That didn’t work for Gore, who ran on a “more of the same” platform as I recall.
A) Gore wasn’t Reagan. B) More of the same was interpreted as more Monica Lewinsky. People were rejecting the party by association with their rejecting Clinton. The two elections can’t be compared. All parties always run with “more of the same” when they hold the Presidency. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but the reasons why are never the same.
Eh? Gore isn’t Reagan in that analogy. He’s Bush I. Anyway, Clinton left office with an approval rating over 60%, so the people don’t seem to have rejected him much.
Sorry, I meant that Gore couldn’t be seen as a Reagan substitute figure.
As I said above, Clinton himself likely would have won as a sitting president. He had no coattails, though.
“More of the same” is almost meaningless as a goad to voting, IMO. It’s swamped by other factors. Bush I was indeed more of Reagan. But more of the same didn’t help Nixon or Humphrey or Ford or Carter or Bush I or Gore or McCain. It won’t help whoever the Democrats nominate in 2016. The Democrat may win, but other factors will be more important, although “more of the same” will undoubtedly be heard incessantly during the campaign.
The difference is that Humphrey, Ford, Carter, Bush I and McCain weren’t following popular presidents (assuming you’re referring to Bush’s reelection campaign.)
Ike Eisenhower is finally getting the credit he deserves for his work as President.
He was as worn out as a rotten rope by 1960 and wouldn’t have survived a campaign. Had he made it to Election Day he probably would’ve won based on approval rating and general respect - but remember, he was incapacitated quite frequently in his second term and took a very quiet retirement afterwards.
Lyndon Johnson was completely temperamentally unsuited to running the campaign of asking for forgiveness on Vietnam and reconciliation after the success of the Civil Rights movement. Maybe a few dirty tricks of his own would’ve worked, or he’d have caught Nixon in a trap, but he walked away because he didn’t see a good chance of victory. Given how well he knew campaigns and elections…
Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, with only ten Senators left to oppose his conviction. The pardon Ford granted him was widely seen as a travesty of justice and was a major campaign issue against Ford in 1976.
Ronald Reagan was 77 in 1988 and couldn’t hide his senility any longer. His approval rating wasn’t very good. If he pulled off a Rick Perry gubernatorial election - no debates, and minimal campaigning by a marginal opponent - he might have stood a chance.
Bill Clinton would’ve won fairly handily; 60+% approval ratings after seven years in office in an environment of peace and prosperity don’t tend to fade quickly.
Bush II was down to his 27% base and any of the 2008-field Democrats would’ve beaten him. It might’ve been close against Kucinich.
The only reason I disagree with that last part is that Bush had a crack campaign team and Kucinich has easily exploitable weaknesses. But yeah, any reasonable Democrat would’ve beaten Bush in 2008. Heck, any reasonable Democrat would have beaten Bush in 2004. Democratic voters got enamored with Kerry’s war record and overlooked just how bad a candidate he was for the national stage.
I still don’t understand why the heavy hitters stayed home in 2004. Gore or Clinton could have wiped the floor with him.
Ah, but Gore DID win a majority of votes, remember?
As I mentioned on any number of occasions during the last campaign, people seem to underestimate the power of incumbency. And the negative effect of losing, too, if you think Gore could possibly have been a viable candidate in 2004. The Iraq War was still broadly popular with the public in 2004, so no Vietnam parallel is possible. Voters will not turn out a President while a popular war is being waged. There was no eligible Democrat in the country in 2004 who could have done so. A battle against Clinton might have been interesting, but that’s fantasy.
Kerry didn’t lose by much. You don’t think a stronger candidate was worth a couple of points?
Who?
*plurality
The economy didn’t “do in” Ford. Giving Nixon a pardon was what finished him. The perception was that he did a deal to get the office. Less than two years before a campaign, coming in cold, after a scandal, and it was the economy? Nobody expected him to be able to fix it.
I think Bush is the only one who would have lost.
Ike was absurdly popular. In fact, the Kennedys were terrified of Ike campaigning for Nixon and were glad that until the end, he didn’t.
Reagan was, if anything, even more popular. Iran-Contra didn’t hurt him any more than Monicagate hurt Clinton and Dukakis was a terrible candidate. That said, considering his age and medical condition, I doubt he would have run even if given the opportunity to.
Clinton, I think would have run, but while I do think he’d have won, of the three, he’d have the toughest race.
I know we all like to think of W as a dummy, but Washington is filled with the graves of people who badly underestimated Karl Rove and his abilities as a spin-doctor.
Rove is the guy who took a genuine, honest to goodness war hero like John Kerry and turned his military record into a liability.
That said, a debate between Clinton and George W. would have been fun to watch.
This is a good point. I don’t remember anyone - anyone - begging Gore to enter the primaries in 2004.
That’s because Al Gore was a conservative Democrat. The only time Democratic primary voters tolerate a conservative Democrat is when they are desperate to win. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have finished 4th in the 1992 primaries had not Democrats lost three straight Presidential elections. Gore was certainly not going to get another chance after already blowing it. Neither was his VP selection, who I think would have trounced Bush in the general election.
I think that’s supposed to be disparaging of Democrats, but I can’t figure out how. When the race is tight, both parties put up centrist-ish candidates, don’t they? And aren’t both parties “desperate” to win every election, in the sense of “highly motivated” ?
Well, in the sense of watching a shoving contest between George W. and a steamroller.
No, Zell Miller was a conservative Democrat. See the difference?
Don’t you mean “would have” not “wouldn’t have”?
You think Joe Lieberman would have trounced Bush in 2004. I think that explains a lot about your predictive ability in 2012.
There’s centrist, and then there’s a southern Democratic governor. Clinton was so positioned in the middle that he was the head elected official in the hated DLC. There is no other year in which a DLC Dem could have been nominated.
That would be like Republicans nominating Scott Brown in 2016.