CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
June 16, 2008 – 4:20 a.m.
If It’s Like 1956, McCain Wins Big; If It’s Like 1980, Obama Wins Bigger
By John Bicknell, CQ Staff
Journalists love close elections. It’s good for business, and they’re more fun to cover. So it’s not surprising that most pundits, backed by most polls, are forecasting a close presidential election this fall between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain .
I think they’re wrong. I think we’re headed for a blowout.
And since it is all the rage these days to try to compare today’s candidates to yesterday’s presidents — Obama as John F. Kennedy, McCain as Theodore Roosevelt — I’ll compare this year’s election to two previous elections, and let you decide which outcome seems more probable.
Scenario One: 2008 is like 1980.
That doesn’t mean the Republican will win in 2008 like he did in 1980. This is about what will shape the race, not which party comes out on top.
That year, an endangered incumbent president was running against a Republican about whom many voters had serious doubts.
Ronald Reagan is viewed as an icon today, and frequently wins praise from Democrats, who try to make President Bush look bad by comparison.
That’s nostalgia talking.
Back then, Democrats treated Reagan like he was a mad bomber. Many undecided voters were uneasy with what they knew about his record, and feared he was too conservative and too belligerent.
On the other hand, they knew what they had in Carter, and they didn’t like it.
Polls ran close all through the campaign. But in the end, the election was not close. Reagan won the popular vote 50-41 percent, and an even more resounding victory in the Electoral College, 489-49.
What happened?
Reagan showed the voters he was not dangerous, and that he could stand toe-to-toe with the incumbent and seem just as presidential (perhaps more so).
If It’s Like 1956, McCain Wins Big; If It’s Like 1980, Obama Wins Bigger
That will be Obama’s task this fall. He faces a similar situation in that voters are widely dissatisfied with the incumbent — and link the Republican McCain to the Republican Bush, a linkage the Obama campaign will spend a lot of time and money trying to foster.
Obama is little known outside the chattering class, and not as well known as Reagan was, even in 1980. But, as Reagan did that year, Obama will need to cross that stature threshold for those voters tuning in later in the fall. They’ll have some general impressions, but what they will want to see is: Can this guy be president?
If Obama maneuvers his way through the campaign and, most importantly, the debates on even footing with McCain, voters are likely to be reassured and hand him a sizable victory.
Bob Beckel, a lonely voice predicting a big Obama victory, says it could be by 50-150 electoral votes. If he debates McCain to a stand-off, it could be more than that.
Scenario Two: 2008 is like 1956.
Something might happen in October that could change the equation in McCain’s favor.
In 1956, there was no doubt that President Dwight D. Eisenhower would be re-elected. He had healthy leads in the polls, and he had already beaten his opponent, Adlai Stevenson in 1952.
But late in October, two events seized the public’s attention and reinforced even more the safe haven of Ike over the relatively unknown quantity of Stevenson.
The Suez crisis, in which Great Britain and France teamed with Israel in an attempt to wrest control of the canal from Egypt, and the Soviet invasion of Hungary gave a boost to Eisenhower’s already solid lead.
On Election Day, his winning margin was higher than the polls had indicated, and he topped his 1952 popular vote margin of 11 points, winning by 15. He also increased his Electoral College total to 457, 15 more than he had in 1952.
The idea of the “October surprise” carries sinister — some would say paranoid — connotations, of manipulation of the electoral process by the incumbent party.
But, as Suez and Hungary showed, the world does not wait for presidential elections, and crises do not have to be manufactured to achieve a desired result.
Sometime in October, it’s quite possible something will happen. Given the pre-election terror attacks in Madrid and London, we might even say it’s likely something will happen.
If It’s Like 1956, McCain Wins Big; If It’s Like 1980, Obama Wins Bigger
McCain does not have the reservoir of goodwill that Eisenhower, the liberator of Europe and the incumbent president, had in 1956.
But he does have a long public record that qualifies him to be heeded in a crisis.
Under those circumstances, he would be likely to benefit. And, if Obama were to stumble in the least in his reaction, confirming latent but lingering concerns among undecided voters, they could move en masse toward McCain, the safe harbor.
I think one of these two scenarios is likely, and the outcome on Election Night will not be close.
What that tells you is that McCain’s success is captive to events. Obama controls his own destiny.
Which guy would you rather be?
John Bicknell can be reached at jbicknell@cq.com.
Comments
you may be right. the sad thing is that your pro-mccain scenerio requires the public to believe that droppong bombs from 35,000 feet and being a POW 40, that's forty, years ago makes mccain presidential. sad, huh?
McCain as Teddy Roosevelt? The oldest potential president against the youngest?
Things are a LOT different this time. I really don't think an external event will affect this race unless we are flat-out attacked by another entity on our soil. See today's The Hill Blog for example, unions are making the argument that Obama's philosophy of pulling out of Iraq and acting "pragmatic" will solve the problem. That's so stupid it's laughable. However, unions are putting money behind that argument. As long as organized unions and media are willing to completely ignore national security as a viable issue, unless there are foreigners invading this country, it won't be an issue in November. I really think the pervailing issue will be economic. If the economy picks up, it will be 1984 or 1996, if the economy sours, it will be 1980 or 1992.
Hey Nathan. Actually, McCain and Teddy Roosevelt are the same age. (If Roosevelt was still alive, that is.)
John - Dude - you lost me with "McCain as Theodore Roosevelt? WHAT THE?? Your title says, "If it's like 1956 ..." My head is spinning. Roosevelt did NOT run in 1956. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt DIED in 1919. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to call for Universal Health Care & National Health Insurance - McCain opposes Universal Health Care & National Health Insurance. Theodore Roosevelt was 42 years old - the youngest person to be elected President. McCain is 71 - the oldest person to run for President. Theodore Roosevelt was a conservationist who did not even want a Christmas Tree in the White House because he didn't want trees cut down from the forest - McCain would rather drill for oil in the ANWAR (cutting down trees) than in the Ocean. Theodore Roosevelt QUIT the Republican Party BEFORE he ran for President. McCain has become rightwinged Republican since his current run for President. Theodore Roosevelt supported labor unions - John McCain eliminates union jobs with his massive pro-free trade agreements with China, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Oman, Singapore, Chile and Morocco. Theodore Roosevelt helped create jobs. McCain has helped jobs move overseas. McCain even authored the Amendment allowing our military missiles be outsourced to China.
I think there are big gaps between voters views of the candidates character (right now, big advantage McCain) and their views on the issues (right now, big advantage Obama) the outcome of the election will depend on whether character or the war and health care drive the election, and because of that it's impossible to predict what will happen at this point, although I agree there is serious landslide potential either way.
I believe that your analysis is flawed. This year is sui generis, unlike any other in history for many reasons. But certainly if you are going to compare, you must look at presidential election years where no incumbent was running, the case this year. The last time this happened in the general election was 1952, not 1956. Comparing an open seat election to one where the public is asked to re-affirm a choice from 4 years earlier is comparing apples and oranges. History shows that the public tends to give a benefit of the doubt to the incumbent. The incumbent is tossed only when the economy is bad or the president is seen as out of touch. An open seat is a whole different ballgame with wide and differing considerations. Ike and Jimmy Carter were known quantities. The public knew Ike quite well from WWII and from 4 years in the white house, and liked him. Jimmy Carter was blamed for overseeing a faltering economy and was unpopular even within his own party. The public wanted change. 1956 and 1980 had little in common with 2008.
John- Interesting analysis. Although I agree with your basic premise that McCain does not control his own fate, I thiink there are a couple of differences to the examples you cite. Eisenhower was the liberator of Europe and a very centrist president, not someone who never led troops and is following one of the worst administrations on record. Secondly, you cite the possiblitiy of an attack that may sway voters to pick a more experienced hand. But I have to wonder, wouldn't an attack undercut the Republican arguement that we "are fighting them there so we don't need to fight them here?" Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil may backfire on the Republicans rather than help them.
McCain is no Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, I am 100% sure that Teddy Roosevelt would be a democrat today if he could see how the republicans have screwed everything up. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. John McCain is a right-wing flip-flopper and a hypocrite.
Well I wasn't going to post anything since the article was well balanced and stated that either candidate might win in a landslide victory but then those loopy Obamabots showed up and here I am. How can you wacky zealots get offended by reading a neutral piece? Does the moment anyone post anything that disagrees even a smidgen with you cult of personality drive y'all to posting madness? Geez you guys would make the Church of Scientology proud.
Wrong - if its like 1960, Obama wins narrowly. If its like 1968, McCain wins!
I believe this election is more like 1976 .... Jimmy Carter captured the fascination of the media ...with a very simple slogan a government as good as it's people .... Change and fairness are the same for Senator OBAMA ... in 1976 the Republican brand was at an all time low and a moderate to conservative Republican Jerry Ford ...was over taken by this desie to try something different ... unlike most of the talking heads and MSM pudits I was 25 then and see great similarities in OBAMA and President Carter...their approach -----and by the way Jerry Ford like john McCain a war hero and liked by the media could not make a speech ...no this is not 1992 ----it's 1976
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: