Misreading the signs

George Will:

The first year of the 2008 campaign -- think about that -- has clearly established that the Republican Party's prospects are cloudy. In the first two major contests, Mike Huckabee has finished first and third, John McCain fourth and first, Romney second twice. Rudy Giuliani has been treading water, waiting for Florida, which on Jan. 29 will allocate more convention delegates (114) than Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire have combined (92). So, clinging to cliches as to a lifeline, Republicans congratulate themselves on how evenly the party's strengths, such as they are, are spread among their candidates.

But although only one-third of 1 percent of the national electorate -- those who have participated in the Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire nominating events -- have spoken, the Democrats have even more reason than they did three weeks ago to look forward to a rollicking November. Realistic Republicans are looking for shelter.

Nov. 4 could be their most disagreeable day since Nov. 3, 1964. Actually, this November could be even worse because in 1964 Barry Goldwater's loss of 44 states served a purpose, the ideological reorientation and revitalization of the party. Which Republican candidate this year could produce a similarly constructive loss?

Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans. If that sweeping assertion seems counterintuitive, produce a counterexample. The adverse indicators include: shifts in voters' identifications with the two parties (Democrats now 50 percent, Republicans 36 percent); the tendency of independents (they favored Democratic candidates by 18 points in 2006); the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes; the Democrats' strength and the Republicans' relative weakness in fundraising; the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the "wrong track"; the Republicans' enthusiasm deficit relative to Democrats' embrace of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be nominated.

...

The right track wrong track numbers an be as misleading as the dissatisfaction numbers in polls. For example, as a Republican, I think the Democrat congress is on the wrong track on several issues and to the extent that the country may be leaning Democratic, I think we are on the wrong track. But that is not how Will and most others look at that number. They assume that the President's track is considered the wrong one and not the Democrats. But the question does not distinguish the two which further inflates the number. As the recent New Hampshire primary showed those dissatisfied with the war in Iraq favored John McCain who favors prosecuting it vigorously. This demonstrates that there are at least two categories of dissatisfied when it comes to the war--those who want to win and those who want to lose.

While the GOP field is splitting the vote, it is not split on the key issue of the war and by election time the Democrats will not be able to avoid the progress we have made in winning the Iraq war and the defeat strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. When that contrast is put before the voters and they get a chance to weigh how much worse off we would be if we had followed the Democrats policies in Iraq, it is the Democrats who should be worried about a 44 state loss.

The Democrats also have a weak case on issues like taxes and health care that will be exposed when they gt out of their media echo chamber. Issues like spending and earmarks are going to haunt them in 2008 the way they haunted Republicans in 2006. This is a very winnable race for Republicans almost all of the current candidates can make that case.