Is this 92 all over again?

[Kevin]

In 1992 President GHW Bush had experienced a number of foreign policy successes(successful conclusions to the invasion of Panama and the 1st Gulf War, as well as the final breakup of the Soviet Union afterwards)  and increased popularity as a result of it. And despite some Democratic successes during his term in office, most major Democratic heavyweights like Tom Harkin, Mario Cuomo etc. believed him unbeatable and didn't run, leaving the Democratic field with many 2nd and 3r tier candidates as well as alot of unknowns. However, the economy eventually took it's toll on the sitting President and we know the rest.

Therefore, my question is could a similar scenario be developing with the 2012 Presidential race? I mean with it appear many of the major Republican candidates not running, and with economic conditions despite improvements weighing down the President? Also allowing for a rise in prominence of the current Republican candidates in the filed? 

Anyone have their opinions?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Obama's current approval ratings aren't in the 70s for one thing.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For Bush Sr., the economy worsened during his time in office. For Obama, the economy improved. You'd think that would make some kind of difference.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No it's 96 allover again.

[memphis]

No it's 96 84 allover again.

[Liberté]

I myself would say it's shaping up to most closely resemble 1976 in terms of its dynamics: an incumbent President who is perceived as weak on the economy but who is facing an opposition Party that's deeply divided (and in all probability a weak opposition candidate). The particulars are of course different, but the story's the same.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Tom Harkin ran in 1992.

[Paul Kemp]

No it's 96 allover again.

Yea, this is what it's looking like to me. Of course to say that Obama's re-election is a sure thing would be naive, there are certain striking parallels.

[feeblepizza]

Tom Harkin ran in 1992.

He won his home state of Iowa and gained 1.4% of the vote nationally when the primaries were over, thus failing to become a factor.

[King]

No, it's really nothing like 1992 or the first Bush presidency.

[pbrower2a]

In 1992 President GHW Bush had experienced a number of foreign policy successes(successful conclusions to the invasion of Panama and the 1st Gulf War, as well as the final breakup of the Soviet Union afterwards)  and increased popularity as a result of it. And despite some Democratic successes during his term in office, most major Democratic heavyweights like Tom Harkin, Mario Cuomo etc. believed him unbeatable and didn't run, leaving the Democratic field with many 2nd and 3r tier candidates as well as alot of unknowns. However, the economy eventually took it's toll on the sitting President and we know the rest.

Therefore, my question is could a similar scenario be developing with the 2012 Presidential race? I mean with it appear many of the major Republican candidates not running, and with economic conditions despite improvements weighing down the President? Also allowing for a rise in prominence of the current Republican candidates in the filed? 

Anyone have their opinions?

Big differences --

1. The 2008 election is a repudiation of the previous President; the 1988 election was a ratification of the successes of a two-term President.

2. George H W Bush could hardly explain what he was going to do during a second term, having achieved about everything that he wanted to achieve.

3. The elder Bush completely lacked charisma.

[specific_name]

This is more like 96, possibly 04 or 84. I wouldn't choose 1992 because Obama is still not wildly popular despite OBL's death. The economy has also been in a bad state awhile before he entered office. Some quarters are likely to blame him, but it doesn't fit the same pattern as what occurred in the early 90's.

I actually think this election is going to be unique enough to be worth referencing in the future (as a specific variety of election). Considering the state of the Republican Party, Obama is in a Nixon like position - we may be experiencing a realignment. It took at least 12 years before, from 1968 to 1980. Maybe longer if you include the Democratic loses in the South during the 60's. It's too early to speculate with any accuracy, the economy in 2012 is going to be everything.

[Eraserhead]

No it's 96 allover again.

It certainly looks to be just as boring.

Things are too polarized for this to be '84, Memphis. They'd have to nominate an absolute nut (like Palin) and I don't see that happening.

[Whacker77]

Erick Erickson at Redstate has tried to make that case recently, but I'm not buying it for one moment.  Most importantly, Clinton had the media on his side in 1992 and it's certain the Republican won't have that plus going for him in 2012.  Republicans were also looking for their fourth straight term as president.  Fatigue became an issue with the voters.

I suspect many Republicans are trying to convince themselves it's 1992 all over again because they're not willing to accept the reality the 2012 election, while extremely winnable, has probably already been lost.  It's a fairy tale to believe history will repeat itself.  Democrats talked themselves into believing, or tried to anyway, they would make W a one termer just as they did his father.  It never works that way.

While the electoral map may be closer to 2004, this election will be much like 1996.  Romney, the pathetic probable nominee, will never be able to mount a serious charge just as Dole failed to do.  He will spend half of his time defending his own healthcare plan and he'll spend plenty more time trying to clean up stupid gaffes he will certainly make.  He is as wooden as they come on the trail.

Now that my Jeb dream has died, I'm moving towards Huntsman.  He's not as conservative as I would like, but at least he's not a 2008 retread or some vanity candidate. 

[Del Tachi]

I think 2012 is a lot like '04.

After eight years of a president from the other party (Bill Clinton/George W. Bush) a fairly charismatic, inexperienced candidate is elected (George W. Bush/Barack Obama) beating out a far-more experienced but less charismatic opponent (Al Gore/John McCain). 

The economy improves throughout the president's first-term and he is helped by major events in national security (9-11/UBL's death).  The incumbant seems unbeatable and the most positivley-viewed opposistion candidates (Hillary Clinton/Mike Huckabee) decide to sit out.  Thus, the opposition party offers-up a Massachusetts flip-flopper (John F. Kerry/Mitt Romney) who turns the election into one about economic issues and some foreign policy issues (Iraq/Iran or Libya). 

Despite being the heavy underdog, the opposition candidate comes within one state of winning the election (Ohio/???)

[Mr. Morden]

In terms of the primaries, it reminds me of 1996, in that there are a few candidates who are utterly unacceptable to the party leadership, who nonetheless have a shot at making a strong showing and winning some primaries (Buchanan, Forbes in 1996; Bachmann, Cain, Palin in 2012).....and the party establishment may well have to rally around one of the list of uninspiring establishment candidates (Dole, Gramm, and Alexander in 1996; Romney, Pawlenty, and possibly Huntmsan in 2012), in order to stop the insurgents.

[Lou34679]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Ummm.. only Jesus could beat Reagan in 1984. Obama is nowhere near that well-reviered.

[AZDem]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Ummm.. only Jesus could beat Reagan in 1984. Obama is nowhere near that well-reviered.

According to Gallup, Reagan's approval was at 43% compared to Obama's 50% at this point in his first time so it's fair to say that Reagan wasn't highly regarded at this point in his first term either.

[Whacker77]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Ummm.. only Jesus could beat Reagan in 1984. Obama is nowhere near that well-reviered.

According to Gallup, Reagan's approval was at 43% compared to Obama's 50% at this point in his first time so it's fair to say that Reagan wasn't highly regarded at this point in his first term either.

All sides agree that Obama's current job approval is the result of the UBL mission.  It's inflated right now and will likely settle back towards the mid to upper 40's.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Ummm.. only Jesus could beat Reagan in 1984. Obama is nowhere near that well-reviered.

According to Gallup, Reagan's approval was at 43% compared to Obama's 50% at this point in his first time so it's fair to say that Reagan wasn't highly regarded at this point in his first term either.

At May 23, 1983 or Election day 1984?

[Lief 🗽]

No, it's 1972 all over again.

[King]

I have a strange feeling it's going to be 2012 all over again.  Just a hunch.

[DS0816]

In May 1991, George Bush was at 77% for job approval. Oct. 31, 1991 he was at 59%. Mid-Oct. 1992, Bush was at 34%. It was recession striking on his watch.

[King]

In May 1991, George Bush was at 77% for job approval. Oct. 31, 1991 he was at 59%. Mid-Oct. 1992, Bush was at 34%. It was recession striking on his watch.

A better 1992 comparison would be 2008 had Kerry won in 04.