Are Democrats Destined to Lose After an Eight-Year Republican Presidency?

It is taken as a general rule in political commentary that after one party holds the presidency for eight years, it is very hard for its nominee to make it three in a row. Only one party, after all, has done it in the last 60 years. The Democrats lost in 1968, Republicans lost in 1976, Democrats lost in 2000; only the Republicans won in 1988. There are examples of this rule holding in states that are politically marginal: No party held the governorship of Ohio for more than eight years from the 1840s until 1998, when Republican Bob Taft was elected governor to succeed eight-year incumbent Republican George Voinovich. And perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule. Taft, re-elected in 2002, became very unpopular in his second term, and Democrat Ted Strickland was elected by a wide margin in 2006, with Democrats sweeping all the statewide downballot offices that Republicans had held since the 1990s.

But is the rule so ironclad at the presidential level? At the terrific Gay Patriot blog, Daniel Blatt reminds us of something that I had not focused on, that in the eighth year in which one party held the presidency in recent years, the out-party candidate had a huge advantage in May and June polls—and either didn't win in November or came close to losing. And I note that in vivid contrast to that, putative Democratic nominee Barack Obama leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain by exactly 1 percent.

Blatt's examples are 1976, 1988, and 2000. All are different, in important respects, from 2008. In 1976, party identification worked even more powerfully against the incumbent Republicans than it does today, and if not the Watergate scandal then the Nixon pardon worked more powerfully against the Republican nominee, incumbent Gerald Ford, than the Iraq war and congressional scandals and earmarks work against John McCain, who urged the winning surge strategy on Iraq several years before George W. Bush adopted it and who had nothing to do with the congressional scandals and earmarks.

As for 1988, I was puzzled then and remain puzzled now why Michael Dukakis had poll leads over George H. W. Bush as large as 17 percent (after the Democratic National Convention). Ronald Reagan's job rating was around 50 percent, 20 percent higher than George W. Bush's today, though 20 percent lower than Reagan's before the Iran-contra scandal broke right after the 1986 off-year elections. The economy was in good shape, despite the stock market crash of October 1987. The voting public knew little about Dukakis—why were they willing to put him in the White House by such large margins?

In 2000, the Democrats had a problem. Incumbent President Bill Clinton's professional job rating was very high, in the realm of 70 percent when he was threatened with impeachment, but his personal favorable/unfavorable ratings were very low, in the vicinity of 30 percent positive in the same period. I have taken this since as a retrospective vote in favor of the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms in office: Voters were saying, in effect, that having elected Clinton twice, they wanted him to stay there, however unsavory his personal conduct, especially since they did not have the option of granting him a third term. This they had granted only once to a president, to Franklin Roosevelt at a moment of existential crisis for western civilization and at a time when his Republican opponents had exactly zero foreign policy experience. Would I have voted for a third term for Roosevelt in 1940? Absolutely, just as Reagan, who was an admirer of Roosevelt all his life, did. And with the knowledge that his inexperienced Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie, was just about as good as Roosevelt on standing up to totalitarianism (see Charles Peters's wonderful book Five Days in Philadelphia, which I reviewed for the Wall Street Journal.)

The rule that a party has a hard time winning a third presidential term is one of those political science rules that seems less ironclad after close inspection. Hubert Humphrey nearly won the popular vote in 1968 despite the debacle of the Democratic Party that year (although, noting the Democrats' decline from 61 percent in 1964 to 43 percent in 1968, Humphrey's intraparty opponent Eugene McCarthy said he would take credit for the last drop of 1 percent if Humphrey and Johnson had taken credit for the other 17 percent). Gerald Ford would have been elected (without winning the popular vote) if he had gotten about 12,000 more votes in Ohio in 1976. Al Gore did win the popular vote nationally in 2000, even if you believe as I do that Florida did indeed vote for George W. Bush; 1,000 or so votes the other way there, and Gore would have been president.

That leaves the only clear case of a third-term victory for a president's party as 1988. Which in retrospect seems overdetermined: Reagan's job rating was relatively high, the economy was not in perceptible trouble, Dukakis was a cold fish. But the other examples show that the rule that a third term for the incumbent party is impossible is actually a close-run thing. John McCain faces headwinds in George W. Bush's low job rating, but not some historically inexorable rule. And, as Daniel Blatt's insight suggests, those headwinds may not be so strong as conventional wisdom suggests. Obama against McCain isn't where Dukakis was against Bush 20 years ago. Interesting, eh?

At first, the author is D Blatt from the “Gay Patriot” blog which I’ve never heard of but he/made very good arguments on 1976, 88 and 2000. One fact historically, Dukakis led Reagan by 17 points in June and still lost.

The political rules as history knows it only make sense if the party choose its nominees based upon Democratic process and not from some Polit Bureau of affirmative action dignitaries who bent the rules to count delegates more weight if they came from minority districts for the sake of diversity.

The delegate count for Obama was been artificially padded, becuase the rules were that delegates were to be awarded more proportionality in districts that traditionally had a higher Democratic turnout compared to Republican, which is code words that means districts that have more poor and minorities, received more delegates for the same number of votes as middle class districts. Therefore Obama’s popularity has been inflated.

Obama will go down as the first affirmative action candidate, thus disproving political wisdom that the 3rd term of the incumbent party cannot win, because that assumes that a legitimately popular opposition candidate would be the nominee.

Osamabama is the single most beatable candidate ever nominated (well, assuming he will be nominated...) by a major party in the entire history of the Republic.

If McQueeg were competent, which he is not, he would win 45-46 states. As it is, I think Osamabama will carry about 10-12 states.

And, for those interested, I'm writing in Coolidge/Jackson for president. There's no Constitutional rule against electing dead men -- hell, MO elected a dead man as senator w/in the last 10 years.

A plague on BOTH parties' houses.

"And, for those interested, I'm writing in Coolidge/Jackson for president. There's no Constitutional rule against electing dead men -- hell, MO elected a dead man as senator w/in the last 10 years."

Cool idea. I may write in Ronald Reagan.

"when Republican Bob Taft was elected governor to succeed eight-year incumbent Republican George Voinovich.

I always laugh when I see "Republican" George Voinovich. It's better than crying....like that senile, old piece of crap did during the John Bolton nomination.

After 8 years of a “Republican” in office, an economy heading into the dark ages, fuel prices beyond most family budgets, taxes going up everywhere faster than they can be dreamed up and food shortages on the horizon, I doubt there will be another “Republican” elected to office in November.

McNasty makes Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan. Besides, Obama will promise all those ignorant new voters free College, health care, cars that emit fresh air, unlimited free energy, a 100k per year job doing their favorite thing, International harmony and complete and utter UTOPIA.

And they will believe it with out a second thought. But more importantly, the media will make sure it turns out that way.

Barone doesn’t say that Dukakis ran against Reagan .. he says he ran against GHWB; however the story is about a party’s winning a third successive term in the White House, and its relationship to the incumbent at the time of the election. GHWB was the only person to win the White House for any party’s 3rd successive term in @ 170 years.

I can’t think of a single person in the US who knows more about politics and elections than Michael Barone; he would not make the type mistake you seem to think he made.

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.