Most Winnable Election for the Incumbent Party: 1980, 1992 or 2008

[Redban]

1980 and 2008 were not winnable because of the economy and Middle East (Iraq/Iran Hostage Crisis). Plus, the opposition ran charismatic candidates in Reagan and Obama; both were considered “cool” at the time. And let’s face it, ever since JFK vs Nixon, people vote for the coolest candidate, the one who looks good on camera, the one who can entertain.

1992 is a different story. Clinton, like Reagan & Obama, was the “cooler” candidate who looked good on camera. But George HW Bush was a good president, with a decent record (minus taxes and the economy). His approval ratings after Desert Storm set a record approval rating. It’s true that the economy was bad, but it wasn’t 1980 or 2008 level of badness. I do believe that Perot played a role, even if some say he took votes away from both sides equally. Bush could have won or made it closer if his domestic plans were stronger. He also sometimes appeared too distant from the common man  (didn’t know how to use a supermarket scanner). 1992 was always going to be a tough fight because Clinton was so politically gifted, but it wasn’t impossible.

[Redban]

For what it's worth -- Karl Rove has spoken a little about 1992. Of the GOP's direct mail procedures, he says, "It was painful to watch. The Bush campaign was not worthy of the forty-first president." The intimation is that, while George H.W. Bush was a good president, his campaign was lacking the infrastructure to get him re-elected.

He also points out some mistakes, like the way Bush 41 wasted time going after Al Gore's environmentalism and calling "Ozone Man."