Democrat party problems coming out of primaries

Karl Rove:

...

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a minus. It has revealed weaknesses in Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned. Mr. Obama is increasingly seen not as the Second Coming, but as a typical liberal Chicago pol with a thin record, little experience, an array of troubling relationships and, to top it off, elitist sensibilities. Nominating him will now test the thesis that only a Democrat running as a moderate can win the White House.

The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.

State and local Democrats are realizing the toxicity of their probable national ticket. Democrats running in special congressional races recently in Louisiana and Mississippi positioned themselves as pro-life, pro-gun social conservatives and disavowed Mr. Obama. The Louisiana Democrat won his race on Saturday and said he "has not endorsed any national politician." The Mississippi Democrat is facing a runoff on May 13 and specifically denied that Mr. Obama had endorsed his campaign. Not exactly profiles in unity.

- As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

- This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern.

- Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

My analysis of individual state polls shows that today Mr. McCain would win 241 Electoral College votes to Mr. Obama's 217, with 80 votes in toss-up states where neither candidate has more than a 3% lead. Ironically, Mrs. Clinton now leads Mr. McCain with 251 electoral votes to his 203 with 84 in toss-up states. This is the first time she's led Mr. McCain since I began tracking state-by-state results in early March.

...

The Republican problem is that "the new tone" of the Bush administration has left too little response to the highly negative and unfair campaign the Democrats have waged for the last five years. This lack of response has let the message of negativity about the President and the GOP fester too long to be overcome with a "positive and respectful" campaign. The emotional candle has been lit in too many places to be blown out with kindness.

Democrats should be vulnerable on several key issues this year. Their energy policy is idiotic. At a time of increasing demand for energy they have been strangling supply of all forms of energy and not just oil and gas. Even alternative energy which they give lip service too is strangled by Democrats and their activist. At a time when supplies have been limited they want to further limit them and go to war with the producers while trying to revoke the law of supply and demand.

Democrats are also vulnerable on the war, though the time may be too short to educate voters on the importance of winning a counterinsurgency war. Democrats do not want to fight any counterinsurgency and they will turn against the war in Afghanistan after they retreat from Iraq. However, the benefits of winning in Iraq would be huge.

Defeating that insurgency would discourage our adversaries from pursuing them in other parts of the world the way our victories in conventional warfare have discouraged enemies from challenging us. Losing the war in Iraq as many Democrats want to do will encourage our adversaries around the world and mean we will face more insurgents. Losing will make the war with the Islamic religious bigots longer and more costly.