The Democrats' Deep Bench

By CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs

Al Gore’s star turn at the Academy Awards has launched yet another round of speculation that the former vice president may eventually decide to take his newfound popularity back into presidential politics.

The “white knight” scenario for some goes like this: Because of the early and hyper-competitive nature of the campaign, voters will have tired of the current field and all positioning that is almost sure to turn into negative mudslinging. Democrats will be weary of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama-John Edwards fight and Republicans likewise will have had their fill of the John McCain-Rudy Giuliani-Mitt Romney battle.

With no lower-tier candidate rising up to fill the void, the eyes of party activists begin scanning the horizon for someone who could enter the race and make an immediate impact – someone with the name recognition, fundraising ability and party credentials needed to win the nomination.

That’s where Gore comes in for Democrats, and where former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fits in on the Republican side of the equation. Both candidates are attractive to the respective base of their parties, both are household names and both could likely make up for lost time should some in the rest of the field stumble.

The prospect of a late-entry into the 2008 campaign isn’t a new one on either side of the aisle but all this speculation does illuminate a growing advantage for the Democratic Party – its bench.

Just the thought that either party may end up searching outside of their current candidates for a political savior demonstrates just how far Democrats have come in reversing their party’s overall fortunes in just the last few years. A quick glance at the bench for each party shows growing strength that could help Democrats for the 2008 presidential race — and beyond.

Victories in last year’s midterm elections did more than give Democrats control of Congress, it completed a fairly thorough destruction of the once-strong Republican bench. In the Senate alone, Republican stumbles ended the presidential prospects of George Allen and former Majority Leader Bill Frist. But it is in statehouses across the nation where the imbalance really hits home.

Consider this: Following the 1994 Republican rout, thirty states were led by GOP governors. Democrats held just nineteen and one state fielded an Independent governor. Moreover, Republican governors were seated in major states – California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin just to name a few. The GOP was filled with potential national talent, names like Pete Wilson, John Engler, Tom Ridge, Tommy Thompson and George W. Bush.

The picture after last November is almost completely reversed. Democrats now hold 28 states, Republicans 22. The GOP retains statehouses in several large and important states but those governors are not the national powerhouses they could be.

California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger remains popular at home but has kept the national party at arm’s length. As a foreign-born citizen, he is barred from running for president but it’s far from certain how much help he can or will be to his party in 2008 in any event. In Texas, Rick Perry won a second term but has had a rocky tenure there. In Florida, newly elected Charlie Crist may be more helpful to his party’s electoral future but will have to work to get out from under Jeb Bush’s shadow.

Gone from the GOP column are key states like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona. The Democratic bench strength has been bolstered by governors like Tim Kaine in Virginia, Kathleen Sebelius in Kansas, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and Eliot Spitzer in New York. With the recent Democratic gains in Congress, such a reversal at the state level is a logical, but often overlooked, extension.

When the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008 visits Ohio, they’ll stand next to the state’s governor, Ted Strickland, who will lend not only his image but his political operation to the effort. In a state where John Kerry narrowly lost the 2004 presidential contest, that kind of assistance can’t be overlooked. When Republicans held such advantages in 1996, it was little help in their bid to capture the White House, but they were running against an incumbent president during a time of relative peace and prosperity. The wide-open 2008 landscape will certainly look different.

None of these Democratic governors is going to fit the “white knight” description for the 2008 race if the party suddenly finds itself searching for a political savior. But they will help to form a formidable team in some very important places. Moreover, they provide their party a strong bench for years to come, win or lose in 2008. Four out of the five last presidents been governors and for that reason alone, it’s worth keeping an eye on the current crop of mostly Democratic stars.

Copyright & Paid for by The Democratic Governors Association

A Bullseye Project