A truly open election

This is the first election in my conscious life in which neither candidate is a clear favorite according to the polls, and in which I personally have no idea, no intuition, who will win. In every previous election since 1960, either there was a clear favorite who won, or there was not a clear favorite, but the person who I thought would win, won.

• In the close election of 1960, I liked Kennedy and thought he would win, and he won.

• In 1964, Johnson was the overwhelming favorite and crushed Goldwater.

• In 1968, Nixon was ahead the whole way, Humphrey was catching up, but Nixon won.

• In 1972, of course, there was no contest, Nixon crushed McGovern.

• In 1976 I think Carter was slightly ahead in the polls, I thought he would win, and he won in a razor close race.

• In 1980 Reagan looked like a winner, Carter looked like a loser, and Reagan won.

• In 1984 there was no contest, Reagan crushed Mondale.

• In 1988 Bush the elder was ahead, especially after Dukakis’s disastrous answer in the first debate, I thought Bush would win, and he won.

• In 1992 Bush the elder had checked out, Clinton was clearly ahead, and he won.

• In 1996 Dole was a dead man walking and Clinton won.

• 2000 was closer. Though Gore looked strong in the first debate and Bush looked shlumpy, I had an intuition after that debate that Bush despite his lack of poise and articulateness was more normal, Gore was weird, and that Bush would win. I stayed with that feeling throughout, and Bush won.

• In 2004, though many people favored Kerry, I said all through 2004 that Kerry had no realistic chance to win, until Bush was so atrocious in the first debate that I said that Kerry had a 20 percent chance to win but that Bush was still the overwhelming favorite, and Bush won.

Unlike in all those other elections, in this year neither candidate is significantly ahead, and I personally feel that either candidate could win.

If you were to push me to the wall and ask who do I think is more likely to win, then, on a rational level, I’d say McCain, but it’s very close. On an intuitive level, I can “see” McCain winning. I can “see” Obama winning. I truly feel that either one could win.

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

I just read your post comparing 2008 to past Presidential elections. I still recall watching the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 at age 10. I was rooting for JFK and thought he won.

There is one way that 2008 is different from all elections since 1960. The “objective factors” overwhelmingly point to a Democratic victory, unpopular president, high gas prices, two-term weariness, etc. In addition, the GOP candidate is a 72-year old mediocrity who has spent his career attacking his own party, and has little or nothing to say. As I previously wrote, the Democratic nominee should be 20 points ahead, but he is not.

This is as if, in 1932, the Democrats had nominated someone who could lose to Herbert Hoover in the middle of the depression. Or, suppose the Democrats had nominated 74-year old Vice President Alben Barkley (who was briefly a candidate at the convention) in 1952, and Barley had won. This was with an unpopular war in Korea and 20 years of a single party in the White House. I should mention that the GOP nominee in 1952 was Dwight Eisenhower.

In a way, McCain winning in 2008 would be like the Republicans winning in 1932 and the Democrats winning in 1952. Each year would have required an “unelectable candidate,” for the favorite to lose. The Great Obama may yet fit that description if he loses. McCain will not win own his own merit. He needed Obama, and Palin, to a lesser extent.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Send