NEWS
Democrats look to rebound
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
Related Stories:
- Democrats pick speaker Sheridan (November 13, 2008)
- Two employees to be let go from chancellor's office (November 13, 2008)
- Feingold visits college campuses for Obama (October 28, 2008)
- Professors talk Middle East policies (October 14, 2008)
- Student groups rally for green cause (October 28, 2008)
Share This:
by Ryan Masse
Tuesday, November 9, 2004
The Democratic Party is in a rut.
One week after losing seats in Congress and falling short of reclaiming the White House, Democrats are still reeling from their latest lackluster performance in a federal election.
“We definitely have a lot of work to do nationwide,” Liz Sanger, chair of College Democrats, said. “I think we have to redefine who we are and rethink how we reach out to the public.”
The first shot at redemption will come in 2006, when the Democratic Party will try to end a streak of Republican control of Congress now stretching into its second decade.
The ultimate prize will come in 2008, however, when the White House once again goes up for grabs. Several names have already emerged as potential choices four years from now.
The Democrat with the most experience is John Kerry. But the days of William Jennings Bryan are long gone — most agree it’s one and done now when vying for the presidency — meaning Kerry is unlikely to get a second chance as a presidential candidate.
At the top of many lists is New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady does not suffer from a lack of name recognition, and she is popular among the core constituents of the Democratic Party.
“As the party that pushes women’s policies, I think it would be great to run a female candidate,” Sanger said.
Clinton is a highly polarizing figure, though, and must still be re-elected to the Senate in 2006. And with Republicans successfully characterizing Kerry as a “northeastern liberal,” Democrats may seek a candidate with more appeal to moderates, University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Franklin said.
“The problem with her is whether she can extend support to the more moderate wing of the party while still being the liberal senator from New York,” Franklin said.
Clinton will also have to grapple with the fact that the Senate has proven to be a poor training ground for presidents.
“If you’re successful in the Senate, you develop a style of decision making not necessarily suited for an executive,” Charles O. Jones, UW emeritus professor of political science, said. “Kerry was the classic backbencher: strong on talk and pretty weak on responsibility and actual lawmaking.”
Next on the list is Kerry’s running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Thanks to his run with Kerry, Edwards is well known throughout the nation, and many say Edwards’ Southern charm is reminiscent of Bill Clinton.
“He’s in a pretty good position. He escaped from the race unscathed personally and he potentially is able to claim to be moderate so as to draw moderates back to the party,” Franklin said.
There are reasons to be hesitant with Edwards, however. The former trial lawyer did not run for re-election in the Senate this year, meaning it may be tough to stay politically relevant in four years.
And Franklin cautions that Edwards’ predecessor in making the jump from vice-presidential nominee to presidential candidate, Connecticut Sen. Joe Liebermann, did not go far in this year’s Democratic primaries.
After Clinton and Edwards, a number of darkhorse candidates emerge. Most agree that newly elected Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won’t be ready for primetime in 2008 but will factor heavily into the Democratic Party’s future.
“It’s too early, but he’s a very impressive person — in fact, he gave the kind of speech at the Democratic National Convention that one would have hoped Kerry would have given,” Jones said, adding that Obama may benefit from running for governor of Illinois before going for the presidency.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, meanwhile, would deliver a state that narrowly went for Bush in this year’s election. But nationally, Vilsack is no household name.
Stacked against the Democrats’ favor, Jones said, is a thin pool of potential candidates, at least at this point in time. Jones attributes the shortage of candidates to the Republican Party’s dominant performance in the 1994 midterm elections.
“One of the problems Democrats continue to have is not having nationally prominent governors in large states,” Jones said. “[Former California Gov.] Gray Davis looked to fill that role, but he was a flop.”
