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

[OSR stands with Israel]

1980 IMO was clearly the least winnable as while Carter polling wise seemed in it , he always pretty much was DOA as the reason there was such a surge for Reagan after the debate had nothing to do with the debate but rather that people wanted any excuse to vote against Carter and once the deabte showed that electing Reagan wouldnt be risking WW3 it was pretty much all over for him and he had no chance.

Now 1992 and 2008 are hard as while the fundamentals were worse for the GOP in 2008 than 1992, the GOP in 1992 had the unpopular incumbent on the ballot while in 2008 they nominated a popular senator and in 1992 there was also Ross perot which also made winning much harder.

Still I would go with 1992 as I feel if Dems nominated a weak candidate, and HW dumped Quayle for say Jack Kemp and ran an aggressive campaign it could have been really close

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

If Perot didn’t run, I would agree then this clearly would be 1992 but him running made it IMO around the same level difficulty for HW to win as it was for McCain as the House was Safe D then too which meant even if it went to the House , HW wouldn’t win .


 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

McCain had no chance once the economy crashed in 2008. He was the strongest candidate the GOP could have nominated, but no Republican was going to win in that environment. That, and Obama was a phenomenon.

[Podgy the Bear]

Still I would go with 1992 as I feel if Dems nominated a weak candidate, and HW dumped Quayle for say Jack Kemp and ran an aggressive campaign it could have been really close

It's funny, but in June 1992, it looked like Bill Clinton was a weak candidate, and he was running in third place behind Perot and Bush in the polls.  Instead, he showed the Democrats the way to win elections--something that they are rapidly forgetting.

[Storr]

Still I would go with 1992 as I feel if Dems nominated a weak candidate, and HW dumped Quayle for say Jack Kemp and ran an aggressive campaign it could have been really close

It's funny, but in June 1992, it looked like Bill Clinton was a weak candidate, and he was running in third place behind Perot and Bush in the polls.  Instead, he showed the Democrats the way to win elections--something that they are rapidly forgetting.

It's not 1992 anymore.

[Podgy the Bear]

Still I would go with 1992 as I feel if Dems nominated a weak candidate, and HW dumped Quayle for say Jack Kemp and ran an aggressive campaign it could have been really close

It's funny, but in June 1992, it looked like Bill Clinton was a weak candidate, and he was running in third place behind Perot and Bush in the polls.  Instead, he showed the Democrats the way to win elections--something that they are rapidly forgetting.

It's not 1992 anymore.

Right--he won 370 EV and swept both Houses and made substantial majorities in state legislatures.  You're correct--it's not 1992 anymore.

[Agonized-Statism]

Still I would go with 1992 as I feel if Dems nominated a weak candidate, and HW dumped Quayle for say Jack Kemp and ran an aggressive campaign it could have been really close

It's funny, but in June 1992, it looked like Bill Clinton was a weak candidate, and he was running in third place behind Perot and Bush in the polls.  Instead, he showed the Democrats the way to win elections--something that they are rapidly forgetting.

It's not 1992 anymore.

Right--he won 370 EV and swept both Houses and made substantial majorities in state legislatures.  You're correct--it's not 1992 anymore.

Yeah, no. This isn't "dude just literally copy the opposition party's platform to win lol" time. You know who pulled off landslides and realigned the electorate? Muh "extremists", muh "far right", muh "far left".

[morgankingsley]

1992 was the most

1980 was the second most, mainly because of the multitude of severely close states

2008 was the least, because unlike Carter, McCain had a ceiling that was below the threshold

[buritobr]

1980

On monday evening 1992 and 2008, everybody knew Clinton and Obama would win. In 1980, Reagan was considered to have the biggest probability, but not everyone was sure. The polls showed a 3% difference in the national popular vote. The 10% margin was a surprise, but a surprise to the other side could have happened. The newspapers were expecting a long night in 1980.

[Mr. Smith]

1992 easily.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1980

On monday evening 1992 and 2008, everybody knew Clinton and Obama would win. In 1980, Reagan was considered to have the biggest probability, but not everyone was sure. The polls showed a 3% difference in the national popular vote. The 10% margin was a surprise, but a surprise to the other side could have happened. The newspapers were expecting a long night in 1980.

Carter’s internal pollsters showed him down 9 points that evening and told him it’s over though .

[dw93]

1992
Pre Lehman Collapse/Palin 2008
1980
Post Lehman Collapse/Palin 1980

[Arbitrage1980]

1992 was definitely winnable. The economy was not great, but we were out of the recession (the liberal media of course hyped it up as a recession). HW Bush was trailing by like 15 points after the DNC but closed the gap to 2 points the week before the election when the Caspar Weinberger news dropped, hurting Bush. And Bill Clinton is one of the most gifted politicians in history. Bush would have beaten other Democrats.

[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."  

[Orser67]

2008 is clearly the least winnable, unless Republicans found some way to delay the onset of the recession past 2008.

1980 was surprisingly competitive in polls given the final result. If Carter had had a better debate and/or somehow found a way to get Iran to release the hostages, he might have won. I'd still probably say that 1992 was the most winnable, but 1980 is pretty close.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2008 is clearly the least winnable, unless Republicans found some way to delay the onset of the recession past 2008.

1980 was surprisingly competitive in polls given the final result. If Carter had had a better debate and/or somehow found a way to get Iran to release the hostages, he might have won. I'd still probably say that 1992 was the most winnable, but 1980 is pretty close.

Carter really could not have had a better debate, as the thing is Carter was able to keep it so close because people were afraid is Reagan would win he would start WW3 or he would eliminate Meidcare , medicaid and Social Secuirty and thats what the Carter campaign in many ways was banking on.


Once the debate showed that Reagan was not some mad Warmonger and would not get rid of medicare or social security, Carter collapsed as people wanted any excuse to vote Carter out.

[Mr.Phips]

1992 for sure.  Had the 1990 recession ended just six months earlier, that would have been an entirely different election.  Even in the actual 1992, Bush could have won with just a couple of lucky breaks (no Weinberger indictment before the election, Perot leaving and entering the race at different times or not at all)

[Vosem]

Polling in 1980 oscillated between a narrow Carter win and a Reagan landslide (much as polling in 2016 oscillated between a narrow Trump win and a Clinton landslide, and for the same reason: Carter had a huge EV advantage). Polling in 2008 was quite consistent after the financial crisis that the Republicans could not win (though it is forgotten that the race was quite close beforehand), and polling in 1992 essentially never saw Bush in a winning position again after around the start of summer, with the initial Perot dropout giving way to a lasting lead for Clinton.

1980 by far is what the polls suggest, and 1992 as the least winnable, though I think I agree that's counter-intuitive.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If you think fatigue is a factor, 1992 should’ve been the most difficult.

However, while 1992 wasn’t a great year for the country, it wasn’t really 1980/2008 level of bad.

[TDAS04]

1992.  Republicans could have won a fourth consecutive term in the White House, had the Democrats not run such a good campaign.