Britain and America

Ewan C. Watt: How the South-West will be won

Ewan Watt looks at the demographics and concludes that the Democrats need Bill Richardson on the ticket.

The way in which the Democratic race has transpired will likely provide some solace to Republicans and conservative 527s who had anticipated with whom their respective candidates would face off in ‘round II’. 

Bearing in mind the media circus surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton it was hardly surprising that Bill Richardson’s withdrawal from the Presidential race received so little attention. Richardson’s withdrawal was due to financial problems; he would be unable to compete with the respective war chests of the two frontrunners. However his involvement in the 2008 Presidential race is hardly likely to end there. In fact, Republicans should take note of New Mexico’s commander in-chief – he may pose a greater threat to the GOP than either Obama or Clinton.

Looking at the last seven Presidential elections one wonders how on earth the Democratic Party has found their candidate residing in the White House on only three occasions. 

Although the Republicans tasted some success in the South with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, a real southern strategy was developed by Richard Nixon and latterly Lee Atwater, who cited constitutional objections to ‘bussing’ and fiscal conservatism, tax cuts and states rights respectively. Thus without a solid southern constituency the Democrats have won the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on only three occasions since 1968 – through the Jimmy Carter anomaly and the political genius of William J. Clinton. 

The best likely result today...

Partisan Republicans are quite keen on the Democrats’ netroots.  First championed by Howard Dean as the Democratic wing of the Democratic party they are, in large part, the unelectable wing of the Democratic Party.

They aren’t just anti-war, uncompromisingly civil libertarian, hateful towards George W Bush, welfarist and opposed to most of the traditional causes that motivate religious conservatives… they’re also shrill and intensely partisan.

The Democrat netroots scored their biggest victory in August when their chosen anti-war candidate – Ned Lamont - ousted incumbent Joe Lieberman as the Democrat candidate for today’s Connecticut Senate contest.

It was an extraordinary illustration of the way anti-war forces have come to dominate the Democratic party and partly explains why always anti-war Senator Barack Obama is emerging as a credible challenger to Hillary Clinton (who voted for the Iraq war) as the party’s 2008 presidential nominee.

After Lamont’s victory the Democratic establishment encouraged Lieberman to stand aside.  Clinton, Dean and Kerry all told the party’s 2000 VP candidate (pictured right with Al Gore) that he was finished.

Lieberman ignored that advice and now enjoys a double-digit lead over Lamont in most opinion polls.  That lead will probably be whittled away today as the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote operation helps Lamont close the gap but it will not be enough.

Connecticut’s more independent voters and moderate Democrats have been repelled by the ideological anger of the Lamont candidacy.  Lamont has spent $12m of his own money on his bid to be Senator but, for once, money won’t determine a US election.  Lieberman’s fierce independence of spirit looks set to return this hawkish Senator to Washington. It will be one result that will bring a smile to George W Bush’s face.

Although the Iraq war is clearly unpopular with American voters the Republicans are calculating that toughness on national security will play to their long-term advantage - particularly when it comes to choosing the next President.  If the Democrats fail to learn the lesson of the Lamont candidacy they may ensure that the Republicans keep the White House.