TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.07.2008
Comparing 1996 and 2008

If you want to start worrying about the presidential election this year, you can look at the comparison between 1996 and 2008. John McCain is a similar candidate to Bob Dole--a war hero, running on his experience, but also somewhat past his political prime. The Democrats had the advantage of incumbency in 1996,  but of course Bill Clinton had been rebuked by voters in 1994. In July 1996, Democrats only enjoyed a 5.1 percent advantage in generic congressional polls. Yet in late July, Clinton was ahead of Dole in one Harris poll by 22 percent and in a Gallup poll by 17 percent. Although Dole would close the gap during the convention and the last weeks of the campaign--when the Clinton campaign scandals broke--the election was all but over.

In 2008, McCain is running about as inept a campaign as Dole. And Democrats enjoy an average lead of 11.6 percent in generic Congress polls. In addition, the Republican administration is wildly unpopular; the economy is in a tailspin; and the Iraqi president has endorsed Barack Obama's withdrawal plan. Yet Obama is only running an average of 4.5 percent ahead of McCain in the polls, and as Nate Silver recounts below, is losing ground in some critical state polls. Is it the fact that McCain has run more ads in the last months? Perhaps--in 1996, Clinton was already inundating the airwaves--but Obama is catching up with McCain in ads this month. That couldn't be the entire or even principal explanation.

Or could it be that the Obama campaign has made missteps? That's certainly true. The campaign has clearly not decided on a fall strategy to replace its primary campaign focused on "change" and government reform. It is still struggling to get its economic message across. Yet its failings are nothing to compare with McCain's. By all odds, a Democratic nominee should be running 10-15 percent ahead at this time. My explanation is the same tired one. Obama remains the "mysterious stranger" rather than the "American Adam" to too many voters who are put off rather than attracted by his race and exotic background. Obama will have considerable chance to turn that impression around, but he hasn't done so to date--and that's why he is underperforming in the polls. 

I'm not just making a comment about the polls. I think that the Obama campaign needs to ignore the pundits who have already declared him the winner. He is the favorite because of the Democratic tailwind behind him, but he could easily lose even to the latest version of Bob Dole. He probably should be following Clinton's example and flooding the airwaves. And he should not get too cocky in choosing a vice president. He may have to pick someone who is not to his liking, but who can make sure he carries states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and give him a better than average chance in Ohio and Florida.

--John B. Judis

Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:11 AM with 17 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dbhuff said:

I think you are right in the assessment of the current polling data. But I also feel there is a plan to Obama's approach: First, make a big national splash and introduce yourself to the electorate in a grand European tour, putting the lie to that lack of international cred. Meanwhile build the groudn forces in battleground states to start registering voters and build grassroots enthusiasm. Next, have a Grand Convention which will put the other party to shame. Then go head to head in campaigning and debating. By then, the various digs and monikers won't stick. I don't think Obama is buying the pundit line, his campaign is executing a plan. The poll numbers now don't matter, and they won't. The strangeness you speak of needs to be dealt with in a careful stepwise fashion.

July 23, 2008 11:21 AM

icarusr said:

"and that's why he is underperforming in the polls."

Um, how about "that's one possible explanation for the poll numbers".  Others are, people are on vacation, Obama voters don't have fixed lines, no one is paying attention, etc.  This sort of confident expostulation about matters as fluid and uncertain as polling data really undermine the force of your "analysis".

July, polls, yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

July 23, 2008 11:33 AM

miceelf said:

Yeah, it's amazing that Obama doesn't have the lead that Bill Clinton had. I remember the horribly bruising, long-lasting primary in 1996 that Bill Clinton endured, delaying his opportunity to act as the nominee without pi$$ing off supporters of his rival. Given this important parallel, it's especially surprising that Obama isn't up 20 in the polls.

July 23, 2008 11:40 AM

The Plank said:

I see that John has already beaten me to this, but I continue to be amazed at how many people seem to

July 23, 2008 2:10 PM

jyunis said:

I mostly agree with this assessment. Much has been made lately about how the election will be a "referendum on Obama" and if this is indeed the case, I actually believe Obama's chances dwindle considerably. With this in mind, I think the Obama campaign should seriously heed Judis's advice of "flooding the airwaves": and they should go negative, and make the election more about John McCain, the guy who voted with Bush 95% of the time, still thinks war in Iraq was a good idea, and wouldn't commit to funding a comprehensive GI Bill. In fact, I think they should go after McCain hard, in the same way Bush did in the 2000 primaries (minus the nasty smear campaign, of course): namely, to accuse McCain of being a double-talking, Washington-insider. It worked for Bush, and it could work for Obama.

July 23, 2008 2:12 PM

FWright said:

"He may have to pick someone who is not to his liking, but who can make sure he carries states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and give him a better than average chance in Ohio and Florida. "

Wow, that person sounds great!  

Uh, who is it, exactly?

July 23, 2008 2:16 PM

anonevent said:

Last time I checked, $52Million does not signify complacency.  Believe me, the netroots may enjoy the fact that Obama is leading McCain, but there's at least one article per site per day warning people not to get cocky.

I wonder if the real difference between now and 1996 is that now Judis has a place to publish something every day.

July 23, 2008 2:22 PM

waynejm said:

I agree Obama shouldn't get cocky, but then again I believe it's always best to run scared regardless of whether you're ahead or behind. My sense is that Obama is much too smart and savvy to believe that he can coast to the finish line.

But since you bring up 1996, I suppose it's fair to ask if Bob Barr might end up being this year's anti-Perot.

July 23, 2008 2:34 PM

williamyard said:

What wayne said: it's always best to run scared.

Look at McCain, the lovable loser. Hung around in the primary while all the pretty boys shot their respective wads and fell off to the side. Sauntered in the side door, unmolested.

Americans, especially those of us who have little to show for our endless series of daily grinds, live vicariously through our beloved underdogs. Maybe Obama, the effortless Alpha Dog, needs to start acting the underdog, with as little effort.

July 23, 2008 4:21 PM

nikkiwhite said:

"And he should not get too cocky in choosing a vice president. He may have to pick someone who is not to his liking, but who can make sure he carries states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and give him a better than average chance in Ohio and Florida."

Duh,

That person is HILLARY.

July 23, 2008 6:10 PM

The Plank said:

John Judis compared McCain to Bob Dole's inept presidential run in 1996, but looking at Obama's

July 23, 2008 7:01 PM

lesserliz said:

I see this as more of 1968 than 1996(What can I say I'm stuck in the sixties). In that campaign the war-disaster party put forth a mutated hum drum version of it's nefarious LBJ leader, Hubert Humphrey. That said war-disaster party almost eked out a victory was scary. What the war-ending party winner(Nixon) then proceeded to do with the war was even scarier. But Obama wouldn't be like that....Nah.

July 23, 2008 7:10 PM

sdbunkerhill said:

Look, the reason Obama is not further ahead in the polls is that he's going right at McCain's strength. Once he neutralizes that, there's plenty of time to begin building a strong case on the economy. I also predict that we won't see any campaigning by the Clintons until after the Convention. This is all Obama right now. No help from anyone (except, perhaps, McCain). That would only distract from Obama's self-definition.

July 23, 2008 8:12 PM

jobeek2 said:

I suppose the clue here is in the last sentence - Judis is still shilling for Hillary, as Nikki White promptly recognized.

Problem: despite what Hillary's supporters like to think, there is little reason to believe that Hillary would win Ohio or Florida for him, if he couldnt win them on his own. (And Obama can win Michigan and Pennsylvania without her; check the current polls on that, if you're looking at polls anyway. His average lead in those states is triple that of his national lead).

Without evidence of her being able to win OH or FL for him, meanwhile, it's hard to imagine what advantages would outweigh the obvious and myriad downsides to choosing Hillary, strategically, operationally, message-wise etc.

July 23, 2008 8:27 PM

tomeg said:

Keep in mind (I'm sure Obama does) that a third of voters said race was a factor in their preference. I sure would run scared, 'cause that would strongly affect my confidence in conventional polls. (I would take internal polling results with the same grain of salt.) My thought is, Obama better have a double digit lead going into the final weekend prior to election. Anything less I'd be scared s**tless.

July 23, 2008 10:12 PM

ackyri said:

Are you kidding me?

1) Obama is black, Clinton is a white Southerner

2) A lot of people on both sides of the aisle have liked McCain for years; Dole... well...

That's all there is to it.

July 23, 2008 11:08 PM

The Plank said:

Echoing Judis and Chait from yesterday, here's more evidence that, despite the media's and even

July 24, 2008 10:48 AM