[Down with a tore muscle, while flipping between C-SPAN and what not, this guy in dark brown suit reminds me for the umpteenth time that Karl Rove is a genius. That makes me angry. Here is why.] An Overdue Downgrading of Rove One of the most gratifying outcomes of the 2006 midterm election was the much-awaited demotion of Karl Rove from a ‘genius’ to a ‘failed republican strategist’. To be fair, his place in American politics is somewhere in between. Yet, on a national scale, if judged chastely against the long-term republican census capitalization, he is more of the latter. History will almost certainly tag Rove as the extremist patron who did most damage to the Republican Party in the early 21st century by voluntarily moving the party to the farthest right. There are four reasons that justify why Rove was not a genius to begin with. These reasons are: 2000 election, 2002 midterm election, 2004 election, and 2006 midterm election. An arithmetical analysis below should simplify this hypothesis. 1. 2000 election – In spite of much hype about Republican triumph, in the 2000 election democrats gained four seats in the Senate and two seats in the House. Also, the Democratic presidential candidate amassed 540,000 more votes nationwide than the Republican candidate. While Karl Rove has been unduly attributed to this un-measurable victory, three people deserve the most credit: i) Sandra Day O’Connor, another American icon fallaciously credited for her overrated neutrality, ii) Catherine Harris, the unsightly thug and the 2006 republican senatorial candidate from Florida, and iii) the egomaniacal Ralph Nader who seems to get gratification from his ego detour even when his heart seems to be in the right place. In the 2000 election, Democrats won eight of the ten Senate races that Cook Political Report rated as "Toss Up." A statistician will have trouble classifying this election to be a Republican victory. Nonetheless, when it was all said and done, Rove indeed won where it mattered the most. Sometimes being lucky makes you look smarter than you are. By the time he retires, Roger Federer may keep ‘the greatest ever’ title, but we would never know how he would have fared against the likes of Agassi and Sampras in their prime. It is just a game of luck that Karl Rove’s draw had such self-destructing opponents like Gore and Kerry. The 2000 election proved that a win could be both abstract and subjective. 2. 2002 election – Until 2002, only twice (in 1934 and in 1998) the incumbent president’s party had won the midterm election in both Houses. Though Rove’s success in this election is evident, the Republican triumph has a lot do with the sentimental nation still nursing the wounds of Nine Eleven. The overblown outcome of this election, however, does not even remotely resemble 1998 poll in which Clinton’s party won because of their performance on economic and social issues. Even then the republican gains in 2002 were quite marginal. Despite much hoopla, in 2002, democrats lost only two seats in the Senate and six in the House, while the Republicans lost three governors. Of the two Democrats who lost in the Senate, Jean Carnahan, the widow of Missouri governor Mel Carnahan, was defeated because she was not much of a campaigner, or a politician, for that matter. The second Senate seat of Max Cleland was lost via the most vicious campaigning, arguably in the history of American politics. Rove indeed warrants glory for Saxby Chambliss’ conquest over Max Cleland. Rovian smear tactics in this particular race was obscene to the point of being scandalous. Little did Rove know, just four years shortly, 2002 election would become the stroke of luck for the Democrats and the noninterventionist Independents. More than any other plausible factor, the slim victory in this election turned Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld into the bullying gangsters who suddenly started uttering catchphrases like: “You're either with us or against us.” Bush’s arrogance in late 2002 and the first half of 2003, has tainted the Republican image for at least 15 years to come. Sometimes it takes more than a generation for people to forgive; the genuine haters of the 80s still hate Reagan passionately. The victory in the 2002 midterm election led to the Iraq war and many other misadventures. If he were a true genius, Karl Rove should have envisioned the consequences of such imperial overstretch. How could Rove not recognize that a cosmopolitan society like this cannot be governed for long by sanctioning global bigotry? Who would have thunk six years ago that America would one day become a global joke? 3. 2004 election – The republican president won the 2004 election by more than three million votes. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and four in the House. Ok, Rove won this one even-handed. But should he be credited entirely for this Republican exploit? Until November 2004, a large chunk of the population was still undergoing either authentic, or simulated, emotional aftershocks of Nine Eleven. Another chunk was not keen on risking a leadership change in the middle of two wars. Only a hawkish democrat, or an eccentric liberal like Dean, could have put a good fight with Bush in 2004. Alas, Kerry was neither. Hence, the day after the election, the press was too quick to equate Kerry’s limitations to Rove’s wizardry—escalating him to the status of a genius. But, were the numbers that significantly distinct? In the 2004 election, 78 percent of white evangelical Christians who made up 23 percent of the total votes cast, voted for Bush—up 10 percent from 2000. But it was not Karl Rove’s genius that made these self-righteous fanatics reinforce Bush. Between the Born-Again Texan, and the most liberal catholic from Massachusetts, what else was to be expected of these stick-in-the-mud Protestants? Another myth about 2004 election is that a large number of evangelical Christians went to the poll to support social and moral issues like gay marriage ban and stem cell research. The poll data shows the same percentage of evangelical Christians (23%) voted in 2000. Voter mobilization among the republican base might have worked to some degree, but there is no concrete data to support this. Traditionally, these people vote in a greater number than the metropolitan Volvo Democrats. When a Southern Democrat runs for the president, they siphon some of the votes away from this bloc. Otherwise, this bloc has been essentially faithful to the republicans since Reagan started courting them more than a quarter century ago. 4. 2006 election – Notwithstanding Rove’s pre-election claim of keeping both Houses, Republicans lost six Senate seats and at least 29 House seats in this year’s election. Democrats won 24 out of 33 Senate seats that were contested. All the advantages that Republicans had built through gerrymandering, voter mobilization and donor mobilization were simply crushed by one fact: their inability to govern. This election did not have much to do with Democrats; it had everything to do with voters rejecting Republicans. Centrists looked beyond phrases and idealistic assurances, and the tone-deaf president and his administration were graded on policies and their executions. If Rove were a genius and if he really wanted a neo-conservative legacy he should have known better that winning should pursue inclusive and effective governing. Concluding ... In a nutshell, what Karl Rove failed to comprehend is, America is assorted after all. He miscalculated and swung his party to the wrong side of socio-political equilibrium. He did not grasp the simplest reality, which is, these Theocons don’t have a choice. They have seen and heard the likes of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich; they know aligning with the Republicans is the only choice their god offers them. Rove did not need to push that hard for this coalition. Even in this era of egocasting, his pursuit was too narrow and needless. White evangelical Christians made up 24 percent of 2006 voters. In spite of many stories of Republican disgraces, failures and corruptions, 71 percent of this bloc voted for the republican Congressional candidates—down one point from 72 percent in 2004. This is where Rove fails miserably. He is disillusioned that elections can be won eternally by preaching to the choir. If the Republican Party intends to accommodate the disproportionately increasing minority population such as Hispanics, Asians, non-believers and occasional-believers, it needs to shift slightly to the center without more ado. According to the most recent Rasmussen reports, Americans who call themselves democrats has remained constant at 38.5 percent, while those who call themselves Republicans has dropped to 31 percent—a decline of 6 percent in two years. Considering how diehard republicans usually are, this is an astounding number. In addition, more young Americans are identifying themselves as liberals or democrats. With blacks, the Republican Party is still trying to wash away Goldwater stain from the mid 60s—and since Katrina this relationship has only deteriorated. The recent glimpses of small-mindedness that the conservatives have exhibited with the issues like immigration, gay marriage, and stem cell research has helped create an offsetting base on the other end of the spectrum. Blogs like Daily Kos, TalkingPointsMemo, and Huffington Post are slowly but indisputably neutralizing the spin-and-spit journalism of the Limbaughs, the O’Reillys and the Hannities. A part of being a political genius involves occasionally steering the party to the reverse side of what the core base ennobles. Bill Clinton was a political genius. He stole the ideas like crime fighting, fiscal management, and welfare reform from the Republicans and labored on those issues more productively than any other president since the Second World War. There is no doubt Karl Rove is a clever man. After Nine Eleven, for a couple of years leading up to the 2004 election, he was able to market fear through panic merchants. But Rove would have been more successful as a real estate agent or a luxury car salesman. He is not mega in scope. He is a bottom feeder who triumphs only in a myopic setting. His numbers don’t match that of a strategy genius. He lost two congressional elections and won two. Regardless of who ended up governing, he lost one presidential election and won one. A person who has 50% success rate cannot be classified a genius. Before Rove started in 2000, the Congress had 46 democrats in the Senate, 210 in the House, and 18 served as governors. By January of 2007, that number has changed to 51 democrats in the Senate, 232 in the House, and 28 governors. Democrats also have the majority of State Legislatures for the first time in two decades. Karl Rove’s dream of building a conservative legacy in Washington will remain a pipe dream. According to polls, among the republican candidates who are already in the presidential race, the leading man, Giuliani, is a social democrat in its most true sense. Until recently, McCain was known in his own party as a rebel disguised as a Republican. And Romney used to be a governor of one of the most liberal states in the US. As for Fred Thompson, when he officially joins the race, his poll number will slip by no less than 10 points within weeks.