Deja Vu: 2012/1996

This presidential election is beginning to look a lot like the contest of 1996, which saw a battered Bill Clinton win a second term in office by defeating Republican Senator Bob Dole. There are differences, to be sure, but the similarities are striking.

Coming into the '96 election season, Republicans were still in a heady frame of mind. In the 1994 mid-terms, they had taken advantage of Clinton's sagging approval ratings, swamping Democrats nationwide and taking control of Congress. Claiming a mandate, Republicans declared the president "irrelevant," repeatedly pressing their agenda on the White House. At one point, Congressional hardliners even shut down the government in a display of brinkmanship over the federal budget.

Partisanship ran deep, and it wasn't all based on policy differences. Republican disrespect, and even contempt, for President Clinton was intense, a hangover of the "cultural" wars of the late 1960s. Right wing media had a field day, spreading lurid stories of alleged Clinton escapades, even implicating the president in assassinations, drug-running, and other nefarious activities.

At the same time, liberal Democrats were none too happy with President Clinton in 1996. Many were still smarting over his passage of welfare reform, a budget deal, and a free trade agreement -- all with Republican support. Some Democrats held Clinton responsible for their losing control of Congress, while others felt that their support for the president was weakening their own chances for reelection.

In this context, some Republicans felt confident that Clinton would be a one-termer. All they needed was the right candidate, though many felt that almost any candidate would do the job. The problem for the GOP, that year, was that their field of presidential aspirants was weak and divided, reflecting the many diverse components of the Republican coalition (cultural conservatives, the religious right, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc.). The GOP was looking for another Reagan who could unite all these currents, but no Reagan emerged.

Early in the race, Senator Bob Dole appeared as the frontrunner. Having run for President before, he was a "known commodity". He had major endorsements from the party's "establishment" and had raised more money than his rival presidential aspirants. Dole, however, was not trusted by many elements of the party's base, in particular the religious right. They did not see him as one of their own, and, therefore, eyed his candidacy with suspicion, leading them to look elsewhere for a champion.

For a while, it seemed that Pat Buchanan might fill the "anybody but Dole" role. His strong finish in Iowa and victories in New Hampshire and other early states buoyed his supporters. The "establishment," becoming quite nervous, rallied behind Dole who, after a few more bruising rounds, emerged victorious. The "inevitable" nominee favored by the party leaders had won, leaving the base of the party with no choice but to "settle." They did. They endorsed Dole, but without enthusiasm.

Watching the remarkable ups and downs that have defined this year's GOP primary season, I see elements of this 1996 storyline playing out. Republicans, heady from their 2010 victory, can taste victory. Their large, ideologically driven freshman class in Congress has played brinkmanship with the White House on more than one occasion, though their impact has been somewhat muted by the fact that they control only one House of Congress. They have made no secret of their contempt for this the president and have committed not only to defeating him in 2012 but to rolling back his legislative accomplishments.

Riding high, the Republicans are looking to 2012, but find their field of presidential aspirants to be weak. In the mix of available candidates, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney appears to be the "inevitable" nominee. He is, to be sure, no Reagan. The religious right doesn't see him as one of their own, and other wings of the party also appear to lack confidence in his conservative credentials. And so while the Republican "establishment" has now settled on Romney as the safe "known commodity," currents that represent large swatches of the party faithful keep looking for an alternative.

As a result, the race has been in a bizarre state of flux. Back in July of this year, an NBC/Washington Post poll showed Romney leading the race with 30 percent. He was followed by upstart Congresswoman Michele Bachmann at 16 percent, Texas Governor Rick Perry (who had not yet formally announced his candidacy) at 11 percent, and Herman Cain at 5 percent. By the end of August, Perry, who the religious right believed would save them from Romney and Obama, had announced and his numbers shot up to 38 percent, way ahead of Romney who had dropped to 23 percent. Meanwhile, Bachmann, who was now no longer the "anybody but Romney" candidate was fading at 8 percent, with Cain still at 5 percent.

In the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the rankings of the candidates have once again been juggled. Perry has been tested and found wanting, and so the new "savior" of the GOP right wing now appears to be Herman Cain who leads the field with 27 percent, Romney is still at 23 percent, Perry has declined to 16 percent, with Bachmann fading fast at 5 percent.

There are, of course, other Republicans in the mix, and should the novelty of Cain wear off or should his candidacy unravel, they, too, may get their chance to lead for a week.

But the polls in 2011 tell only part of the story. While the "I'm not Mitt Romney" crowd continues to jockey for popular support, major Republican donors and senior elected officials are mobilizing behind Romney. They have "settled," and are making a valiant effort to clothe their chosen candidate with the mantle of "inevitability." They may succeed, and Romney may yet overwhelm his opponents in the grueling primary process where big money and all it buys (from advertising to organization) inevitably triumphs over the passing fancy of voters. But should he win, Romney, like Dole, may appeal to some Independents, but he will at the same time find himself facing the more difficult challenge of winning the support he will need from his own party's base.

There is, of course, another part of this 2012 story that bears some similarity to 1996, and that is the challenge facing President Obama in restoring hope and enthusiasm in portions of his disappointed and/or disgruntled base. But, more on that later.

 

 

 

Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA

Comments

[Tallulah Dropkin]

09:39 AM on 10/17/2011

How dare you compare the two. They are nothing alike. President Clinton, though disliked by some, the country was in no way, shape or form has bad as it is right now. Not saying it was good, but it is worse now. Nor did President Clinton insist on policies that would further hurt the American people. Welfare reform, is a prime example of how President Clinton was responsible. Being responsible is nothing something President Obama has shown he has the ability to change.

[JacksonJones]

11:11 AM on 10/17/2011

I doubt that you are even aware of President Obama's record.

[David Campbell]

08:45 AM on 10/17/2011

Captain Obama. The best metaphor for what Obama is doing is captain of a sailing ship.In such ships the wind is the major factor and the captain needs to know how to cope. You cannot go where you like since going against the wind is not possible, in fact that is how you stop. Columbus knew to sail south to the easterly trades and then north to return with the westerlies. If you wanted to go from England to Boston you had to tact, i.e. zigzag first to the left (out of the way) then right staying as close to wind as possible(close haul). Then come about all the time heeling over, shaking and possibly capsizing. Obama is tacting towards his goal & facing criticism. Return to England is faster with the wind at your back-running free-fast & direct. To to do this he has to have not just a majority in congress but a super majority - filibuster. He is a fine captain.

[JacksonJones]

11:12 AM on 10/17/2011

I quite like that metaphor. Well said.

[Unrepentantliberal]

08:20 AM on 10/17/2011

'Everybody' knows the President is on the ropes, staggering and primed for a knock-out. Only thing is, he's still more massively popular than anybody the republicans can nominate-hell, some faction of their party hates all their candidates, especially the front runner.

Democrats and the rest of the sane people in this country will rally behind the president next year especially after the republicans finish their circular firing squad blood bath and pick their nominee.
Then it will be Obama vs 'Whomever,' and whomever is guaranteed to be scarier than hell.

I hope it's Herman Cain. That would be beautiful.

[Tallulah Dropkin]

09:44 AM on 10/17/2011

Obama will have a hard time getting elected, because kids form 18-22 that voted for him are now unempolyed living at home. That is what got him elected, and unless they all find jobs, they will either not vote, or vote for "Whomever" because to them, no one can be worse.

[Ray Gillies]

11:53 AM on 10/19/2011

They are blaming wall street/teapublicans

[JohnQGroup4930]

07:21 AM on 10/17/2011

As long as we continue to believe that the only choice we have is between the wretched Republican party and the wretched Democratic party, nothing will change.

[Richard Pearce banned]

09:39 AM on 10/17/2011

Of course, if the Tea Party were to actually split off from the Republicans, and make the races into three way ones (Democrat, Republican, and lets call them Reformers) then the vote splitting on the right would make it fairly easy for Democrats to win (40% vote Democrat, 35% vote Republican, 25% vote Reform = Democrat wins). Same logic would apply if there were to be a break between the right wing and left wing Democrats (40% vote Republican, 35% vote Democrat, 25% vote for lets call them New Democrats = Republican wins).
What will be interesting, though will be if the OWS movement spins into a political movement that forces the Democratic party to quit trying to move to the right while the Republican party is moving to the right, and you get a proudly left party facing a proudly right party in a full election cycle.

[ThinkCreeps]

07:16 AM on 10/17/2011

"MItt Romney is no Reagan."

I guess we should be grateful for small mercies.

[alafonse]

07:03 AM on 10/17/2011

The R-R wing seems to be confused: they look to a politician for salvation instead of GøD. That's a critical mistake in their thinking and in their faith.
They would be well-advised to keep the words 'faith' and 'politician' separated. (Indeed, it's inappropriate to even put those two words in the same sentence.)

[Mary Mendy]

06:01 AM on 10/17/2011

So that means Bob dole would be todays Mitt Romney and Pat Buchanan would Herman Cain. I think they are extremely similar in every sense except that unemployment was not as high for Bill clinton as it is for Obama.

[lastpost]

05:57 AM on 10/17/2011

"the religious right"
Vox populi. vox Dei.

[ThinkCreeps]

07:20 AM on 10/17/2011

Vox bulbi obscura

[Chris1962]

04:11 AM on 10/17/2011

>>>This presidential election is beginning to look a lot like the contest of 1996, which saw a battered Bill Clinton win a second term in office by defeating Republican Senator Bob Dole. There are differences, to be sure, but the similarities are striking.>>>

I don't recall 9.1% unemployment or snail's-pace growth back then. I DO recall a near-meltdown a couple of years following his reelection, however: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:30 AM on 10/17/2011

I'm sorry in an earlier unfavorable I said President Clinton had an unemployment rate of less than 5% for both 95 & 96 it should have said less than 6%.

Though I think one of the post may have been blocked.

And maybe this one to making my correction moot!

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:50 AM on 10/17/2011

Correction I mean to say in an earlier unfavorable post.

Seems a lot of my post are being blocked on this topic!

The truth often hurts to much!

A better comparison as I said in my earlier post was President Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

Compare their unemployment numbers.

All President Obama has to do is drop unemployment below 8% and I think he wins!

[justobserve]

07:54 AM on 10/17/2011

I don't think the unemployment rate has as much as a deciding factor in this kind of environment. It's great if he could lower it but if he couldn't then it doesn't matter much when you compare all the candidates. Could they have done it? Voters should have seen by now who is the culpit of standing by the sideline cheering when the economy is stagnant and demanding progress. Why below 8% but not 10%? It already dropped from the high 12% so why don't we celebrate it and accept the reality that after the Great Recession, the task is going to take a much longer time than in a normal circumstance? It's a number designed to fail! It's the same as if we had wished after Katrina New Orleans would have miraculously completely rebuilt in a few years. It was not. It could not. It takes time. None of the other candidates would have done it any better and they are making it worse.

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:27 AM on 10/17/2011

Naw! This in no way compares to President Clinton!

President Clinton enjoyed an unemployment rate of less than 5% through all of 95 and 96!

However it dose compare surprisingly well to President Reagan's reelection bid.

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

When they both took office the unemployment was 7.6% for President Obama and 7.5% for President Reagan.

The high point of unemployment for President Obama was 10.2% and for President Reagan 10.8%

By September 2011 President Obama had unemployment at 9.1% and President Reagan in the election cycle September 83 had the unemployment at 9.2%.

When the first February Primaries President Reagan had unemployment down to 7.8%!

Scary how close their unemployment numbers tracked! Both were known as great communicators.

All President Obama has to do is break 8% unemployment by February 2012.

Just for information President Reagan had unemployment down to 7.2% in November on election day!

President Obama does this he gets reelected if not?????

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

For more information.

[Gottlieb]

12:39 AM on 10/17/2011

I like the comparison but Romney is not Dole and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision hadn't changed the political playing field. The one thing that hasn't changed is republican arrogance and self righteousness.

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:33 AM on 10/17/2011

A better comparison is President Reagan check out the Election Cycle and compare unemployment numbers.
http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php
President Clinton had less than 6% unemployment in both 95 & 96!

[kelib]

12:33 AM on 10/17/2011

If the Republicans had a sane, semi-honest candidate they might win till we wake up from this nightmare. Then again Alice in wonderland makes more since as a dream than this republican parties objectives. The media needs to get more creative when trying to fleece the public politesse opinion. I think alien influence causing increased inflation in selected derivatives of oil and drugs is being driven by excess taxes on rich job producers. Personally I think all the economic problems are cause conservative men having problem thinking with their penis pressing against their brain.

[builderman55]

12:30 AM on 10/17/2011

It has to be a dispirited and broken party that is willing to run such an abysmally bad slate of candidates as this. One can only think that they believe that Obama has absolutely no chance of reelection that they have come to this. Of course, just as the Democrat coalition built during the New Deal frayed, so too, the bizarre GOP mix of 15th century fundamentalists, late 19th century "laissez faire" capitalists and former Southern Democratic bigots is showing signs of hopeless fragmentation. It is still, I believe, Obama's election to lose. He has been, for all practical purposes a moderate Republican In his policies, a radical corporate Socialist who ran on the Left and then shifted so hard to the right that I'm surprised he doesn't wear a neck brace. And, he knows how to campaign and is still seen by most Americans as a decent person. Those factors, combined with the fact that Mitt Romney is a true chameleon, a flip flopper of epic proportions, and a funny underwear wearing member of a religion most people are still deeply uncomfortable with. It's gonna be an interesting year...

[reinaps]

12:00 AM on 10/17/2011

I don't agree that it looks like 1996. it looks more like Chicago 1968. The student protestors and much of the progressive/liberals in the country did not want LBJ and so the riots at the convention. This could replay again in North Carolina unless Obama gets serious and dumps Geithner and Biden and gets some fire and reform going. It is getting late, the young who are watching Obama are thoroughly disgusted and Occupy Wall street is what this is all about.

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:36 AM on 10/17/2011

Naw, no comparison!

Unemployment then was around 4%!

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

Much Closer to Reagan in 83 & 84!