Why the Democrats will lose big in 2004

Today the New York Times carried a story on the rise of the Republican Party titled: "Buoyed by Resurgence, GOP strives for an Era of Dominance." The story covered all the usual reasons for the rise of the Republicans, but a smaller story on the National page illustrated the descent of the Democrats.

It was a story about the World Series of Poker. Bear with me.

For the uninitiated, the World Series of Poker is a yearly Las Vegas competition where card players try their skill at No-Limit Texas Hold 'em Poker. Texas Hold 'em is somewhat unique in that each player is dealt two hole cards and then bets are made on shared cards in the center of the table, turned over in succession. First three cards are turned over (the flop), then two more in a row; players use these community cards along with the cards in their hand to make the best hand possible. Because there are so many shared cards in any given hand, winning hands take the pot on the slimmest of margins. Losing a hand, usually on the turn of the last card, by the vagary of luck is known as a "bad beat." Bad beats are war stories of the poker table where great hands are suddenly, memorably, infuriatingly, slapped down. It's the enervating, soul-death of watching your ace-high flush bested by a nothing two-pair hand suddenly transformed into a full house. All the chips were so close…now you're crushing your cigarette and putting on your coat.

For the Democratic Party, the contested 2000 presidential election was their bad beat and, two-and-a-half years later, they still can't shake it off. At a recent campaign event, Senator Joe Lieberman declared that he knows he can beat President Bush in 2004 because "Al Gore and I already did it." DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe uses every speech to paint Bush as an illegitimate president. The Democratic Convention next year will be dominated by a party base that takes it as an article of faith that Al Gore really, truly won the 2000 election. For these politicos, their hatred of President Bush will crowd out any reasoned dialogue and debate over real policy issues. Sure, they'll mouth the words about the economy and education, but they won't be able to suppress their bitterness at that 537-vote bad beat they suffered in Florida.

This bitterness will only amplify the Democrats' downward spiral, especially since they seem incapable of formulating an opposing policy to the President's plans. They simply cannot fight the Republicans on security issues. On the domestic front, the Democrats bemoan tax cuts but lack the will to forcefully oppose them. On a whole host of issues, from education to the environment, they offer the one-note solution of more spending. Even on Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats are slowly losing their edge because they refuse to face up to the looming long-term solvency problem.

With their cash sapped away by the very campaign finance reform they advocated, the Democratic Party is approaching bankruptcy in both real and philosophical terms. As the party fractures and stumbles, the leadership will search for unifying agents. And, as Eric Hoffer wrote: "Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents." Stoked by their "bad beat", the Mcauliffe Democrats will bring the bile and attack a President with the longest-sustained approval rating in polling history. Right or wrong, President Bush offers a vision of tax cuts and world security. The Democrats thus far have only offered a policy of "not Bush" and "he didn't win anyway" – they can't help themselves. The 2004 election will be leadership versus petulance. Suddenly the thought of a Bush 50-state sweep doesn't seem so far-fetched.