There has been a strong case to use 2004 as a case study for this November. I understand the argument: A divisive, but personable incumbent with marginally respectable approval ratings against an unlikeable, flip flopping, prone to silly gaffes, challenger who the base is even relecutant to rally around. That being said, I think you need to look much deeper; and when you do, I think it's impossible to conclude that even with these similarities, the differences are too detailed to prove the same result as 8 years ago.
You have two different candidates with different backstories and positions from 2004; of course, the results will be different. The country has shifted somewhat as well.
Essentially, if you want to use the 2004 election as an analogy, you have to adjust for a few things:
1. Obama is running 5%-8% or so worse off than George W. Bush was at this time. It may seem slight, but in a close election it could prove critical.
I assume this means approval ratings. I
think he's doing a little worse (too lazy to check) but certainly not 5-8%.
2. While Romney's favorables are bad now, they only are so low due to the Primary. They will rise, especially with Republicans (see point 3 below). I think, ultimately, Romney is stronger than Kerry when it comes to appeal - he's much more enthusiastic and energized, and less prone to major gaffes.
Romney's favorables are artificially down now because Santorum and Gingrich supporters still don't like him -- when the 'get out the vote' push begins, that'll change. I'd have to agree with you on the second sentence -- Romney is a better candidate than Kerry, albeit not by much.
3. The GOP base will rally around Romney. They are down on him now because it was a pick of Romney over several other Republican candidates. In November, it will be Romney against Obama. So while Romney may not have been the #1 pick of the deep conservatives out there, when it's a choice between Romney, Obama, or not voting (which would essentially be a choice for Obama), they'll turn out in order to dethrone the incumbent they so badly despise.
Oh yeah. Those Obama-hating, gun-toting Grizzly Mamas (and Papas) who supported Gingrich but still, deep down, think Palin should be President? They would turn out, in large numbers, for anybody (up to and including John Kerry) who has a legitimate chance of beating Obama.
4. The number one issue of the electorate in 2012 is the economy. The number one issue of the electorate in 2004 was national security (was still the 9/11 aftermath). George Bush had a commanding lead with national security - the rally effect was still going strong, albeit starting to peter out, the anti-Iraq War brigade didn't even emerge yet, and hurricane Katrina was still a year away. Whereas now, Romney is seen trusted with the economy, while Obama's approvals on the issue are somewhere around the 30% mark. Sure, the economy is slightly improving, and if it does continue, and, more so, picks up pace, the better the chances are for Obama.
But this (4) is a huge hole in the 2004 analogy. GWB had a commanding lead over the major issue of the electorate, whereas Obama has been seen flailing, failing, and coming up short.
Some spot-on analysis here.
5. Now that I think about it, 2004 wasn't really a surprise - it took us right back to an almost 50-50 split, which was, essentially, the result of the prior 2000 election. My point? While Bush fell from 90% down to around 54% from September 12, 2001 to circa April 2004, that had more to do with the rally effect petering out rather than any perceived (at that time) faults during his first term. Compare that to Obama who fell from ~70% (these are rough estimates based on memory, too lazy to look every one of them up) to as low as 39% (now back to the mid to up 40s) over the course of his 4 years, but his story was one of his own making (unpopular health care, failed/unproductive stimulus, poor economy, Libya, etc).
Very true.
Basically, my point here is that Bush was always divisive, hence the 2000 split, but people weren't intent on making a referendum against him on his first four years, but they are doing so on Obama's. Pretty important difference, if you ask me.
Not really. The 2000 election was close but not actually that negative -- both Bush and Gore, ironically, were demonized afterwards, Bush for his Presidency and Gore for global warming. It
was the split -- the closeness, the Gore-gets-more-votes-but-Bush-wins phenomenon, that caused Bush to be so divisive. And 2004 was a referendum on Bush -- which Bush won.
Overall. Overall, I do see why people think the 2004 election is an analogy. But remember, no election is like any other. While Obama may win a close election resembling how Bush won his in 2004, and while some reasons may be the same, it won't tell the whole story.
That being said, I think the differences outlined above also show that it could very easily go the other way.
I just think it's too simplistic to look at obvious similarities and think that it will follow the 2004 election - there's too many key differences that could easily dictate otherwise.
Every election is different. While there are some superficial similarities, which may even include the results (Obama narrowly beating Romney by 3 points or so is very possible), the elections are not relatives - this is convergent evolution. The two are different, like dolphins and sharks - similar at first glance, but then, once you continue to study them, obviously different.
Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.
Everybody except the Occupy people hated Occupy back when it was going, and now it's over. Talking about how great Occupy was is the exact strategy Obama needs to get Romney elected by a significant margin.
