Why 2004 WON'T be another 1992

It seems that every presidential election year, political analysts are busy trying to make comparisons with previous elections. In 2000, for instance, most analysts were convinced that a repeat of 1988 was in the making. It wasn’t hard to see why analysts thought this: the economy was good, Gore was suffering from ‘vice-presidentitis’, a 2-term president was retiring and his challenger George W. Bush was the governor of a one-party state. But, in the end, 2000 turned out to be very dissimilar from 1988, largely because analysts forgot one precious point: every election is different.

And he we are in 2004 with the analysts once again bandying around previous election years for comparison. Even personally, I haven’t been able to decide which election 2004 will most be like. It could be like 1964, 1984 or even 2000, but I’ll tell you one year I don’t believe it will be anything like: 1992. The Democrats are fond of painting George W. Bush with the 1992 daddy’s boy brush, and, hey you’ve got to hand it to them, there are a few superficial similarities. The most obvious is that the president happens to be named George Bush in both scenarios. Then there’s Iraq that figures into it and of course the relatively poor economic perceptions. But does that mean that John Kerry should start ordering the ketchup baroness a presidential ballroom gown? I don’t think so.

I can count on one hand the similarities between 1992 and 2004, but I couldn’t fill both fists with reasons why ’04 won’t be another ’92. It’s actually such a naïve, lazy comparison that I’ve got at least 8 reasons I’ve listed.

1. Candidate differences. The first and most obvious difference between 1992 and 2004 is that of the 2 leading candidates running. George W. isn’t like his father, plain and simple. His father was a bland, New England-style career Republican who never quite captured the loyalty or imagination of the GOP base. At 68, he was pushing the limit in running for re-election as President, even as he was limited with frail health throughout the year. In his autobiography, Colin Powell said that the elder Bush looked ill throughout the year and cited that as a key reason for his defeat. By contrast, the younger Bush is a youthful 57, full of all the vim and vigour for a hearty campaign. He has more charisma than his father and is better at communicating to the hearts of voters.

On the Democratic side, 1992’s 46-year old Bill Clinton ‘had nothing to lose’ and was willing to put everything on the line to beat a big-wig like George Bush. The perception of Clinton in 1992 was that he was a little nobody governor from a tiny state trying to prove the old adage that ‘anybody can become president’. Party heavyweights like New York Governor Mario Cuomo declined a presidential run, convinced that Mr. Bush was unbeatable. Now, fast forward to 2004: if there was a little nobody governor from a tiny state trying to make it big, his name was Howard Dean. John Kerry is more Cuomo than Clinton. He’s spent more time in the Senate than most people do in school and that just thrills the party-crats. For the Democratic establishment, Kerry is exciting and has ‘gravitas’. For the average man in the street, the Massachusetts senator is just another Democrat, only even more liberal than average. I was eating a rare treat at a fancy restaurant the other day and I mentioned to my brother that I couldn’t imagine John Kerry not eating at a restaurant like that, and we both saw his ‘elite’ image in a way we hadn’t before.

2. Third-Party candidates. This is a huge point of departure between the two elections. Many people have tried to claim that Ross Perot, the conservative-leaning Texan billionaire who financed a popular insurgent candidacy, hurt both parties equally. This is not true. Perot’s run hurt President Bush very badly, not just in the votes he took (19% in November 1992), but because it cast a tremendous scepticism on the entire credibility of Bush’s presidency and harmed his conservative support in a way no Democrat could have done. In 2004, we have a third party contender and his name is Ralph Nader. Whereas Perot hurt the elder Bush (and later Bob Dole), Nader is likely to impede John Kerry, both in votes and ideology. Kerry will be less comfortable in embracing middle-of-the-road ideals for fear of driving liberal support to Nader. Never, ever underestimate the damage that Ross Perot did to President Bush in 1992.

3. Primary Opposition. Since 1932, only 3 sitting Presidents have been voted off the job – Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H. W. Bush in 1992. In each of those cases, the incumbent faced a serious primary challenge from within his own party. President Bush was scorched by the kamikaze conservative Patrick Buchanan who received a whopping 37% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and double-digit percentages elsewhere, too. Not only was it a bad sign for a President to lose this many votes to an in-party challenger, but it was downright disgraceful to lose this many votes to an irrational, almost crazy fellow, like Buchanan. In direct contrast, the current President Bush has faced no serious primary challenge in this year’s Republican primaries and caucuses.

4. Social Issues. The focus on social issues was virtually non-existent in 1992. We haven’t had a presidential election for many, many years where social issues are so front and center as they are in 2004. The issue of same-sex marriage has exploded across the nation this year like never before. Flagrant disobedience of or defiance to state marriage laws have occurred from Massachusetts to California, either in the judiciary or City Hall. Polls show opposition to gay marriage high (and increasing) in most states, with conservatives simply outraged. There’s few issues that John Kerry wishes would go away more than this one, because it’s politics that the Democrats are so desperately weak on. Only the Democrats can say they oppose gay marriage, while simultaneously having no plans to stop it. The issue of partial birth abortion, which is currently bottled up in the courts, could also erupt into The media loves to downplay this issue, but there’s no telling how fervent this will make conservative voters come November.

5. Different priorities. Bill Clinton succeeded in turning the 1992 election into a referendum on the poor state of the US economy. The issue of national security and foreign policy were ingloriously shoved onto the back burner, as Clinton disrespectfully proclaimed, “It’s the economy, stupid”. The Soviet Union had collapsed, sending the Cold War to its grave, while the Gulf War and Saddam Hussein seemed ancient history. This gave the Democrats the chance they lacked so badly in the 1980s to neutralise the GOP’s traditional advantage on international issues. Clearly, 2004 is very different in this regard and the economy cannot and will not be the only issue this year. The war against terror is still very much in progress, as is the situation in Iraq (just look at Spain’s 3/11). The economy is a very big issue, but not as big as ’92. Finally, as already mentioned, domestic social issues which don’t favor Democrats loom very large in ’04, whereas they were very subdued 12 years earlier. To put it simpler: there’s a lot more variables in 2004 than 1992, many of which could favour President Bush.

6. Different economy. At first flush, the economy seems a huge drag on the Bush White House this year because there seems to be a terrible shortage in job creation. The general perception is that the economy isn’t as good as it could be. But is the economy as bad as it was in 1992? Many analysts don’t seem to think so. Economic growth is strong, while job creation is weak – so far. Alan Greenspan says the job uptick can come at any time. If it does, don’t expect any jubilation at the DNC headquarters.

7. Political environment. The political arena of 2004 is quite different from a dozen years ago. Then, Democrats held such large majorities in both houses of Congress it seemed a radical prediction to expect anything else. Today, Republicans are strongly favored to retain control of the House and few seriously expect the Democrats to recapture the Senate. The point is that more Americans routinely vote Republican for Congress than did in 1992. It was easier in 1992 for a voter to cast his ballot for Bill Clinton, because, after all, he was of the same party as the one getting most of the votes for Congress. Clearly, this could have an effect of which way the presidential vote may tilt.

8. Different Democratic thrust. In 1992, Democrats were convinced that the only way they could win the presidency was through running a less liberal candidate than in the past. Bill Clinton announced support for the death penalty and emphasised that he wasn’t your traditional liberal presidential candidate like Mike Dukakis or Walter Mondale. While we now know that Clinton wasn’t a very conservative president, his record as the popular governor of culturally conservative Arkansas was hardly indicative of a left-wing radical. By contrast, the Democrats seem quite unconcerned this year that the former lieutenant-governor of Michael Dukakis is their standard-bearer. Kerry’s Massachusetts background is hardly distinguishable from that of liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Kerry is against the death penalty, for gun control, for all forms of abortion, for all gay rights, for tax increases, etc, etc.

I've long felt that 2004 wouldn't be another 1992, as so many Democrats contend. I guess I've filtered my reasons out in this article.

I'd love to hear your comments!!

You left out one thing. The national news media is out for blood, and they are drawing it. They will write, say or do anything to destroy Bush. It is already so slanted, that I cannot bear to watch them. They are closing the door on the truth, period! We shall see if we can overcome the most vicious, malicious attack on our President!

One thing that hasn't been discussed much is fuel prices. Kerry is already preliminarily blaming Bush for $3.00/gal gas prices that are anticipate in the fall. Just in time for elections.

I strongly suspect that OPEC is going to do all it can to choose a winner in our presidential election by tanking our economy. The production cutbacks in '73 and '79 were devastating, because unlike Europe, our country is spread out and much more dependent upon trucking for shipping.

Prices of everything will skyrocket, especially staple items like groceries. This will then have a broad effect upon every man, woman and child in this country. Food prices are already going up.

Most Americans don't care about politics, but enough of them will blame whomever is president if they can't pay their bills.

Screw the television and print media. The balance comes from talk radio and the internet. Liberal newscasts are already suffering from low viewership, thanks to the internet, FNC, and talk radio.

If anything, the media was worse in 1992. I was shocked at their flagrantly anti-Bush tilt then.

It's bad, now, too, but I don't think it's totally impossible.

If Tancredo (Buchanan) had challenged GWB in the primaries, and John McCain (Perot) was running as an independent, and the dems had chosen Edwards (Clinton) as their candidate, it might come close to being another 1992.

But it won't.

I keep thinking of Lincoln v McClellan, 1864 as a parallel for this year.

You left out one thing. The national news media is out for blood, and they are drawing it.

The national media was out for blood in 92. It was all negative all the time for the alphabet networks. The networks then still had a monoploy, there was no mass internet and talk radio was not in it's infancy but not yet in full aldulthood either.

NoDems, a very cogent and well thought out thread.

Yes, this isn't 1992 it's 1972. Media hopelessly against the at-war R President, favoring a very liberal D Senator with anti-war background.
The good news is we know what happened. Nixon ran against the "nattering nabobs of negativity" and clobbered McGovern in a giant landslide.

Bush will need to get his buddy Putin to help out on oil production again. High gas prices would put a damper on his reelection. I think he'd still win, but it might be too close for comfort. I like blowouts, and all things being equal, this is shaping up to be a blowout. Kerry is so unlikeable that it's comical.

Did anybody notice that yesterday the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll came out and showed a huge reversal from their last poll with Bush up 51% to 47% (Last poll by them in early March had Kerry up by 11%), but the headlines weren't that result. The headlines featured Bush dropping in popularity on handling war (down to 58%). The part about Bush polling over Kerry was literally buried by the same publications that commissioned the poll. The first I heard of this poll was on Fox News. MSNBC featured a PEW poll showing them even with no mention of the Gallup poll. These guys in the liberal media are sure trying their best to prop up Kerry even when their own polls show Bush ahead.

I Agree , it's 1972 all over again. Bush has even governed like Nixon , liberal on spending and government growth but hard right on foreign policy and social issues.

Super Analysis that isn't biased only toward the democrats.

Ho Chi Minh, Anti-War Hero, John Kerry has some major baggage this guy isn't talking about. I'd like to see some of Johns 70's testimony before congress in GWBs Ads. And bumper stickers: Kommunists for Kerry.

Bush has already used the Kerry's major flub "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". This has to be the political flub-up of the decade. I hope it will be used to define prevaricating politicians for years to come.

"disgraceful to lose this many votes to an irrational, almost crazy fellow, like Buchanan. "

The author should get real. It is not 'crazy' to be right as often as Buchanan.

Buchanan has been right about NAFTA causing job loss, illegal immigrants, foreign entanglements bringing war to our shores, abortion and homosexual practices damage America. Bush and Gore saw tax cuts and increased government spending for as far as the eye could see. Buchanan did not and his America citizen first views were not permitted in the 'debates'. Buchanan's ideas could have avoided 9/11, Iraq war, recession, job losses and the budget deficit tax increases past on to our children.

These guys in the liberal media are sure trying their best to prop up Kerry even when their own polls show Bush ahead.

Yes, I call it Kerrying Water.

McGovern was a known Marxist, and did not have a billionaire wife. Also the media is out for blood, and will kill anything positive about Bush until the elections!

Nevr undrestimate McCain's penchant for treachery. He wants Bush to lose in the worst way. I would not be surprised if he has his own October surprise in the form of some "revelation+ about terrorism and national security, an actual endorsement of Kerry, or ... whatever it takes. He has already defended Kerry and protected him from GOP attacks. There is more to come.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.