Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
It turns out that I’m not very good at predicting winners. Over the weekend, I said that Rick Santorum would win the CPAC straw poll and Ron Paul would win the Maine caucus. In the case of CPAC, I was seduced by Santorum’s speech and the number of kids I saw wearing his stickers in the halls of the Marriot. In the case of Maine, I was swept up by the “Ron Paul’s Secret Army” narrative - that the Old Man would win the state with activist muscle alone.
It’s been a season full of surprises, and the media has largely failed to predict them. The pattern has been thus: (1) the media says Romney is going to win a primary. (2) He loses. (3) We all say that whoever won will now ride their momentum and win the next contest. (4) Romney recovers and wins. And then we’re back to square (1): an endless cycle of anti-Romney upsets.
Which leads me to ask if we’re following the correct historical model for these primaries? Hitherto, I’ve agreed with the consensus that this is a replay of 1996. That year, Bob Dole led the field to start with, but lost a couple of early contests to Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. Then he rebounded in South Carolina and swept the nomination. Voters tested the alternatives before settling back on the establishment frontrunner.
It’s easy to see a similarity between Dole and Romney (aside from the fact that the former just endorsed the latter). Both are conservatives with the reputation for being moderates. Pat Buchanan looks like a combination of Ron Paul’s libertarian non-interventionism and Rick Santorum’s social conservatism (and you can read all about Buchanan in my book out on Tuesday). Steve Forbes reminds me of a pre-scandal Herman Cain. Forbes wanted a flat tax; Cain wanted a 9-9-9.
Following that model, I thought Santorum’s narrow upset in Iowa was going to be all the opposition Romney would face. I never imagined Gingrich would beat him in South Carolina (which traditionally favors frontrunners) or that Santorum would be leading in national polls six weeks in. “I knew Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a friend of mine. And you, Mitt Romney, are no Bob Dole.”
But maybe he is Bill Clinton circa 1992? Perhaps the model we should be working from is of a likely nominee who faces a series of painful skirmishes stretched out over many months. He has to fight not one sustained opposition candidate, but instead a series of individual opponents who attack him from very different angles.
Of course, Clinton is different to Romney in many ways (particularly when it comes to sex and personal integrity). But the Arkansas governor also faced the charge that he was insufficiently loyal to the values of his party’s base. He had hoped to win New Hampshire, but was beaten by Paul Tsongas from nearby Massachusetts. Clinton recouped with a win in Georgia, which established his Southern bloc vote for the rest of the contest. But as Tsongas sunk, Jerry Brown suddenly emerged. Brown won the bitterly fought Connecticut primary and was tipped by the media to win New York and maybe force an open convention. However, Brown foolishly said that he would consider Jesse Jackson for his running mate (he of Hymietown fame) and he lost. Thereafter, the nomination was Clinton’s.
What is interesting about this comparison is first that it fits the pattern mentioned above of Clinton/Romney about to win a contest, losing the contest, being written off, and then rebounding. Second, Tsongas and Brown never really threatened Clinton but nor did they go away. Brown stayed in the contest right through to California in June. That created a primary season that was artificially extended and gave the false impression that Clinton was logistically weaker than he really was. Many in the media thought Brown could win his home state of California and, again, throw open the convention.
The other tantalizing comparison is that 1992 was also a year of populist revolt. The emergence of Ross Perot on a platform of balancing the budgetnowandat any cost, threaten to eclipse Clinton’s candidacy. He ruthlessly pursued Perot voters but could never convince them that he was one of them. If Perot had been on the ballot in the California Democratic primary, some pollsters said that he would have won. The similarity with Romney’s awkward relationship with the Tea Party is striking.
Perhaps the truth is that we shouldn’t be trying to impose historical models on a contemporary race at all. Perhaps, with the emergence of Super PACS, we are entering a new era of primaries as dramatic in its effects as the 1972 Democratic race. Either way, what are people’s thoughts?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
No models ever fit exactly. This is nonetheless thought-provoking. One difference. The Great Fornicator -- or should I reserve that title for JFK? -- was a political seducer, charming to a fault and attractive. Romney is wooden. Too frequently, one has the feeling when one listens to him that someone has pushed a button and that a particular tape is running. Also Clinton was nimble politically; Romney is slow, methodical, ponderous When things went awry, Clinton adjusted quickly and with aplomb. When things go awry, Romney looks like a deer in the headlights.
Apr '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
Your last paragraph got to the correct conclusion.
Oct '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
In 1992 wasn't Clinton the 'new guy', who had never run for president before? Unfortunately for Romney, I think his 'outsider' cred is damaged by the perception that he's been running for president for 5 years.
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
Tim,
Dr. Rahe is right, human beings are not atoms bouncing around. Human behaviour is much more difficult to predict.
I wonder if large money RINO Republicans were giving out grant money and internships at CPAC? You know me I'm just very curious about the world. Always learning that's me.
Regards,
Jim
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
I think this election is unique, just like every other election. As Dr. Rahe said, no model fits exactly, but I believe the models will be less useful this time around. The difference is an existential crisis people are starting to believe in. Greece is sending out smoke signals to communicate what profligate spending and borrowing bring to a nation, and people are starting to get the message. The good news is that we're not watching a rerun, and that always makes for better tv.
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
Nice King..really nice.
Regards,
Jim
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
It is turning into a fight between moderate establishment republicans and compassionate conservatives.
Obama gets 4 more years.
Apr '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
Talking recently to my 25 year old son who voted for Obama about the current crop of candidates and their uninspiring personas his comment, and I quote, was " I voted for someone who inspired me now maybe it's time for something different".
I'm amazed that since the passing of Obamacare and so many unfulfilled promises he has shifted his focus to a more libertarian ideal. I turned him on to Milton Freidman and Thomas Sowell (God bless them both) who both caused a 180 degree shift in his thoughts on government intervention.
So maybe there's hope for this nation yet, regardless of the candidate, if more young people my son's age can see the onerous policies Obama has, and currently is, inflicting upon us.
Apr '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
We've seen things go awry repeatedly for Romney. Everyone from Trump to Bachmann to Perry has beaten him, and he seems to have done just fine. He was going to be wiped out by Newt in Iowa, but managed to avoid that fate. South Carolina was a blow, but he dominated in the subsequent debates and bounced back in Florida and Nevada. The Tuesday contests were huge, but he went on to positive and successful campaigns at CPAC and in Maine.
I don't see evidence that he gets knocked out, like post-Iowa Santorum or thrice down Newt. He gets straight back up.
Apr '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
While I love going back to history for these things, and have been reading about the '68 primary for this, and while I can't emphasize enough how not like McCain Romney is, the choice of the party (so far) is facing a Southern regional candidate and a caucus winner. It's not all the same; Huckabee had far more range than Gingrich, for instance, who has narrowly won only two tiny counties more than a lengthy commute from Georgia (Bent County, Colorado, with 25 votes to Santorum's 22, and Mineral County, Nevada, with 39 votes to Mitt's 37). McCain did even better in primaries, winning South Carolina, while Romney has some strength in caucuses like Nevada, and Maine, whereas the enthusiasm free McCain campaign never won a caucus until Mitt conceded.
Still, the split seems fairly similar. It'll be even more so if Mitt swaps his '08 win in Michigan for a '12 win in Arizona, as polls currently predict.
Feb '12
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
It always amuses me that really good public speakers are given credit for more public appeal than are "wooden" speakers like Mitt Romney. I can buy the comparison when it comes to an accomplished politician like Ronald Reagan. I cannot buy it when it comes to disgraced politicians like Clinton and Gingrich. Mitt Romney has more integrity in his little finger than those two have in their whole bodies. This country needs a man with integrity like Mitt Romney.
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
I think the general consensus is, correctly, that trying to apply a model of any variety is a fool's errand. Part of the reason why I do it is that the first thing everyone asks me - as today at an editorial meeting - is "Who's going to win." All I can do is draw on my knowledge of the past.
I agree with Dr. Rahe that a BIG difference between Romney and Clinton is likeability and how they respond to crises. Clinton got angry and cried. For those of us who loathe this kind of rank populism, it's annoying. But it does work.
I'll also conclude that using historical modelling inevitably works against outside candidates and enforces a silly "frontrunner" narrative. So I'll never do it again!
Nov '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
Exactly -- we can learn all kinds of lessons from history, but they cannot be simply applied mathematically to the current situation to predict the choices of thousands of human beings.
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
James Of England
We've seen things go awry repeatedly for Romney. Everyone from Trump to Bachmann to Perry has beaten him, and he seems to have done just fine. He was going to be wiped out by Newt in Iowa, but managed to avoid that fate. South Carolina was a blow, but he dominated in the subsequent debates and bounced back in Florida and Nevada. The Tuesday contests were huge, but he went on to positive and successful campaigns at CPAC and in Maine.
I don't see evidence that he gets knocked out, like post-Iowa Santorum or thrice down Newt. He gets straight back up. · 6 hours ago
Excuse me: Santorum has been knocked out? What alternative reality are you sampling?
Dec '10
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
But remember that the nimble Clinton also had a methodical side. He prepared for his Presidential run by forming and heading the Democratic Leadership Council, giving himself a patina of moderation and centrism while building a national organization that he could leverage for his run.
Romney could have spent the last three years creating a think tank to develop a coherent platform that he could sell alongside his reputation for managerial competency. That would also have given weight to his views, allowing him to say, "Regardless of whether you think I flip-flopped in the past, here are ideas I truly believe and cannot disavow."
Mar '11
Re: Is This Election a Replay of 1992, Not 1996?
I'm not sure if there is a historical analogy to the Santorum surge, which led to silence when Peter mentioned him in the latest flagship Podcast, and which may yet confound all pundits?