Speculation among Kossacks and others about potential outcomes in election 2004 are numerous. Direct comparisons have been assessed between this and other recent election cycles in an attempt to predict 2004 outcomes and clarify the current situation. Such speculation might guide us toward maximizing readiness in our effort to compel voters to the polls on Nov. 2.
Similarities between both Bush administrations and their campaigns have been striking. In 1992, it was common knowledge that GHWB cared more about big business, big oil, and getting himself reelected than the plight of the common folk. Who can forget an out-of-touch GHWB impatiently checking his watch during a debate, suffering silently, though visibly, as the duo of Clinton/Perot waxed poetic on a stagnant economy, the human toll from the previous GOP years, and a president distant to the plight of real people.
GHWB, whose popularity peaked in the low 90s during the height of the first Iraq war, utterly collapsed among those who had previously esteemed his decades of service as US Congressman, UN representative, VPOTUS, and POTUS. The twin whispers of his "no new taxes" pledge and Pat Buchanan's "cultural war" convention speech became albatrosses, and Bush's ship sank swiftly and blessedly into the deep. A country heavily indebted from years of trickle-down-to-nothing economics, soundly rejected GHWB, relegating him as a footnote of a failed presidency.
Likewise, in 2004, GWB's presidency hangs in the balance. His proclivity to parallel his father's failures lurks in the shadows of his presidency: another Iraqi war (with no mandate, no reason, nor no plan); an economy flogged by the sting of further supply-side cuts, driving deficits deeper than Reagan's; an out-of-touch CIC who spouts family values as he dismantles the safety-net that has sustained Americans since the days of FDR. GWB now risks a second failed one-term Bush presidency in only 12 years.
Yet, a diminished Ralph Nader, a factor in 2000 as was Perot in `92, will have little impact in 2004. His name will not appear on several swing state ballots. What further compels us to link this election with `92? Perhaps we should go back a bit further.
The year was 1980. Jimmy Carter had led the nation for four long years. His, too, a failed presidency, yet the race with former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan was not yet close as the candidates headed toward Labor Day and the impending debates. Carter presided over an enormous economic slide. The same "misery index" (combination of unemployment rate with rate of inflation) he had used to defeat Gerald Ford in `76, came back to bite him at 20.46. Due in part to the volatile Middle East, particularly the Iran Hostage situation which crippled the Carter presidency for more than a year, gas prices had risen sharply. Motorists were forced to ration gasoline, spending hours in lines stretching for miles.
It was the year of ABC: anybody but Carter. Few wanted to reelect him and fewer made such a claim publicly. Carter was challenged from within by Sen. Ted Kennedy, but eventually won his party's nomination. But the political bleeding could not be stopped. One tragic event in his presidency led to another, culminating in a botched rescue attempt. As a C-130 transport collided with a helicopter, eight American soldiers lay dead in the Iranian desert. This corroborated to the world the deterioration of American military capability in the post-Vietnam era.
RWR (former Governor of California) who had previously failed to wrest the nomination from Ford in `76, became the GOP standard-bearer. An outspoken critic of failed policies, Reagan was still an "unknown." People were uncertain of his grasp of issues. They were suspicious of his ability to lead - at 69, he was the oldest man to be elected president. "The devil you know vs. the devil you don't" was a common theme in political conversation.
But RWR's strong debate performance late in the campaign that reassured many voters that he could assume the duties of the CIC. RWR's threshold was extremely low against a sitting president. He employed his acting ability to speak clearly to the issues, establish credibility on the world stage, and turn a clever phrase. "There you go again" and "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" became the most oft-quoted political digs in political history, and RWR evened the race just one week prior to the election.
Though independent John Anderson was a factor initially (he had debated Reagan in the first debate sans Carter), he did not factor seriously into the final result. In the aftermath of the election, Carter learned from close aides that the election was lost three days prior to the vote, as polls had swung dramatically to the challenger.
The election of 1980 was the year of the gas lines. Gas lines were the great equalizer to illustrate that all Americans were in the same boat. Well, almost all (unless you were wealthy and could afford and access gasoline whatever the price, or could send the hired help to wait in line for you). The average worker needed a car to get to work - needed gas for the car - and paid higher prices and worked longer hours to afford the gas. The message was clear: if the government can't provide a safety-net on gas, what will be next? Food and water rationing? And the message was crippling for Carter.
In 2004, the elderly, the infirm and mothers with infants stand in line to get flu shots to protect them from a virus that kills thousands each year. Now it is flu shots that are the great equalizer. They highlight the disparity between the haves (health insuranced or unlimited wealth) and the have-nots (uninsured or lower and middle classes). Once again, the wealthy avoid lines, and at worst, have access to any medical care they desire. Meanwhile, the poor, elderly, and infirm are left to ask: if the government can't protect me from the flu, what will be next? Bio-terrorism? Anthrax?
From the gas lines of 1980 to the flu shot lines of 2004, the cultural divide is ever-widening, and the most pressing issues directly affecting the most people ultimately decide elections. From where I sit, it's deja vu all over again, and the election is slipping away from the incumbent. Only a miracle or a late-October surprise canl stop the bleeding now.