What past presidential election is most like '04?

[Democratic Hawk]

1976 - similar percentage of PV and EV, but with a very different geographical pattern.

Dave

[TheBulldog]

Where's '92?

[elcorazon]

Actually, I think it's quite possibly leaning in the direction of 1996. I think I've said this before, even, I don't know. But you have an uncharismatic military vet who likes to point out his service record but doesn't really illustrate how it will help him be commander in chief, accuses the incumbent of dodging service, runs a half-a$$ed campaign against an embattled incumbent, [challenger] makes lots of gaffes as the campaign wears on, things on the economic front turn out to be not as bad as the challenger was saying, challenger loses issues to use in the campaign, and the challenger falls apart. It's only LEANING that way, IMO. I'm not saying Bush is going to cruise. We're far more polarized than we were in 1996; we were polarized in 1996, yes, but not like in 2004. Anything can still happen. And we're just inundated with news, more so than in 1996 I think (at least ion that it's more sensationalized), so "news fatigue" can factor in too as in people getting sick of a certain thing like Iraq and could cause undecideds or whoever to flip. Who knows.

Another possibility is, of course, 1988, and there are lots of parallels to that one, but again, anyone willing to say Bush has it locked up and can cruise is being too over confident.

We still have to play ball in the 4th quarter.

I was thinking just about the same thing.  It makes me sad, but I suspect Kerry is going the way of Dole.  Sometimes politics really sucks, ya know.

[Giant Saguaro]

Actually, I think it's quite possibly leaning in the direction of 1996. I think I've said this before, even, I don't know. But you have an uncharismatic military vet who likes to point out his service record but doesn't really illustrate how it will help him be commander in chief, accuses the incumbent of dodging service, runs a half-a$$ed campaign against an embattled incumbent, [challenger] makes lots of gaffes as the campaign wears on, things on the economic front turn out to be not as bad as the challenger was saying, challenger loses issues to use in the campaign, and the challenger falls apart. It's only LEANING that way, IMO. I'm not saying Bush is going to cruise. We're far more polarized than we were in 1996; we were polarized in 1996, yes, but not like in 2004. Anything can still happen. And we're just inundated with news, more so than in 1996 I think (at least ion that it's more sensationalized), so "news fatigue" can factor in too as in people getting sick of a certain thing like Iraq and could cause undecideds or whoever to flip. Who knows.

Another possibility is, of course, 1988, and there are lots of parallels to that one, but again, anyone willing to say Bush has it locked up and can cruise is being too over confident.

We still have to play ball in the 4th quarter.

I was thinking just about the same thing.  It makes me sad, but I suspect Kerry is going the way of Dole.  Sometimes politics really sucks, ya know.

Well, one never knows. Sure looks it now, but I'd be more confident with the 1996 parallel if it were 9 October instead of 9 Sept. We still have the debates and I'd say it's just as likely to get closer as it is farther apart.

[??????????]

1972. Why do I say this? Unpopular war (vietnam was 50/50 at that point), rough domestic situation. Very similar.

[A18]

Yeah, but Nixon got 60% of the vote. It would be very cool if it indeed turned out like 1972.

[J. J.]

1976, a two point election, but Ford had a 5 point bounce from the RNC;  he dropped to to lack of support from Reagan supporters.  Ford was at a low of 29% after the DNC, but gained on Carter thoughout the Fall; the last poll gave him a 1 point lead.

1980 was different.  Carter was ahead until the last week of October, though Reagan was closing.  After the debate, Reagan started leading.

The thing was that, in 1980, the debate was a week before the election.  Reagan won it and gained 9 points, while Carter lost 4 points. (All there are from Gallop.)


What you have to remember, looking at these numbers, is Bush did close to the same thing in 2000.  He was running about even with Gore prior to the first; after the first VP debate, Gore dropped below 40% support in the CNN tracking polls for a few days.  His numbers were never above 45% and Bush alway had a 5-9 point lead.  The bounce ended about a week after the last debate.

I speculated at the time that 1980 may not have been the GOP landslide if Carter had debated earlier.

Basically, this is looking like 1976, with Kerry in the Ford role.

[Platypus]

2000, of course. And next time, it'lll be most like 2004; because the tissues, political figures and national feeling will be the most similar.

[ATFFL]

2000, of course. And next time, it'lll be most like 2004; because the tissues, political figures and national feeling will be the most similar.

Now that is a freudian slip for the ages.

[Jim Valvano]

I'd have to say 1944. Similarities: Less than a year into the incumbent's preisdency there was a great national tragedy, and then the nation went to war. The incumbent argued that they had provided steady leadership so far while the challenger insisted they could do better while offering few specifics.

Result? The incumbent (FDR) won in a fairly comfortable fashion

[Redefeatbush04]

I choose 2000, although look at the interesting similarities between the 2004 polls, 2000, 1896, and 1860

[??????????]

I choose 2000, although look at the interesting similarities between the 2004 polls, 2000, 1896, and 1860

I said 1860 a while back to. The only problem is we don't have 4 serious parties running.

[A18]

bump

Now what?

[Bugs]

I still like the 1900 comparison.  Major differences are that McKinley's margin of victory was greater in his first election (!896), and that his opponent was the same in both elections.  It doesn't seem that losing candidates are as gutsy as they were back then.  And Bryan ran again in 1908.  How many election losers in this era have run again?  Mc Govern did, I believe in 1992.  Before that uyou'd have to go back to Nixon.

States' 1972 comparison is good because of the issues, but there was no landslide. 

[??????????]

I still like the 1900 comparison.  Major differences are that McKinley's margin of victory was greater in his first election (!896), and that his opponent was the same in both elections.  It doesn't seem that losing candidates are as gutsy as they were back then.  And Bryan ran again in 1908.  How many election losers in this era have run again?  Mc Govern did, I believe in 1992.  Before that uyou'd have to go back to Nixon.

States' 1972 comparison is good because of the issues, but there was no landslide. 

I believe the 1972 comparison would have come to pass if the media hadn't been so influential. A LOT and I mean a LOT has changed since 1972. Back then people who lived in Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma would not have known lots about the opinions fo people in other states half way across the country to the north/south/east/west.

[True Democrat]

1916

[Jim Valvano]

I still say this election is another 1944 (see reply #34 for reasons). Actually it measures up to 1864 pretty well too.

[PBrunsel]

I would say (as many have) 1860. The reason is because no electoon has focused so much around social issues since 1860.

[True Democrat]

I still like the 1900 comparison. Major differences are that McKinley's margin of victory was greater in his first election (!896), and that his opponent was the same in both elections. It doesn't seem that losing candidates are as gutsy as they were back then. And Bryan ran again in 1908. How many election losers in this era have run again? Mc Govern did, I believe in 1992. Before that uyou'd have to go back to Nixon.

States' 1972 comparison is good because of the issues, but there was no landslide.

McKinley won by a larger margin in his second election, not his first.

[Bugs]

I still like the 1900 comparison. Major differences are that McKinley's margin of victory was greater in his first election (!896), and that his opponent was the same in both elections. It doesn't seem that losing candidates are as gutsy as they were back then. And Bryan ran again in 1908. How many election losers in this era have run again? Mc Govern did, I believe in 1992. Before that uyou'd have to go back to Nixon.

States' 1972 comparison is good because of the issues, but there was no landslide.

McKinley won by a larger margin in his second election, not his first.

That is correct.  Poor choice of words on my part.  What I meant was that McKinley's margin of victory in his first election was greater than Bush's was in his first election.  McKinley's first election wasn't as close as 2000.  The pattern of making a better showing in the reelection campaign than in the first election fits both men, however, which strengthens the comparison.

[Hitchabrut]

1916

[muon2]

I still like the 1900 comparison. Major differences are that McKinley's margin of victory was greater in his first election (!896), and that his opponent was the same in both elections. It doesn't seem that losing candidates are as gutsy as they were back then. And Bryan ran again in 1908. How many election losers in this era have run again? Mc Govern did, I believe in 1992. Before that uyou'd have to go back to Nixon.

States' 1972 comparison is good because of the issues, but there was no landslide.

McKinley won by a larger margin in his second election, not his first.

That is correct.  Poor choice of words on my part.  What I meant was that McKinley's margin of victory in his first election was greater than Bush's was in his first election.  McKinley's first election wasn't as close as 2000.  The pattern of making a better showing in the reelection campaign than in the first election fits both men, however, which strengthens the comparison.

The test to watch is whether GWB is a realigning presidency. The jury will be out on that one for a number of years, but if it is, that would clinch the comparison to 1900.

[J. J.]

In terms of the last 50 years 1976, with Kerry as Ford.  You have the same regional pattern and the same slight gains in the House.

Bush did better than Carter, so it was a bit stronger than 1976.