What Happens to the Losing Team?
Having lost five of the past seven presidential elections, the Democrats have to decide whether to reinvent their party
By JAMES CARNEY
Coming after the 2000 cliffhanger and a negative, hard-fought campaign, it's no surprise that John Kerry's loss would leave Democrats deflated and searching for answers. "We had the money, we had a ground operation the likes of which has never been seen, and we had a good candidate who stood toe to toe with the President and bested him in three debates," sighs Harold Ickes, who ran two of the cash-rich outside groups that helped Democrats contend with the g.o.p. fund-raising advantage. "We had all that, and we still lost. People are going to ask, 'What do we have to do?'"
Because the election was so close and because the war in Iraq and loathing of Bush were the chief propellants fueling the Democrats' campaign, party professionals and activists seem disinclined to engage in much self-criticism while Bush remains in the White House. "The threat posed by Bush unified the party," says Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group. "And he'll continue to unify Democrats in a second term." It was the willingness of Howard Dean and progressive organizations like MoveOn.org to attack the Republican President and his policies directly, adds Borosage, that "gave the Democratic Party its voice and its will to win. The progressives come out of this emboldened by what they were able to do. They feel like they have the power to change politics."
The capacity of independent nonparty organizations like MoveOn and Americans Coming Together to raise money and mobilize anti-Bush voters has acted like a fresh rain on the Democratic Party's parched grass roots. Even though the Democratic candidate lost, the party and the broader network of liberal, anti-Bush organizations succeeded in raising record sums of money and enlisting unprecedented numbers of volunteers. Far from being distraught about the election, the way they were after 2000, many Democrats sound surprisingly upbeat about the future.
Already, potential candidates for 2008 are being handicapped. Despite her name, Hillary Clinton might not be the most Clintonesque candidate in the race for the nomination. That distinction would belong to John Edwards if he runs, as many Democratic insiders assume he will. Supporters of Kerry's running mate are quick to point out that the only Democrats to win the White House in the past 44 years—Clinton, Carter and Johnson—were Southerners. For Democratic activists tired of Washington insiders, Dean remains an option. His bid for the nomination helped spark the activism that transformed the party and revolutionized the way Democrats raise money.
No matter who emerges as the next leader of the Democratic Party, he or she will be under tremendous pressure to take the fight to the g.o.p., and to win. The Democrats have now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and seven of the past 10. Over the past 30 years, the party has seen its majorities in Congress, in Governor's mansions and in state legislatures all disappear. For the first time since the 1920s, more Americans identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats. Which means that losing again in 2008 wouldn't just be disappointing for the Democrats. It could leave the party in the wilderness for many years. —from TIME, November 15, 2004
Questions
1. Why are some Democrats upbeat about the future?
2. Which Democrats are being watched as possible presidential candidates in 2008?