Presidential election looking like '76

[unfrigginreal]

By NORMAN UPHOFF

When presidential advisor Karl Rove says that Gov. Howard Dean would be the easiest Democratic candidate for George Bush to beat in 2004 -- suggesting that Dean would be "another McGovern" -- he may be trying to divert attention from the fact that the 2004 race is shaping up with more similarities to the 1976 election than with the one in 1972.

In 1976, the incumbent was an unelected president with no clear electoral mandate, and while he was likeable and genial, he was widely considered to be "intellectually challenged." Voters were greatly dissatisfied with the way previous presidents had wasted American lives and wealth in a failed foreign misadventure. Having been misled by these presidents, voters urgently desired a chief executive who would speak openly and directly, not dishing out political pap.

<snip>

Next year will, of course, be different in important ways from 1976. Gerald Ford was not personally responsible for the war in Vietnam and its costly aftermath in the way that George Bush is responsible for enmeshing the U.S. in a costly conflict of his own making. Ford had not willfully crippled the government's fiscal capabilities, creating unconscionable budget deficits for the next generation to bear; nor had he played "reverse-Robin Hood" by changing the tax structure to favor rich friends and contributors; nor did he have corporate albatrosses like Enron and Halliburton visibly hanging around his neck.

So we can expect a lot of "spinning" from Karl Rove and others who will try to frame the 2004 race as a reprise of 1972. But a more appropriate analogy is with 1976 -- or with 1992, when another governor from a small state came out of "nowhere" to beat a sitting president, also named Bush, because voters saw their interests and aspirations better projected by this new candidate.

Norman Uphoff is professor of government and international agriculture at Cornell University.

http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20031201/opinion/741329.html

[wakfs]

1. One important difference...

...between 1976 and 2004 is the power of the 24-7 mass media to "sell" the incumbent. In 1976, the media still practiced journalism under the fairness doctrine. Today, the mainstream media is corrupted by corporate influence and their proximity to Washington power circles.

[Bombtrack]

2. we could annex canada and we would still be 100 electoral votes short

the voting public is mid-to-low 60s /high 30's - for/against the war being the right decision, and god knows how much(alot)against a middle class tax raise.

76 is a rediculous comparison in pretty much every way with Bush/Dean.

Bush has better #'s than Clinton had in 95/6 and about the same that Reagan had in 83/4

there's nothing tenuous about the fact that McGovern also held an unpopular pseudo-isolationist/anti-war ACCOMPANIED by an unpopular economic position, and was the candidate that the GOP wanted to , and probably helped, get nominated

there's no denying that both Mondale and he propose a middle class tax raise(or if you like "just go back to the taxes of the previous decade).

And it's quite clear that both Dean and Dukakis were governors from typical liberal new england states, and were known for there unpopular positions on key social issues(death penalty and civil unions). Not to mention there shared lack of foreign policy credibility.

All of that is alot more valid than bush and Ford's mental reputions.

and Georgia was and is hardly a small state. Even arkansas, which a third as populous as GA, has probably 6 or 7 times Vermonts population

[HFishbine]

5. Fact Check

"arkansas, which is 3 times more populous than GA..."

Really?

[ArkDem]

6. A little research

Arkansas in 2002 - 2,710,079

Vermont in 2001 - 613,090

Georgia in 1998 - 5,108,527

[Bombtrack]

8. I meant a third as looks like it's about half

My bad, but my statement that they saying they are all, just small states being misleading, remains true

Arkansas is four and half times bigger and Georgia is 8 times bigger, likely 6 or 7 times in 76

I did calculations based on electoral votes in my head on the quick so I was wrong on that but it's also the one thing you pick out, out of many acurate critisms of the article

[Donny247]

9. Correction

"76 is a rediculous comparison in pretty much every way with Bush/Dean.
Bush has better #'s than Clinton had in 95/6 and about the same that Reagan had in 83/4"

Bush's numbers are near where Clinton's were, but Clinton had been trending upward for more than a year, whereas Bush's trend has been generally downward. Also, you omit one important fact: Bush's numbers are lower than Bush Sr's were at this point in HIS presidency (Bush Sr. was also trending downward).

[Bombtrack]

12. Bush just had an upsurge, last I heard he was at 60

they said it had to do with the bump in the economy but obviously it's not a sure thing what it was do to.

Speaking of numbers, do you care that the public has shown every indication that they would reject a middle class tax increase and favor the war by at least 20 points in most polls(after the bloodiest month since the war began).

[Silverhair]

3. There is a HUGE difference.

In 76, America, (Spelled with a "c", not with a "k" as so many here like to do.)had not been attacked. 9-11 worked a fundamental change on the country. Any candidate that does not recgonize that does so at his, and our, peril.

[bryant69]

4. Hmmmmmm.

Seems I've heard this argument before. After September 11th, we can no longer afford mushy headed liberals in the White House.

Of course President Clinton worked hard to fight terrorist threats, and came up with a plan to step up our strategy against Al-Queda. President Bush put the plan on a shelf, under his Anti-Clinton foreign policy. But, somehow, it's Clinton's fault that September 11th happened.

So in order to win as Democrats we need to jettison our wishy washy liberalism and embrace conservative values. Go Lieberman.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy into this.

Of course you might have meant something different by invoking the ghost of September 11th, and if you did I apologize.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ArkDem]

7. Yes, Clinton was well known throughout the world

as the scourge of terrorism.

[sangh0]

10. That's not what Silverhair said

There wa nothing about "mushy headed liberals", or that "it's Clinton's fault" or that "we need to jettison our wishy washy liberalism and embrace conservative values" and "Go Lieberman". All he said was that something changed as a result of 9/11.

Is your point so weak the only way to make is by distorting what another poster said?

[bryant69]

13. It's not weak at all.

I've heard this argument before. Of coures he's not going to openly say that liberalism is wishy washy on this website; he'd get banned in a flash.

Maybe if he had eleborated on what exactly had changed than I'd mostly likely go along with him.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sangh0]

21. It was pretty clear

9-11 worked a fundamental change on the country

and if you didn't understand something, or wanted more detail, the thing to do is to ask. Instead, you just assumed what you wanted in order to make your point.

[Silverhair]

24. OK, I'll go into more detail.

I had to run some errands, I'm back now. I'll go into more detail.

I lived through the entire post-WWII cold war, and remember almost all of it. I remember being afraid and trying to talk Dad into building a bomb shelter. Thankfully, he was more level headed. I remember that during the entire time, the primary issue in every election was always NATIONAL SECURITY. Everything came second to that. People didn't talk about it a whole lot, because they didn't need to, but that backdrop of fear was there. I WILL NOT GET INTO A DISCUSSION HERE OF WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG - ONLY THAT IT WAS THERE! Any candidate for president had to show himself tough on National Security or his effort was doomed. That was simply the way it was.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was estatic. My daughter would not have the threat of MAD in her life the way it had been in mine. Other issues could come to the front of American politics.

Now, with 9-11, that backdrop has returned, and in a way that it hasn't before. America has actually been attacked. For many, that is a kind of trauma by itself. And with that the backdrop of fear has returned. National Security will be the main issue in this election, and will be for a long time. Our candidate, like those in cold war campaigns, must spell out what he will do to combat terrorism. If he ignores it, he will lose.

[CMT]

11. I agree

there are more similarities to '76 even with the leading candidate at this point--Howard Dean. Dean is a former Governor of a small state who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal as Carter was. He is leading an insurgent campaign which many in the party and press initially wrote off. Like '76 when there were ABC's--Anybody but Carter--led by some party professionals there will be ABD's--Anybody but Dean--led by disgruntled party pros. But in the end they will unite behind Dean as they did Carter in '76.

[Bombtrack]

15. Dean is self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, a proclamation that's empty

He's running on a middle-class tax-increasing, 90 billion increase in healthcare spending platform.

whether you want to file education policy under fiscal or social, his ultra-centralization of Vermont's education would never be filed under the conservative label.

The underlying fact of these elections was that Carter won by having a natural electoral strategy and ability of winning swing-states, and sweeping the south, which Dean utterly lacks.

[CMT]

19. as Clinton pointed out

Dean balanced budgets as Governor and has a proposal for health care which covers about the same number of people as Gep's does but with a lower price tag.

Now I agree that the electoral strategy has changed. But it has changed for all the candidates. In '76 Carter would never have won without the south, because the Republicans were much stronger outside of the south then than they are now. Remember Ford carried New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, California, and Michigan--states which are much more Democratic today. We need to hold these states which Dean can do and add states like Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado--which I think Dean also can win a share of. I also think he will do surprisingly well in the South and probably will have a strong Southerner on the ticket with him--either Clark or Graham.

[library_max]

14. Wishful thinking.

The country was at its peak of liberalism in 1976. We were mad as hell about Watergate, and there was nobody to hold responsible for it except Ford, who had pardoned Nixon.

I don't buy the Dean-is-McGovern argument either, but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think whoever we nominate isn't going to have an uphill battle against a hostile press, total Republican domination of the present government, and 9/11 paranoia.

[janx]

16. When I saw "76"

I was thinking more about 1776 than 1976!

This is more like 1776!

[Frodo]

17. Let's hope it DOESN'T look like '76

'76 was not about Ford, it was about Nixon.

the incumbent was an unelected president with no clear electoral mandate

The incumbent had never been UP for election because his predecesor was kicked out. That's entirely different from the "unelected" we have now. The bulk of the population is just going to think we're kooky if we keep harping on Florida. Ford hadn't had ANYONE vote for him from President. Bush got just under half. Not the same thing

while he was likeable and genial, he was widely considered to be "intellectually challenged."

EVERY Republican candidate in my political lifetime has been tagged as "intellectually challenged". It hasn't stopped them from winning most of the Presidential elections. Our biggest loses have come against a couple of them.

Gerald Ford was not personally responsible for the war in Vietnam and its costly aftermath in the way that George Bush is responsible for enmeshing the U.S. in a costly conflict of his own making.

Which completely ignores the fact that 1,000 deaths isn't the same thing as 52,000 deaths.

Ford had not willfully crippled the government's fiscal capabilities, creating unconscionable budget deficits for the next generation to bear

No, but Reagan did in spades and he got re-elected in a landslide and his mostly unqualified VP (who could have never been President without first being Reagan's VP) swept in right after him. "Someone else is going to have to pay for what he's giving you right now" has never scared enough people. "someone else" is still "someone else".


Lastly, we have no Jimmy Carter on the ticket and no hopes of finding one. Carter's morality was an opportunity for voters to speak out against Nixon's immorality... it wasn't Ford. And Carter also won by only 2% (a landslide by comparison to 2000, but still small). Even with everything he had going for him.



The big difference is easy to see by looking at the "red/blue map" for '76. Carter WON TX,FL and the whole South except VA. He LOST California, CT, NJ. He lost Vermont! and Eugene McCarthy (for gosh sakes) got more votes than Nader got in '96.


1976 doesn't look like 2004 in any way at all. For good or bad.

[YNGW]

18. Not Like '76

Like '76?? No way!

Carter was viewed as the ultimate outsider after the country had just had to endure Watergate a couple of years earlier. Carter was the good ole Southern boy, pure as the wind driven snow, who was not going to be corrupted like those other underhanded pols. Our Party held a substantial advantage in that department in 1976 in the eyes of the public, especially Southern voters.

Should Dean be the nominee, will he get painted as the second coming of McGovern? I don't know that it would matter. How many voters in the general population even remember McGovern or his issues? Not many I would guess.

If they're going to clobber him on anything, it will be his stance on the current Iraq situation and his record as governor, especially when it came to raising taxes. These issues are likely to become the thorn in his side.

:donut:

dai

[spindoctor]

20. If only I would look like '76

focus...focus....

These historical comparisons are very tiresome. It is crystal ball gazing with poor hindsight.
The problem with looking at prior statistics is that they say nothing about the situation at hand.

A simple example, when flipping a coin, regardless of whether you got 'heads' 9 times in a row, the chance of flipping heads again is still 50%, even though the chance of flipping heads 10 times in a row is 1 in a thousand.

That's statistics for you, and the same applies to historical patterns. Yes, history repeats itself, but not in a predictable pattern. Only once the future becomes history can we determine whether it was a repeat or new history that is yet to be repeated.

*grumble*....coffee.

[Frodo]

23. That's a good one.

"This coin flip is starting to look a lot like flip number 17 yesterday... it's arcing up in a very similar trajectory, and the flipper has the same wart on his left thumb affecting the release. This is not looking good for 'heads'"

Worthless.

[RobinA]

22. I'm Sticking With 1972

1976 was more about Watergate than anything else. Vietnam was a distant memory to the average voter.