policy school of thought, but who also projects toughness. Look for her to pick Evan Bayh of Indiana as her running mate. In so doing, Hillary will hope to win all of the territory Democrats won with this model in 2006, including the upper south and Great Lakes states. Hillary is banking on the northeast and west coast voting Democrat even if the Webb formula isn’t their cup of tea due to her belief that the GOP nominee just won’t be able to distance himself from Bush to an extent that will allow Blue Staters to stomach him, especially on foreign policy.
Matt: I agree with much of your analysis. I’ll believe that Fred can do what you suggest when he starts coming forth with new, innovative policy proposals instead of riding conservative nostalgia to second place in the polls.
EGS: Have you done an analysis of the House races yet? It seems to me we’ll have a net loss of a couple of Senate seats, but I wasn’t expecting gains in the House? Can you point me to any data on the topic?
July 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Jim,
You’re right about the Keys. And it makes sense if you think about it. The GOP needs something to ratify the Bush Doctrine. A stable Iraq. Iran neutralized. Bin Laden’s head on a platter. Something to show that the last six years haven’t been one big foreign policy blunder. That’s especially true considering that no viable GOP candidate seems willing to make the necessary break with all things Bush, as Newt as correctly advised. I take it the fifth conservative Justice would flip the policy change key, which is interesting. If a third party candidate makes waves, that makes things even harder for us. If the economy tanks, we might as well throw in the towel right now. In fact, I’m going to order the Lichtman book tonight so that I can blog on it.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I think it the ultimate fantasy to think that any Republican, even Rudy, has any chance of winning any truly blue states. I mean, c’mon folks – these are people who rejected Bush. You think that now, four years on, they will have any attraction for a Republican who doesnt completely repudiate Bushism? Which Rudy hasnt even begun to do, and probably couldn’t.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
DaveG, I’ve modeled the last 3 Congressional elections accurately.
A few realities worth considering (besides my modeling the election):
1) Only 8 Republicans remain in Democrat preferred districts
2) About 54 Democrats are in Republican preferred districts.
3) Ticket splitting usually occurs in re-election campaigns not open elections.
4) The 2008 GOP nominee is guaranteed to be more popular than Bush was in November 2006.
I’ve modeled the GOP gain in the House as 5-12 seats. It would be 11-16 if it weren’t for Republican’s fund raising problems.
The losses in Senate (1-3) are based on a poor playing field as Republicans have more seats to defend.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
“That’s especially true considering that no viable GOP candidate seems willing to make the necessary break with all things Bush, as Newt as correctly advised.”
That’s obviously an exaggeration, DaveG, as I think you know. Newt has argued essentially for triangulation, and used Sarkozy as his example, but Sarkozy didn’t break with “all things Chirac.” He was a minister in Chirac’s government with responsibility for one of the critical areas of French domestic policy virtually up until the moment the (relatively short) campaign began. In a sense, he ran as a different kind of Chirac, an invigorated, aggressive, and honest Chirac. He didn’t set out to invent a whole new group of voters or whole new complex of issues, but rather to hold on to his constituency and win critical battles over everyone who was up for grabs.
As I’ve argued before, merely being able to defend a set of policies articulately and aggressively already amounts to a break with Bushism. The pivot for triangulation against Bush and also against both Congress (made easier to some extent with the D’s in nominal control), is an attack on the real culture of corruption and stupidity that envelops both parties, and sitting Senator Hillary as well as sitting Senators Obama and Bayh, for that matter.
Meanwhile, in the current setting the Ds would appear to have a big advantage, and yet specific R candidates still run competitively with specific D candidates in head-to-head national and state polls, and, more to the point, it’s unlikely that the landscape will look the same on election day 2008 as it does today. You can speculate about the economy tanking, but, while you’re at it, you might as well consider any of a large number of major events or changes that could intervene between now and Election Day 2008, and any of which could turn the election itself into a landslide – for either side – making all of this fight-the-last-war speculation about razor-thin margins pointless.