Historical parallels to 2008

[Kalimantan]

1952:

"the Democratic Party nominated Governor Adlai Stevenson II of Illinois; Stevenson had gained a reputation in Illinois as an intellectual and eloquent orator. The Republican Party countered with popular war hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower and he won in a landslide"

1992

"It was in some ways a battle of generations. George H. W. Bush, 68, the last president to serve in World War II, faced a young challenger in Bill Clinton who, at age 46, had never served in the military and had in fact participated in protests against the Vietnam War. In emphasizing his experience as president and commander-in-chief, Bush also drew attention to what he characterized as Clinton's lack of judgment and character.

For his part, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around another of the oldest and most powerful themes in electoral politics: change. As a youth, Clinton had once met President John F. Kennedy, and in his own campaign 30 years later, much of his rhetoric challenging Americans to accept change consciously echoed that of Kennedy in his 1960 campaign."

any more?

[Sam Spade]

1976

[Kalimantan]

1976

Indeed

"The 1976 campaign featured a record number of state primaries and caucuses, and it was the first presidential campaign in which the primary system was dominant. However, most of the Democratic candidates failed to realize the significance of the increased number of primaries, or the importance of creating momentum by winning the early contests. The one candidate who did see the opportunities in the new nominating system was Jimmy Carter, a former state senator and governor of Georgia. Carter, who was relatively unknown outside of Georgia when the campaign began, realized that his "fresh face" could be an asset following the Watergate scandal and the public's subsequent disenchantment with Washington politicians.

By the time the Democratic Convention opened in New York City, Carter already had more than enough delegates to win the nomination, and so the major emphasis at the convention was to create an appearance of party unity"

[Lief 🗽]

The problem with the 1952 comparison is that Eisenhower was a very popular war hero, while McCain is just a war hero. He's not loved by much of the country for successfully winning a war; he's merely respected as an incredibly brave person. Also, Eisenhower was running against the failed military policies of his successor; McCain is fully embracing them.

1992 is a pretty apt comparison, I suppose.

[Gustaf]

I can't think of any particularly apt comparison.

[J. J.]

1976 or 1988, interestingly the two presidential years that framed the last realignment.

[Nym90]

I can't think of any particularly apt comparison.

Agreed. First black candidate ever, first election since 1952 without an incumbent Prez or VP....it's definitely uncharted territory.

1976 or 1952 would be the closest, though I'd put McCain as Stevenson and Obama as Eisenhower if it's 1952 rather than the other way around. Neither of those is a particularly good fit of course but Bush as Truman makes sense given the unpopular war.

Obama as Carter and McCain as Ford circa 1976 seems about right, although of course McCain is not the incumbent. But there are certainly enough differences, especially between Obama and Carter, that I don't see history repeating itself there.

1988? If Bush manages to get his approval rating up to 55 percent or so to match where Reagan's was, then yeah, McCain will win. Dukakis would've won in 1988 if Reagan had Bush's numbers.

Obama is certainly no Dukakis, either. Night and day in terms of charisma, which for better or worse means a lot.

[angus]

any more?

The Adams-Jefferson contest of 1796.  The Democrats were putting down the Federalist foreign policy.  They were also claiming that the Federalists were a bit too aristocratic and out of touch with the needs of the common man.  The French, of course, didn't like the Federalists and were publicly pushing for a Democrat victory.  Not that they liked the Democrats much either, but at least they weren't Federalists.  And both parties breathed a sigh of relief when it was finalized that Washington's wife wasn't running for president.  It ended with Adams getting 71 votes to Jefferson's 68.  But Adams legacy was short and unknown.  Jefferson staged a comeback in 1800 and went on to a memorable two-term presidency in which New France's holdings in the Americans were bought for a turntable and two old speakers, or something like that.  So don't fret if your guy loses this one.  He may be back in 2012.

[pragmatic liberal]

1920.

You have a divisive president (Wilson/Bush) who was very narrowly reelected (Wilson over Hughes in 1916, Bush over Kerry in 2004) and conducted an unpopular war (WWI/Iraq). Said president also clamps down on civil liberties to ward off perceived and real internal and external enemies and has a messianistic streak, preaching democracy to the world but selling out other parts of the world to his allies.

Wilson was incredibly unpopular in the last 2 years of his administration, and the Republicans had a landslide win in the '18 midterms. Bush is likewise unpopular and the Democrats had a big landslide in 2006.

The incumbent party's candidate for president in the following election (1920/2008) is a well-respected figure who would have been a strong candidate in any other year but is tied down by the unpopularity of the incumbent administration.

Now, what are the differences?

Firstly, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama are mediocrities as Warren Harding was.

Also, it's unlikely that the Democratic nominee will win by a nearly 30-pt margin, as Harding did over Cox.

We'll see if the 2008 results bear any resemblance to 2008.

* Interesting 1916 comparison: the map is not that far off from a reverse image of 2004, with a few exceptions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can't think of any particularly apt comparison.

Agreed. First black candidate ever, first election since 1952 without an incumbent Prez or VP....it's definitely uncharted territory.

Isn't it the first time since 1928 that an incumbent president or VP hasn't been a nominee?

[Mr. Morden]

I can't think of any particularly apt comparison.

Agreed. First black candidate ever, first election since 1952 without an incumbent Prez or VP....it's definitely uncharted territory.

Isn't it the first time since 1928 that an incumbent president or VP hasn't been a nominee?

No, 1952.  Neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson were the incumbent prez or VP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can't think of any particularly apt comparison.

Agreed. First black candidate ever, first election since 1952 without an incumbent Prez or VP....it's definitely uncharted territory.

Isn't it the first time since 1928 that an incumbent president or VP hasn't been a nominee?

No, 1952.  Neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson were the incumbent prez or VP.

My fault, first time since 1928 that the incumbent has run for the president. Barkley did run 1952.

[Reaganfan]

I don't see any. Maybe 1988.

[WalterMitty]

1972.  mcgovern used grassroots organization to beat establishment candidates like ed muskie and hubert humphrey.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1972.  mcgovern used grassroots organization to beat establishment candidates like ed muskie and hubert humphrey.

The trouble here is that it isn't as though Obama has no establishment support himself; without it he'd be nothing, politically. Not even a state senator.

He's not another McGovern, thank God.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Furthermore McGovern's loss wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad had he not made several campaign blunders (like the Eagleton fiasco) and if Nixon had played fair.

[Gustaf]

Some of the major components of this election is the end of a two-term unpopular president (in itself unusual) with the incumbent party nominating a candidate not particularly tied to that administration but who is still something of an establishement figure with experience, etc while the opposition party nominates a young energetic challenger. Had Grover Cleveland been a Republican I think 1896 would have been a decent comparison. If the Democrats had nominated Bryan 1904 could have been too.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

1988.  Bush versus Dukakis.

McCain is Bush, Obama will be another Dukakis.

[WalterMitty]

1972.  mcgovern used grassroots organization to beat establishment candidates like ed muskie and hubert humphrey.

The trouble here is that it isn't as though Obama has no establishment support himself; without it he'd be nothing, politically. Not even a state senator.

He's not another McGovern, thank God.

he is a far better general election candidate than mcgovern.

but remember, mcgovern ran a damn good primary campaign against heavily funded establishment opponents.

[JSojourner]

The problem with the 1952 comparison is that Eisenhower was a very popular war hero, while McCain is just a war hero. He's not loved by much of the country for successfully winning a war; he's merely respected as an incredibly brave person. Also, Eisenhower was running against the failed military policies of his successor; McCain is fully embracing them.

::: applauding ::: 

BRAVO!

[หมูเด้ง]

Well, another thing to look at is party strength. in 1920, the GOP was a strong party, in 2008, the Dems have been under fire for like 40 years.

These are the major features of this election. I have no idea if any would compare to this one

- unpopular reelected president not running and with a 35% approval rating
- no incumbents running
- incumbent party the (at least historically) stronger party
- grassroots opponent
- establishment candidate for incumbent party
- during a "war"
- last realignment was 25-40 years ago, depending on who you ask
- possible period of prolonged slow economic growth, possible without a reccesion

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Somehow I think 1876.