Back in 2004, I, like many people, was very optimistic that John Kerry would unseat George W. Bush. Certainly Bush was relatively unpopular for an incumbent. Throughout much of the early summer, Kerry led in the polls; he fell behind in August and trailed most of the rest of the way, but at the very end he surged and I really thought he would win.
But through it all there was a little historical fact that nagged at me, that I ignored but should not have. What Kerry was attempting to do was almost unprecedented: to change the party in control of the White House just one election following a similar change. In the last 28 Presidential elections, a period spanning more than a century, this has only happened once: the Democrats took the White House in the 1976 election but gave it back to the Republicans just four years later.
In other words, when a party regains control of the White House it almost always holds on to it for two terms. And a corollary to that is that
(with the exception of Jimmy Carter) after a party takes control of the White House, it generally does better in the subsequent election. Bush won by a bigger margin in ’04 than ’00; Clinton by a bigger margin in ’96 than ’92; Reagan won bigger in ’84 than ’80; Nixon bigger in ’72 than ’68; LBJ bigger in ’64 than JFK in ’60; Ike bigger in ’56 than ’52; and FDR bigger in ’36 than ’32.
But there is an even more iron-clad corollary: in the second election after a party gains control of the White House, it does worse than in the first. This principle holds true even in the case of Carter: the Democrats did worse in 1984 (the second election after they retook the White House in 1976) than they had in 1980.
Here’s a chart to express this idea:
Election in which WH changed hands Difference (in popular vote plurality) between party’s Presidential vote the second election after taking WH and first election after taking WH
________________________________________________________________________
2000 (Rep.) We’ll find out Nov. 5th
1992 (Dem.) - 8.0% (2000 less 1996)
1980 (Rep.) - 10.4% (1988 less 1984)
1976 (Dem.) - 8.5% (1984 less 1980)
1968 (Rep.) - 25.3% (1976 less 1972)
1960 (Dem.) - 23.3% (1968 less 1964)
1952 (Rep.) - 15.5% (1960 less 1956)
1932 (Dem.) - 14.4% (1940 less 1936)
1920 (Rep.) - 7.8% (1928 less 1924)
1912 (Dem.) - 29.3% (1920 less 1916)
Note that this pattern has held true even in the elections (such as 1952, 1928, and 1920) where, as in 2008, no sitting President or Vice President was on the ballot.
The 1904 election was the last time a party in the position the Republicans are in now did better in the second election after taking over the White House than in the first: Theodore Roosevelt had a popular vote plurality of 18.8% in 1904, while William McKinley’s plurality in 1900 was 6.1%.
Thus, over the past 100 years, every party in the position the Republicans are in this year has lost at least 7.8% off its popular vote plurality from the previous election. George W. Bush’s plurality in 2004 was about 2.5%. If McCain has a plurality 7.8% smaller than Bush’s in ’04, that will mean an Obama victory by 5% -- which is about what I expect.
This historical fact makes intuitive sense, and supports the strategy Obama’s campaign has been using all along. The simple fact is that the longer a party stays in power in the White House (beyond its first term), the more voters will get tired of it. Look at the ebbs and flows of the Democratic presidential vote beginning with 1932. In 1932 FDR was elected in a landslide. At the end of his first term, in 1936, he did even better – a massive, historic margin in the popular vote.
But then, starting in 1936, the Democrats did worse in every subsequent election until they lost the White House (in 1952) – regardless of whether the candidate was FDR, Truman, or Stevenson. Voters got progressively more tired of the Democratic leadership every year. After the change in White House control in 1952, it got even worse for Dems for one more cycle – they hit rock bottom the election (1956) after they lost the White House. Then they did better until they retook the White House in 1960, hit a peak in the election after they retook control (1964), then declined until the election after they lost control, etc.
The pattern is unmistakable, and applies to both parties: they peak (with the exception of Carter in 1980) the election after they get control of the White House, and then they decline (with no exceptions going back to 1904) until the election after they lose control of the White House. Sometimes, if your peak election is enough of a landslide – such as in 1936 or 1984 – you won’t lose the next election, even though you decline, because you’re starting from a high enough point. But you will still decline.
In other words, 2004 was a peak year for Republicans in Presidential politics. They are not going to do as well in 2008. And because their margin of victory in 2004 was so narrow, any decline effectively means a loss – certainly any decline of the types that have happened in this situation before.
This is why Obama’s general election strategy is the right one. The mantra in 1992 was "it’s the economy, stupid." This year you can use the same mantra, but not limit it to the economy. The mantra is "it’s McBush, stupid." Voters are tired of Bush, for many too many legitimate reasons, but also because of the natural ebb and flow of history. If Bush had not sought to govern so aggressively to the right-wing base, had reached out to achieve popular moderate domestic policy goals, had not shoved the Iraq War down the world’s throat, he probably could have been reelected comfortably in 2004, and the Rethugs would be in much better position now.
Now all Obama has to do to win is to convince voters that McCain = another term of Bush. That is what he is focused on doing, and that is certainly what he will do in the crucial debates. And that is why he will win.
A final point to consider: From 1968 through 2004, the Republicans have won 7 of 10 Presidential elections. Before that, from 1932 through 1964, the Democrats had won 7 of 9 Presidential elections. And before that, the Republicans had won 7 of 9 Presidential elections from 1896 to 1928. (If you go back much before 1896, the parties were too different from what they are today to have much relevance to our current analysis.) The point being? There are very broad ebbs and flows to history. The "emerging Republican majority" (based on the Southern strategy) has basically held the White House for my lifetime (I was born in 1970). But if you were born in 1930 (like Steve McQueen, with whom I share a birthday), the White House was dominated for your first 38 years by Democrats under the New Deal coalition.
A new Democratic Presidential majority is emerging, supported by the ever-dwindling demographic dominance of white people. Have faith in that, my brothers and sisters. Better days are dawning very soon.