Writing in the Weekly Standard, the brilliant political analyst Jay Cost says we should compare Obama to Dukakis, not Carter, because like the latter he has the full support of the liberal Northern voters who now comprise the Democrat party (and not much else). If the election were held today, in his view we’d see a Republican presidential rout, not as great as Reagan’s, but a significant one nevertheless.
Dukakis, unlike Carter, was able to hold together his party coalition. He lost the 1988 election because Republicans were firmly united behind George Bush, and independents broke decisively toward the GOP.
This is roughly how the current political landscape appears, which leads me to conclude if the election were held today, and the GOP nominated a reasonably attractive candidate, Obama would do about as well in the popular vote as Dukakis did. Given the geographical polarization of the electorate (i.e. the red state-blue state divide), Obama would surely capture more than the 111 electoral votes Dukakis carried. Even so, it would be a sizeable Republican victory. Not quite as smashing as Reagan’s victory in 1980, but still substantial.
Moving forward, I think that is the best way to compare Obama. Not so much to Carter, who was hampered by internal divisions that did not plague Obama, but more to Dukakis, whose final vote share is roughly consistent with Obama’s job approval rating over the last 18 months.
Dear Clarice,
I called this before the 2010 election. There have been two “wave” elections for President in my lifetime – Eisenhower in 1952 and Reagan in 1980. Note the time span. About a generation. If you look at our major military conflicts back to 1776 they about a generation apart. Especially if you consider, as I do, Korea and Vietnam as the last battles of WWII.
Sarah Palin will be the nominee. The early polls are meaningless with the elections 18 months away. The Tea Party demonstrated enormous clout in 2010. When she announces she’ll enlist an army that makes the GOTV efforts of organized labor pale into insignificance.
Regards,
Roy
Mr. Lofquist seems to have missed the part about the Republicans nominating a “reasonably attractive” candidate. Palin may induce cultlike levels of adoration in her supporters because they see her as physically attractive, but that kind of “attractive” is not going to win over the two-thirds of the country that flat-out doesn’t like her, or think she is unqualified to be president.
Obama must go; if the Republicans insist on nominating a lightning rod like Palin, he will win in 2012. The election will be all about her, when it needs to be about Obama and his policies.
I second MP51′s comment. The GOP field presents a quandary. All of the die-hard conservative Tea Party favorites have substantial flaws and weaknesses. It’s not just Palin — it’s also Bachmann, Cain, West, etc.
Meanwhile Romney is probably the strongest in the GOP field but so many conservatives find him so distasteful that two scenarios could emerge. One, many conservatives stay home out of lack of enthusiasm. Two, a conservative runs as a third-party candidate. Although I find it difficult to believe, many conservatives consider Romney to be a RINO. Pawlenty should have continued with his Obamneycare term. It’s got traction in undermining Romney.
Ironically, the GOP’s best bet and perhaps Obama’s biggest threat is probably going to be Rick Perry. Liberals shouldn’t dismiss him as another George W. He’s been governor longer than W and during his tenure Texas has had great job growth — whether or not he deserves credit doesn’t matter. He’s also energetic and charismatic.