The Washington Monthly

April 20, 2011

AT THIS POINT IN 1983.... There's quite a bit of new polling out lately showing hypothetical match-ups, pitting President Obama against the leading Republican candidates. In general, the president fares pretty well against the GOP field, though the margins against some Republicans are fairly modest.

But before anyone takes any of these results too seriously, I'd point to this Dave Weigel item, quoting a New York Times article that ran on March 23, 1983.

If the 1984 Presidential election were being held today, either former Vice President Walter F. Mondale or Senator John Glenn would defeat any of the leading Republicans, according to the Gallup Poll.
Both hold modest margins over President Reagan and comfortable leads over Vice President Bush and the Senate majority leader, Howard H. Baker Jr., the two Republicans with the most current support in their party if Mr. Reagan was not to run.

When 1,156 registered voters were asked last month whom they would prefer, Mr. Mondale led Mr. Reagan by 47 percent to 41 percent, with the rest undecided. Mr. Glenn led the President by 45 percent to 40 percent.

This is, by the way, roughly the same point in the election cycle we're at now.

In fact, it's worth adding some additional context to this. The reason the Gallup poll tested the support of other Republican candidates was that there were some questions as to whether Reagan would even seek re-election. He wasn't just unpopular at this point in 1983, and wasn't just trailing the leading Democrats, Reagan was also considered vulnerable to a Republican primary challenger. It's why Gallup polled Baker and Bush -- they weren't sure Reagan would be on the ballot.

After the 1982 midterms, a cycle in which many GOP candidates didn't want to be seen with Reagan, many conservatives either wanted the president to either announce he wouldn't run again, or prepare to face a Republican opponent in 1984.

If memory serves, Reagan won 49 states the next year.

Modern-day Republicans tend to be rather uncomfortable with all of this, not because it's wrong, but because it's inconsistent with the myth they've worked so hard to sell. Reagan wasn't universally loved at all times? Party leaders worried that Reagan was in over his head and wasn't up to the job? Well, yes.

Then the economy got better.

And that's why it's hard to get worked up about 2012 horse-race polls. Over the next year and a half, a stronger economy will bolster Obama's standing and make him a safe bet for a second term. A weaker economy will put the president's career in jeopardy. This isn't rocket science.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Comments

"Over the next year and a half, a stronger economy will bolster Obama's standing and make him a safe bet for a second term. A weaker economy will put the president's career in jeopardy. This isn't rocket science."

That's for sure. And when you think about it, that is probably the most cogent explanation I've seen for what the GOP has been doing the past 100+ days in power in the House. Jobs bills? What for? If the economy starts to improve now, it will only help Obama. Can't have that. If they were certain there was some way they could guarantee that Obama would get the lion's share of the blame, they would force the US to default on its debt and trash the world economy, just to get the WH back. They are that venal. If it were Democrats doing it to a GOP POTUS you would hear screams of Traitors!!!, Saboteurs!!!

Posted by: majun on April 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not one to panic, but in 1983 the opposition party wasn't sandbagging the economic recovery to weaken the president.

Posted by: the_dan on April 20, 2011 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but remember that Reagan was everyones kindly old white Grandfather, not an Uppity/ Black/Racist/Fascist/Socialist/Communist/Muslim/
Heathen/Atheist/Kenyan/Usurper bent on Mau-Mauing the country and turning into a combination of France, Sweden, and Uganda - and oh, did I mention he's a Negro?

Posted by: c u n d gulag on April 20, 2011 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

yes to all three above posts.

Posted by: T2 on April 20, 2011 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

If memory serves, Reagan won 49 states the next year.

I think it's only fair to point out that the Dems had the balls to run the first woman Vice Presidential candidate in US history in that election, the late Geraldine Ferraro.

Posted by: Kiweagle on April 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

It's either a case of the Republican's shrewdly torpedoing the economy with the spending cuts, or the Republicans persisting on their quest to cut taxes for the wealthy, ignorant of the fact that tax cuts for the wealthy do not, in fact, lead to significant economic growth, and completely coincidentally keeping the economy suppressed and maximizing their chances for retaking the White House.

More useful historical trends: the Republican candidate has failed to get a plurality of the votes in four of the last five elections.

Posted by: OwnedByTwoCats on April 20, 2011 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I agree.

My bet is that the economy slows way down over the next year.

Obama will need to react fast with some economic remedies in order to get it back on track by the fall of 2012.

I wonder if he will.

Posted by: PeninsulaMatt on April 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

The first 3 comments are absolutely right! But, these comments also could be attached to the item above as well re: the Citizens United decision and the more extreme activism of corporations like Koch. Then there is the Republicans finding old and new ways to disinfranchise voters, often using election fraud techniques!

The disgruntled Left had better wake up or the US of A will be a one party country after the 2012 election! I know what kind of party that will be, do you?

Posted by: Mary on April 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Which is why the Obama administration is still using the deficit frame in fixing the economy, because we all know how well cutting spending on programs creates jobs.

Posted by: bdop4 on April 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Which is exactly why the Republicans will be doing everything in their power to make sure the economy DOES NOT get stronger.... they couldn't care less about the American public, all that matters is politics and power.

Posted by: Diane on April 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, please remember a stronger economy does not translate to a good economy or even an average economy. There are a lot of things that can happen either way I suppose but I don't see a lot of good news out there.

Posted by: Raptor on April 20, 2011 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK