When it comes to the 2008 presidential race, Democrats and Republicans, for the first time since 1952, are in the exact same boat — no incumbent president seeking another term, no incumbent vice president looking for a promotion. In fact, this campaign will only be the second since 1920 that we’ve seen this dynamic play out.
For that matter, with at least nine candidates, and a credible, four-man top-tier, the Republican Party is looking at its most competitive presidential field in the modern era.
But the party can’t seem to snap out of its slumber.
This has already been documented in a variety of ways. Republicans are struggling to raise money. They’re struggling in the polls. They’re struggling to rally enthusiasm (Thompson has taken to asking for applause after his stump speech). Jonathan Martin takes a look at an angle I hadn’t considered: field organizations.
Representatives for Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are cagey about the precise number of boots on the ground they have in the early states — but it’s widely thought to be at least five times what the Republicans have.
And even beyond the Democrats’ well-financed top two candidates, the contrast is stark. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has more than 100 staffers in Iowa, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has over 70 and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd has 60.
Of all the Republicans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the most aides heading into the caucuses — 17 (Romney does, though, have a cadre of more than 50 Iowa “super volunteers” who are paid a stipend each month to perform some organizational tasks typically done by unpaid help).
It’s not just Iowa. In New Hampshire, McCain and Giuliani each have about a dozen paid staffers. Clinton and Obama both have over five times as many.
If this were simply a matter of money, Dodd wouldn’t have more than triple the number of Romney staffers in Iowa. There’s obviously more to this.
This David-versus-Goliath staffing mismatch is yet another sign of trouble for Republicans in the general election, said a veteran Republican strategist in Iowa, as it reflects sagging spirits among hard-core GOP activists.
“That’s a function of several things — their race is more interesting, their field is perhaps stronger, they have far more resources, and yes, the number of staff and HQs also adds to their turnout,” said the strategist, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about his party. “Plus, Republicans are in a funk, a general bad mood. It’s a harbinger of tough things to come in 2008 for our down-ballot races.
I think this strategist is largely right, but there was one word that went missing throughout the analysis — Bush. Republicans may be “in a funk,” but that’s only because Mr. 28 Percent put them there.
Put it this way: how many grassroots activists are ready to pound the pavement in the hopes of getting “four more years”?