Is this election more like 1960 than 1980?

[liberalpragmatist]

Each election is unique, so there are limits to how appropriate ANY historical analogy can be. But drawing parallels with past races can illuminate underlying trends and provide some perspective on why and how something is happening.

Given how unpopular the Bush Administration is, and given that the generic ballot numbers point to a big Democratic victory, most of us keep wondering how on earth could we not be doing better?

I think there are several reasons. It's true that elections are greatly influenced by the fundamentals, and that is why I'm still optimistic about our chances. But each campaign IS influenced by its own set of issues and personalities and the predictive models do have room for error. Several of them predicted a (comfortable) win for Al Gore in 2000. Others predicted a very narrow reelection for Bill Clinton in 1996. Still others predicted a large victory for Jimmy Carter in 1976.

1960 is an excellent case in point - the fundamentals pointed to a comfortable Democratic victory, yet the highly talented and charismatic Democratic candidate, John Kennedy, in the end just eked out a win over Richard Nixon.

And there are some interesting parallels between 1960 and 2008. Although in 1958, Eisenhower was personally popular, his approval ratings had fallen and the popularity of the Republican Party was quite low. The Republicans suffered major losses in 1958, losses which ended the careers of several promising Republicans. It was partly because of these losses that Richard Nixon was able to win the nomination for the presidency in 1960; several would-be rivals lost their seats in Congress or the governorship and Nixon was able then to be the first incumbent vice president since Martin Van Buren to win a presidential nomination.

Then, as now, the Democratic candidate was smart and charismatic, but also quite young. Many voters worried about his youth and inexperience. And as the potential first Catholic president, he was hurt by religious bigotry in many segments of the population.

Of course, Ike was more popular than George W. Bush is. But McCain is substantially more popular than his party. That's partly an indictment of the Obama campaign, but it also reflects both (1) the failure of the media and (2) simple inertia. Regarding the latter, McCain is simply one of the best-known politicians in the country and there may be some natural limits in the ability of a campaign to starkly change opinions of him. Remember that McCain has already experienced a big drop in support from his support some years back, so we may be approaching his floor, and it may be a high one.

Moreover, the McCain campaign has quite skillfully played on people's suspicions of hype. That's what the whole "celebrity" line of attack is fundamentally about. Yes, it's juvenile and amateurish and their ads are terrible. But it does reinforce many undecided voters feelings that Obama is too hyped. McCain benefits from being seen as a familiar figure.

Right now, McCain is also probably benefiting from the effects of Palin. My own guess is that the effect of her selection will ultimately be nill -- she'll energize the Republican base, but also energizes and solidifies the Democratic base and she splits independents. I also would not rule out the possibility that she'll ultimately be a net negative. For the time being though, she has probably had some effect, both in energizing Republican voters and making low-information voters (especially working-class ones and some women) more predisposed to the Republican ticket.

What all this means is that this may turn out to be more like 1960 than 1980. In 1980, Reagan won a huge victory over Carter, but much of that was due to the fact that Carter was the incumbent. Had, say, Ted Kennedy been the nominee, Reagan would probably have won a narrower victory. Likewise, were Obama running against Bush or Cheney, there would be contest -- Obama would probably be 15-20 points ahead (and hypothetical polls have suggested that that would in fact be the case -- one had it Obama 55, Bush 35).

My own guess is that in the end, we'll go into election day with an Obama lead of about 3-4 points in the aggregate of polls, but that he'll still be under 50% in most of them. The very last-minute undecideds may well break for McCain, but the final margin will be a 2-3 point Obama win in the popular vote and a modest but comfortable win in the Electoral College: I see Obama holding the Kerry/Gore states (incl. NH, New Mexico and Iowa) for 264 electoral votes and capturing Colorado and/or Virginia, for an EV total of either 273, 277 or 286. I'm less optimistic about Ohio, because Ohio (and Pennsylvania and Michigan) are states where I'd expect to see some "Bradley Effect."

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. What a diplomat: "low information voters".

Sign him up.

Excellent analysis, BTW.





>>>I'm less optimistic about Ohio, because Ohio (and Pennsylvania and Michigan) are states where I'd expect to see some "Bradley Effect.">>>>

What's the "Bradley Effect"? Who ( Bill?), How, What?

[liberalpragmatist]

4. Latent racism

In 1982, Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles ran for Governor of California. Had he won, he would have been the first elected Black governor in the United States.

He led polls by 8-10 points, but on Election Day, lost by just under 1%.

Similarly, when Doug Wilder (also Black) ran for governor of Virginia in 1989, he also polled way better than his final result. He won, but it was much closer than expected.

Basically the "Bradley Effect" or the "Wilder Effect" is a phenomenon of Black candidates (esp. in statewide offices) polling better than their final results, due to white voters lying to interviewers.

There's some evidence it has declined. There wasn't a significant Bradley Effect observed during the primary -- Obama's election day results were very much in line with his polling. Even in New Hampshire, the polls didn't overstate Obama's support, they just drastically understated Hillary Clinton's support.

Also, in 2006, in the Tennessee Senate race, Harold Ford actually did better than pre-election polls suggested. He lost, I believe, 51-49, even though polls showed him behind by between 5-10 points.

[nevergiveup]

2. Well done

I am old enough to remember 1960 and the similarities are many. My grandmother was a Roosevelt Democrat and she voted for Nixon because she couldn't bring herself to vote for a Catholic. Considering how much racism still exists in this country Obama has so far performed miracles getting himself to this point. There are days when I think he will win and others whereby I think "no way". Frankly I do not have a clue.

[tritsofme]

3. Great analysis.

nt