Optimism and the '08 field.

[Jacobtm]

It seems to me that since we've had mass media, the candidate who becomes President is generally the one who is the most optimistic. The only time this fails is in extreme circumstances, such as Herbert Hoover's and LBJ's. Kennedy may have stolen the race from Nixon, but his hope for the future and pleasant demeanor certainly helped him have to steal fewer votes to win. '68 was odd because neither candidate was incumbant and both had such a mess to clean that neither could be horribly optimistic. But besides that, even in '04, when the US was clearly in a mess, John Kerry's misdemeanor was rather negative, and Bush kept on being positive. And he pulled it out. If Bush had admitted a few more mistakes and been more realistic about the mess in Iraq, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some people in Iowa staying home or grudgingly switching their vote to Kerry. But Kerry was out there being a downer, and Bush was telling anyone who'd listen things were going well, only getting better (turning the corner, as Hoover said).

Using this method of analysis, it'd seem that if the Republicans don't run Guiliani or Romney, they don't have much hope. Same for the Democrats and Obama or Edwards. I'd personally like to see Richardson as the President, but being that he's such a results-oriented guy, he'd probably spend more time outlining his plans for how to make the country better than just smiling nice and making everyone feel good. So his chances don't seem too good...

[CARLHAYDEN]

It seems to me that since we've had mass media, the candidate who becomes President is generally the one who is the most optimistic. The only time this fails is in extreme circumstances, such as Herbert Hoover's and LBJ's. Kennedy may have stolen the race from Nixon, but his hope for the future and pleasant misdemeanor certainly helped him have to steal fewer votes to win. '72 was odd because neither candidate was incumbant and both had such a mess to clean that neither could be horribly optimistic. But besides that, even in '04, when the US was clearly in a mess, John Kerry's misdemeanor was rather negative, and Bush kept on being positive. And he pulled it out. If Bush had admitted a few more mistakes and been more realistic about the mess in Iraq, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some people in Iowa staying home or grudgingly switching their vote to Kerry. But Kerry was out there being a downer, and Bush was telling anyone who'd listen things were going well, only getting better (turning the corner, as Hoover said).

Using this method of analysis, it'd seem that if the Republicans don't run Guiliani or Romney, they don't have much hope. Same for the Democrats and Obama or Edwards. I'd personally like to see Richardson as the President, but being that he's such a results-oriented guy, he'd probably spend more time outlining his plans for how to make the country better than just smiling nice and making everyone feel good. So his chances don't seem too good...

I think you have made a good general point.

However, optimism and personality are conjoined factors.

Reagan was both optimistic and well liked.

Giuliani has a personality which would make Nixon look likeable!

Richardson is the candidate the Democrats have who is both optimistic and likeable.

If Fred Thompson runs, the Republicans will have another likeable, optimistic candidate with a third key component, gravitas.

[Jacobtm]

'72 was odd because neither candidate was incumbant and both had such a mess to clean that neither could be horribly optimistic.

Nixon?  Elected '68, reelected '72.

Gah, my bad, meant '68 when I wrote '72, thanks for catching that.

[pragmatic liberal]

I'm not sure how true this is.

Your analysis is actually the exact same one that Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg was famous for in the first half of the '04 campaign. It was his influence that got Kerry to pick Edwards and to hold a largely "positive" convention. The idea was that voters would decide on their own that the country was on the wrong track and all they had to do was feel positive about the challenger to vote for him.

In hindsight, that was probably a mistake. That "positive" convention produced no bounce and left the Kerry campaign vulnerable for a frontal assault from the Bush campaign. And though Bush had some optimistic notes, remember that his campaign was also relentlessly negative towards Kerry. Character assassination, Cheney constantly implying there would be a terrorist attack if Kerry won, Zell Miller's keynote address. Basically, they trashed Kerry and left the Kerry campaign foundering because they hadn't been critical enough when they had the largest audience.

The Kerry campaign did switch to a much more critical, hard-hitting stance around mid-September '04, and that, and the war, allowed Kerry to nearly win. But it's arguable that had the Kerry campaign not been seduced by the "optimism" argument that they could have won.

Thing is, the optimism argument may win when the incumbent is very unpopular. Unfortunately, the '04 election was a much more complex situation. Bush was intensely hated by about 45% of the country, intensely liked by 45%, and faced about 10% of the country who were uneasy with him but somewhat positive.

Thing is, Bush's final approval rating in Nov. '04 was 51%, which is what he got in the popular vote. Kerry's strategy may have worked if his approval ratings were in the low 40s, but at the point they were, he needed to have worked to actively knock off two or three more points off his approval rating in order to win.

[Jacobtm]

I'm not sure how true this is.

Your analysis is actually the exact same one that Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg was famous for in the first half of the '04 campaign. It was his influence that got Kerry to pick Edwards and to hold a largely "positive" convention. The idea was that voters would decide on their own that the country was on the wrong track and all they had to do was feel positive about the challenger to vote for him.

In hindsight, that was probably a mistake. That "positive" convention produced no bounce and left the Kerry campaign vulnerable for a frontal assault from the Bush campaign. And though Bush had some optimistic notes, remember that his campaign was also relentlessly negative towards Kerry. Character assassination, Cheney constantly implying there would be a terrorist attack if Kerry won, Zell Miller's keynote address. Basically, they trashed Kerry and left the Kerry campaign foundering because they hadn't been critical enough when they had the largest audience.

The Kerry campaign did switch to a much more critical, hard-hitting stance around mid-September '04, and that, and the war, allowed Kerry to nearly win. But it's arguable that had the Kerry campaign not been seduced by the "optimism" argument that they could have won.

Thing is, the optimism argument may win when the incumbent is very unpopular. Unfortunately, the '04 election was a much more complex situation. Bush was intensely hated by about 45% of the country, intensely liked by 45%, and faced about 10% of the country who were uneasy with him but somewhat positive.

Thing is, Bush's final approval rating in Nov. '04 was 51%, which is what he got in the popular vote. Kerry's strategy may have worked if his approval ratings were in the low 40s, but at the point they were, he needed to have worked to actively knock off two or three more points off his approval rating in order to win.

While it's true that the Bush campaign (and 527 attacks against Kerry) were generally very negative, whenever Bush spoke, he tended to stay positive. So you had this image of Kerry as a flip-flopper, weak on security, out of touch, etc., and then you had Bush himself seeming nice and positive. And while Edwards smiled nicely and Kerry focused on his good points during the convention, he'd spend a good deal of time talking about all of Bush's failings and then saying "we can do better".

It's not the whole campaign, but the image of the candidate himself, that I think matters most to people.

[Jacobtm]

And, if this analysis is correct, and McCain doesn't somehow steal the optimism mantle from Obama, things look bad for him.

[NDN]

'72 was odd because neither candidate was incumbant and both had such a mess to clean that neither could be horribly optimistic.

Nixon?  Elected '68, reelected '72.

That is an interesting analysis.  I hadn't thought about that before, but now that you mention it, it does make sense.  Americans are rather optimistic folk and it does seem that the more lively, optimistic person wins.  Especially recently.

That's one of the things I loathe the most about this country.

I'm not sure that's accurate though. Americans do favor superficial cheery personalities to a nauseating degree, but anyone who looks at the substance of our actual campaigns will find that they've gotten progressively more mean-spirited and more paranoid since about 1968. That's especially true of how the Republicans have campaigned although the Democrats have done their own share of that occasionally.

[War on Want]

I'm not sure how true this is.

Your analysis is actually the exact same one that Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg was famous for in the first half of the '04 campaign. It was his influence that got Kerry to pick Edwards and to hold a largely "positive" convention. The idea was that voters would decide on their own that the country was on the wrong track and all they had to do was feel positive about the challenger to vote for him.

In hindsight, that was probably a mistake. That "positive" convention produced no bounce and left the Kerry campaign vulnerable for a frontal assault from the Bush campaign. And though Bush had some optimistic notes, remember that his campaign was also relentlessly negative towards Kerry. Character assassination, Cheney constantly implying there would be a terrorist attack if Kerry won, Zell Miller's keynote address. Basically, they trashed Kerry and left the Kerry campaign foundering because they hadn't been critical enough when they had the largest audience.

The Kerry campaign did switch to a much more critical, hard-hitting stance around mid-September '04, and that, and the war, allowed Kerry to nearly win. But it's arguable that had the Kerry campaign not been seduced by the "optimism" argument that they could have won.

Thing is, the optimism argument may win when the incumbent is very unpopular. Unfortunately, the '04 election was a much more complex situation. Bush was intensely hated by about 45% of the country, intensely liked by 45%, and faced about 10% of the country who were uneasy with him but somewhat positive.

Thing is, Bush's final approval rating in Nov. '04 was 51%, which is what he got in the popular vote. Kerry's strategy may have worked if his approval ratings were in the low 40s, but at the point they were, he needed to have worked to actively knock off two or three more points off his approval rating in order to win.

While it's true that the Bush campaign (and 527 attacks against Kerry) were generally very negative, whenever Bush spoke, he tended to stay positive. So you had this image of Kerry as a flip-flopper, weak on security, out of touch, etc., and then you had Bush himself seeming nice and positive. And while Edwards smiled nicely and Kerry focused on his good points during the convention, he'd spend a good deal of time talking about all of Bush's failings and then saying "we can do better".

It's not the whole campaign, but the image of the candidate himself, that I think matters most to people.

The idea is incumbents almost always need to stay positive because they are fighting for their own re-election.