McNutt Against the Music

So we’re getting near the end of the year, so close in fact that it’s almost time to start McNutt Against the Music’s year-in-review coverage (we’ll talk more about that tomorrow). But I want to take a brief opportunity to look ahead to 2008 to a subject that is bound to take up a significant about of real estate here on the blog: the presidential election.

Most men watch sports. I watch politics and, in particular, American politics. I’ve spent years trying to figure out what it is about the American political system and culture that fascinates me. Perhaps it’s the collision between policy and personality, or maybe the subtle and not-so-subtle intricacies of a two-party dynamic. Mostly, though, it’s probably because my formative political years have been the Bush presidency and Republican resurgence of the 90s and 00s (hell, it stretches back to the 1970s if you want to play that game). Rarely has there been a regime whose defeat was worth the emotional investment.

The Bush administration is coming to an end on January 20, 2009. The question hanging over the next 12 months is whether or not the Republican Party is leaving power with him.

The 2006 midterm elections – covered here at the blog – demonstrated a thirst for change among the American public, reflecting the shift in sentiment against the Iraq War. The Democrats made huge electoral strides in a map that was, if not weighted against them, then certainly not an easy one to navigate. In 2008, the numbers are looking like holding onto both houses of Congress is a strong likelihood.

But don’t believe the hype about a donkey inevitably ending up with more Electoral College votes on November 4 than an elephant. American presidential politics are so driven by personality, by the dynamics of the binary choice that the American public faces, that there’s no telling exactly what is going to happen on election day. This year is particularly fluid because neither party has an inevitable nominee. With no current or former presidents or vice presidents in the ring, it’s arguably the first time since 1928 where both parties have truly open contest for the nomination.

Most Canadians don’t quite understand the presidential primary system, with good reason: it’s more than a little bit complicated. But I’ll be putting together a “Primary Politics for Dummies Canadians” in very early January, hopefully right before the January 3 caucuses in Iowa.

In anticipation, though, there’s a couple of really interesting dynamics going on right now that warrant a bit of pre-holiday analysis:

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Collapse of Inevitability

I’ve never bought the narrative that the Hillary Clinton ticket was a done deal, but a lot of talking heads sure did. They looked at the national poll numbers and declared that the other candidates need not even show up to the primaries (never mind that national polling numbers more than a year before the election usually just demonstrate awareness and are a poor bellwether of how things shake out).

Here’s what I said about Clinton’s chances back in January:

Hillary is the Michael Ignatieff of the Democratic primary battle, a leader with significant, enthusiastic support but with enough doubters and critics to prevent her from steamrolling to victory. Her problem is that she’s too clearly defined already; there will certainly be a movement within the party to unite behind an alternative candidate, the non-Hillary.

I suggested that the real fight in the race was going to be between Obama and Edwards to become that alternative candidate, and it’s a fight that Obama seems to be winning. The latest polls out of Iowa shows a strong three-candidate race, but with Obama slightly ahead. But really, it’s still anyone’s game.

But while things have only changed slightly on the ground, the media narrative has shifted dramatically, and the talking heads got it completely right this past Sunday on the weekly talk shows. What’s happened in the Hillary narrative during the past month is the shattering of her inevitability. The problem with this is that the whole foundation of the Hillary campaign was that she was destined to be the nominee from the very start. It’s how she’s been able to garner much of her support – people want to throw their hat in with the winner, after all. But now? What will she fall back to?

Don’t get me wrong – she’s still got the “get Bill back in the White House” narrative going for her, which is (somehow) still a big selling point. But can that really compare to the “change” narrative that Obama represents, which is bound to resonate in an election cycle that shares its vision. If Obama positions himself as the true contender to Hillary and this thing becomes a binary contest, I really doubt that she has enough to offer to carry her through.

We’ll see…

Mike Huckabee and the Million-Dollar Question

The other fascinating narrative of the past month has been the meteoric rise of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Polls have him not only leading in the first primary state of Iowa but competitive nationally all of a sudden. Huckabee had been mired in single-digits almost all year and only started to raise money after performing well in the Iowa straw poll in August. He’s spent several hundred thousand dollars since, in contrast with Romney’s spending of several million. (Rudy Giuliani, leading those same familiarity-driven national polls, is widely expected to do poorly in the first couple of primaries. His strong states start on Super Tuesday in early February.)

So what’s going on here? The Republican field is equally as undecided as the Democrats, but there’s a distinct difference: it’s undecided because nobody is catching fire with the voters. There was so little enthusiasm in the race that the media fell in love with the idea of actor/former Senator Fred Thompson entering as something of a great white hope; now that he’s there, it’s back to the same doldrums as before.

The common consensus as to why nobody’s been able to garner any momentum is because none of the candidates are enticing the evangelical, religious voters that have formed the base of the current Republican coalition. On the hot-button issues that matter to them – abortion, gay rights, immigration – all of the leading candidates are either too lenient or have a history of flip-flopping.

Except for Mike Huckabee, ordained minister and former governor of Arkansas. To the base, he’s like a dream candidate: right on all those issues, a charismatic speaker with a Southern charm, and the ability to sugarcoat the blunt edges of conservatism. Just looking at him on paper – or watching him in the debates – you’d have to consider him a frontrunner in the race. Hell, I almost think that he’d give the Democrats a tougher fight than anyone else running.

The problem? The political system isn’t driven by personality alone. It needs resources, infrastructure and – most of all – money. On all of these fronts, Huckabee is far, far behind the rest of his competitors. If he wins Iowa – which he now has a good shot at – he’s certainly going to get some momentum, but he’ll be building a campaign as he goes. His makeshift organization will run head-first into campaigns that have been working in these other states for months and months.

Can an ideal candidate succeed in overcoming these barriers and actually compete for the nomination?

We’ll see…