John B. Judis: 2004 Most Resembles ... The Election of 1980 (Bad News for W)

John B. Judis, in the New Republic (Sept. 3, 2004):

Presidential campaigns inevitably model themselves on past successes. As was evident at this year's Republican Convention, the Bush campaign hopes that this election recapitulates the elections of 1984 and 1996, where the incumbent easily won a second term. The campaign has hired veterans of Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign, including Michael Deaver and Peggy Noonan, and in briefing delegates, administration officials referred back to Bill Clinton's reelection victory in 1996 over Bob Dole. "The President is ahead of where Bill Clinton was in 1996," Matt Schlapp, the White House political director, told a meeting Wednesday morning of the National Republican Congressional Committee at the Sheraton Hotel. In its rhetoric, the first half of Bush's acceptance speech last night, with its mini-proposals aimed at helping workers "compete in a global market," echoed Clinton's 1996 acceptance speech. But sadly for Bush and the Republicans, there is little similarity between the 2004 election and either the 1984 or 1996 elections. If there is a clear analogy to 2004, it is the 1980 election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan.

Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996 both faced reelection at the beginning of an economic boom. Carter in 1980 was burdened by high unemployment and inflation aggravated by rising oil prices; Iranian revolutionaries who were holding 70 Americans hostage in the American embassy in Teheran; and an aggressive Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan. Bush faces a sluggish economy, made worse by high oil prices, and a Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq from which there is no obvious exit; and he has yet to capture Osama bin Laden or to eliminate Al Qaeda's worldwide network. While there has been no repeat of the 9/11 attacks during Bush's watch, the world cannot be said to have become safer. As a result, Bush like Carter in 1980 is politically vulnerable.

But Carter was not necessarily destined for defeat in 1980, nor is Bush in 2004. Neither man was Herbert Hoover in 1932. Carter faced an opponent with serious political liabilities that made the outcome uncertain. Reagan had a reputation as a right-wing firebrand who played loose with his facts. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that although Carter was beatable, Reagan was not sufficiently credible as a potential president to do it. Similarly, Bush faces an opponent who until recently did not enjoy a national reputation, had an indifferent record as a senator, and lacks a common touch.

From June to September, measured by Gallup's polls of registered voters, the pattern in the race between Carter and Reagan is very similar to that between Bush and John Kerry. In mid-June 1980, Reagan pulled ahead of Carter in the polls by three points. He retained that lead until after the Republican Convention when he moved ahead by 16 points. But by August 15, on the eve of the Democratic Convention, Carter had wiped out Reagan's lead and was ahead by six points. In Gallup's polls from then until the last two weeks of the election, Carter would remain ahead, losing out to Reagan only after the climactic October 28 debate between the two men, when Reagan was able finally to establish his credibility as a future president. Once Reagan did that--Carter had refused to debate him until the very end--the electorate turned dramatically away from Carter, and Reagan won by a landslide.

The Bush-Kerry election has a similar trajectory. In mid-June of this year, Kerry was ahead by four points among registered voters. His lead widened to seven points in mid-July, but with the approach of the Republican Convention, it has narrowed to only one point. Presumably, Bush will forge ahead by as many as five points in the polls taken after this week's convention. But that won't mean Bush has already won reelection. Kerry's initial support in the summer, like Reagan's support in the summer of 1980, primarily reflected dissatisfaction with the incumbent rather than positive support for Kerry. He was bound to lose this advantage during the Republican Convention, regardless of the Swift Boat ads. Kerry's challenge, like Reagan's, lies in the fall and in the debates. He still has to convince voters that he would be preferable to Bush--that he could do a better job....