In a year that began with Democrats feeling certain they would win back the White House, a quiet panic has begun.  According to some Democrats, it sounds something like this: “We’re dead meat.” 

The cause of all this dread is John McCain, a.k.a the Democrats’ worst nightmare.  With McCain now the de facto Republican nominee (and the Democrats apparently unable to choose one of their own), euphoria has given way to a sense of unease in the Democratic establishment.

The conversation in the Democratic race, not long ago dominated by quibbles over the mechanics of health care coverage, has shifted gears.  The new question: Who can beat John McCain?

The Clinton campaign argues that she has years of experience taking on the Republican attack machine.  She’s a known quantity.  Her negatives are baked in.  She has the experience.  She has national security credentials.

The Obama campaign argues that he can appeal to voters beyond the reach of Hillary Clinton.  As the candidate who owns “change” in a change year, he has the potential to transform American politics.  And he didn’t vote with McCain on the war in Iraq.

But while the Democratic candidates continue to duke it out – and Democratic insiders continue to wring their hands – the rest of the country is only beginning to be exposed to what is sure to be a long road to the White House. 

To be sure, McCain has many strengths.  His compelling personal story, maverick reputation, and aura of integrity make him popular with independent voters and give him a crossover appeal.  He even has the potential to make inroads with the Latino population (a key group in the Southwest and in Florida) that George Bush was never able to pull off.

Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons John McCain shouldn’t start ordering fabric samples for the Oval Office couches just yet.

The Democratic Party is more energized than it has been in decades.  After taking back the House and the Senate in 2006 and watching George Bush sink to public approval ratings in the low 30s, Democratic voters have acquired a taste for victory.  The energy is palpable and quantifiable.  Democratic voter turnout this year has dwarfed that on the Republican side.  In fact, Clinton and Obama have each received twice as many votes as McCain in the primaries and caucuses so far.

McCain’s strongest support in the primaries has been in states that he will not carry in the general election.  McCain has arrived at the Republican nomination through good luck and good timing more than anything else.  Would-be Republican nominees sapped each other’s strength on the right (Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson) and the other demi-moderdate, Giuliani, blew up just in time for his voters to flee to McCain in Florida.  The states that guaranteed him the nomination, California, New York, and New Jersey, are states he is sure to lose to Clinton or Obama.

The Republican Party is demoralized and unenthusiastic about McCain.  At the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference this week, McCain received a healthy dose of boos mixed in with his applause.  The misgivings movement conservatives have about him go beyond his willingness to jab his finger in the eye of the Republican establishment and his flirtation with leaving the party, maybe even serving as John Kerry’s running mate.  It’s his positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, taxes, torture, ANWR, and global warming.  Some of the loudest voices on the right, including Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, are threatening the conservative equivalent of sepukku: voting for Hillary Clinton.  While McCain can expect to consolidate support among rank and file Republicans, he is unlikely to generate enthusiasm among them and has a long way to go with movement conservatives.   

The heart of the Republican base, evangelical voters, is the constituency least likely to support McCain.  Evangelicals, who McCain called “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 presidential campaign, have yet to embrace McCain and there are indications that many of them never will.  McCain demonstrated in South Carolina that he can make nice with some evangelicals.  But does anyone really believe evangelicals will turn out in the kinds of overwhelming, unprecedented numbers that they did for George Bush – and which put him over the top?  Take a hint from national evangelical leader James Dobson.  “I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative,” Dobson said this week.  “I cannot, and will not, vote for Senator John McCain, as a matter of conscience.”

The independent voters who are attracted to McCain don’t really know him – and they will have plenty of time to learn about things they won’t like.  The independent voters I talked to in New Hampshire and Massachusetts preceding his primary wins in those states actually seem to have no idea who John McCain is.  They know about Vietnam.  They know about dirty tricks.  And they know about straight talk.  What many independent voters don’t know is where he stands on Iraq, Iran, tax cuts for the wealthy, health care, abortion, and a host of other issues that have yet to be discussed.  McCain has built a powerful personal brand.  But he has yet to be exposed to the scrutiny of a general election campaign and independent voters may find that he’s not what they think.  They may not even like what they hear.  McCain is uncharismatic on the stump and, in a general election, may not have what it takes.

McCain is notoriously bad at talking about the economy.  In Michigan, where the issue was central, McCain found himself only able to deliver the “straight talk” that jobs aren’t coming back to Michigan.  While much of McCain’s appeal is based on his independence and willingness to tell it like it is, U.S. presidents are not elected by selling pessimism about the economy, particularly when it’s on the verge of a recession.  In American politics, the most optimistic candidate usually wins – or at least the one that doesn’t appear committed to less jobs and more wars.

History is on the side of change.  More often than not, a party doesn’t get a third term in the White House.  See, for example, Bush/Gore in 2000, Carter/Ford in 1976, Nixon/Humphrey in 1968, Kennedy/Nixon in 1960, and Eisenhower/Stevenson defeat in 1952.  That being said, there are exceptions to the rule, most notably George Bush’s “third Reagan Term” in 1988, Franklin Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms in 1940 and 1944.  But the war on terror is not World War II – and George Bush is not Ronald Reagan.