The failure of the PDP in the 2015
Presidential election arose more from the syndrome of a divided party. When the
newPDP broke away, arrogance did not allow the hawks around the President to
give objective advice on the dangerous implication of that move. The result was a
devastating failure of the party in power. Today, we are witnessing an advance
replay with the Republican party nomination process in the United States. The
question is no longer whether the Republican party will be torn apart by the
2016 nominating process but how badly hurt its presidential nominee will be and
whether defeat in November will be inevitable.
The
answer depends on the nominee and on the ultimate extent of the divide. But
there is little reason for Republican optimism at this point, in spite of the
fact that history has produced some very different outcomes.
Sometimes,
a deep split in one party has produced a landslide for the other. In 1964, when
the GOP was bitterly divided over ideology, nominee Barry Goldwater won only 38
percent of the vote and 52 electoral votes (compared to President Lyndon
Johnson’s 486 electoral votes).
In
1912, the Republican Party actually fractured. Former President Teddy Roosevelt
ran as a Progressive and carried six states with 88 electoral votes, while the
GOP nominee, President William Howard Taft, carried just two States with eight
electoral votes.
Other
times, a party split looked disastrous but the election turned out to be
competitive. In 1896, for example, the Democratic Party split between populists
and conservatives (or silver Democrats and gold Democrats, if you prefer),
ultimately nominating firebrand populist William Jennings Bryan. But he lost
the election to William McKinley by only four points in what turned out to be a
realigning election.
In
1968, Democrats were bitterly divided over the Vietnam War and civil rights,
and the party’s Chicago convention looked more like a war zone than a political
gathering. And yet, Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey lost the presidential
race to Republican Richard Nixon by less than a single percentage point, with
George Wallace carrying five states.
Of course,
each of these elections took place in a different context. But in all the
instances the divided party lost.
What
about this year? The current situation is not a perfect fit for any of the
previous cases.
Democrats
have held the White House for eight years, which usually gives the opposition
an opportunity to play on voters’ fatigue with the incumbent’s party. The
outgoing president has been a polarizing figure, but his poll numbers suggest a
rough equality in the number of Americans who approve and who disapprove of his
performance – certainly not a terrible position for the nominee of his party
who hopes to succeed him.
Democrats
clearly are divided over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has her
own primary problems. She has very high negatives, with a large chunk of
Americans doubting her honesty, and her extensive political experience is both
an asset and a liability. But at the end of the day, most Democrats will find
Clinton acceptable and will rally around her nomination
Finally,
November’s electorate will continue the trend of the past 30 years, growing
less white and more Hispanic – all of which will favor the Democratic nominee,
as does the Electoral College, though narrowly.
This
year’s Republican divide looks wider and deeper than any divide since at least
1964.
Because
of that – and barring a dramatic shift in public opinion or a GOP convention
deadlock that produces a unifying nominee with broad appeal – the November
election is more likely than not to hand the Democratic nominee the White
House. And if the split in the Republican Party continues to grow, which is
likely, November’s outcome could be a foregone conclusion even before the election.
With Extracts From Stuart Rothenberg
Comments
Post a Comment