As we approach the 2016 election cycle, it’s worth remembering a bit of history. Only once in the 75 years since WW II has one party held the White House for more than eight consecutive years.
That exception of course was George H.W. Bush succeeding Reagan, and that for only 4 years. Outside of Roosevelt/Truman, the last time one party held the White House for more than 12 years goes back to the turn of the 20th Century. McKinley/ Roosevelt/ Taft held the White House then for 16 years.
What seems clear from post war history is that after 8 years, voters tend to forget what they didn’t like about the other guys and are very open to “it’s time for a change.” Bush won in 1988 more by demolishing the idea of Michael Dukakis as a desirable change rather than by arguing for staying the course set by Reagan.
So anyone who thinks Democrats have a strong inherent edge in 2016 needs to think again. Yes, for reasons we all know there does seem to be a chance for Democrats to succeed. The demographic shifts are helping and the best chance would come with a GOP nominee like Ted Cruz who could be demolished much as Dukakis was. But with a less flawed candidate that won’t be so easy.
It’s also worth remembering that as much as half the electorate has no personal memory of politics predating Bill Clinton. A voter who was 18 in 1992 when Clinton first ran will be 42 by the time the next election rolls around. An 18 year old voter who could first vote in 1984 (when Reagan last ran) will be 50.
Senate Republicans may help us out with a preview of what a Republican presidency would mean. But it seems to me Democratic success will depend on formulating our own version of change that the voters will buy. Dick Cheney is doing us the favor of reminding everyone why the last GOP administration was disliked. But still, on our side more of the same just won’t do.
We all know the complaints about the Democratic message in 2014. I’ve no intention of rehashing that, but it does seem to me what matters most to voters just now is economic security. The Republican Congress beginning in 2011 can be portrayed as having done everything in their power to undermine the economic security of the average voter.
A campaign platform focused on economic issues (minimum wage increase for example) in my mind is a must. Hopefully the Clinton team is watching the Elizabeth Warren phenomena closely. The seeds of a populist economic message can be found there along with a real vision of change that Democrats can campaign on. Democrats must be offering concrete ideas that average votes see as helping their pocket book.
Yes there are other very important issues, climate change, racial inequality, women's rights, gay rights, foreign policy to name just a few. But this next presidential election is unlikely to hinge on any of them.
I fear what may happen if Democrats don’t learn from the lessons of history.