The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Is Obama More Like Dukakis Than Carter?

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Is Obama More Like Dukakis Than Carter?

By Aaron Goldstein on 6.17.11 @ 12:25PM

Over at The Weekly Standard, Jay Cost makes the case that President Obama's support amongst Democrats is more like that of Michael Dukakis than Jimmy Carter.

Using Gallup Poll data, Cost argues that Obama, unlike Carter, has maintained his support amongst Democrats by his third year in office. By contrast, Carter's support amongst Democrats had fallen by 20 points by 1979. Of course, Carter would have Ted Kennedy with whom to contend. Cost notes that the character of the Democratic Party has changed over the past three decades. Whereas in 1979, the "Northern/liberal faction" was still an insurgent force in the Democratic Party, today it is the Democratic mainstream. Thus Obama need not worry about a Ted Kennedy like figure lurking in the shadows. But Cost thinks Obama should worry about another Massachusetts liberal - Michael Dukakis.

Cost then shows the data. In 1988, Dukakis got 46% of the popular vote, earning the support of 82% of Democrats and 42% of Independents. In the latest Gallup Poll, President Obama has the support of 46% of the electorate with 82% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans. Cost concludes:

These are some very eerie similarities - Dukakis, unlike Carter, was able to hold together his party coalition. He lost the 1988 election because Republicans were firmly united behind George Bush, and independents broke decisively toward the GOP.

This is roughly how the current political landscape appears, which leads me to conclude if the election were held today, and the GOP nominated a reasonably attractive candidate, Obama would do about as well in the popular vote as Dukakis did. Given the geographical polarization of the electorate (i.e. the red state-blue state divide), Obama would surely capture more than the 111 electoral votes Dukakis carried. Even so, it would be a sizeable Republican victory. Not quite as smashing as Reagan's victory in 1980, but still substantial.

I am not sure if the former Massachusetts Democratic Governor is a reliable yard stick by which to measure Obama's chances at re-election. First, unlike Dukakis, Obama is the sitting President. Second, Republicans and Independents stood behind Bush because he was carrying the legacy of Ronald Reagan. I remember the refrain back then, "Reagan could have been elected to a third-term." Third, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Fourth, Obama's approval numbers amongst Republicans were actually double that of Dukakis (15% to 7.5%). So there are still a few Obamacons out there.

Finally, let's not forget that Obama is the first Black President. Of course, that shouldn't matter. But it does. As sure as the sun sets in the west, we will be told by the liberal intelligentsia that not re-electing Obama would take the country back to Jim Crow and thus constitute an act of racism. The electorate might have the good sense to reject such nonsense. After all, Obama should be judged by his performance in office and second term cannot be treated like an entitlement. But if enough white, liberal guilt is mobilized it could bestow Obama with four more years. A critical mass of the American electorate have a lot more vested in Barack Obama than they ever did with Michael Dukakis.

View all comments (10) | Leave a comment

Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 12:52PM

He was facing a notorious RINO, the economy was tanking, Americans had a chance to vote historically, no one knew who he was, and he still didn't win in a landslide.

Well, the economy is worse, our foreign policy is worse, and everyone knows he's an arrogant ass. I think he's toast and gone.

Bob Grant| 6.17.11 @ 1:09PM

I agree unless we do something stupid, which is what Limbaugh and others are currently doing on a daily basis. I'm comfortable with what was displayed on stage Monday.

Please God, let's keep the celebrities out of this race!

JP| 6.17.11 @ 1:20PM

Jay Cost is one of the few writers who say the truth: Obama has an electoral firewall of 40% locked up. That is, 40% of the electorate will vote for Obama regardless of his performance. He only needs to pick up another 11-12% to be re-elected. That's quite an asset and it explains his behavior as President. That, of course, doesn't mean his party won't suffer as a whole. The Dems must defend over 20 seats in the Senate, and they still have lose additional seats in the House come the Nov 2012 elections. The President could find himself a President with no congressional majorities. His electoral firewalls in NY, California, and Illionos will mean nothing if the GOP has 60 Senators and 300 House members. He will have lost his ability to govern, but he will still be expected to lead.

Bob Grant| 6.17.11 @ 1:31PM

I question how reliable this 40% is.

Seems to me poverty is the ultimate attitude adjustment. Obama's programs have, and will continue to, devastated the middle class. You could say his agenda IS a war on the middle class.

I think that 40% lock will dwindle to 30% if he's lucky.

Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 11:32PM

Now, he may have 40 % of the registered voters locked up, but I doubt they will show the enthusiasm they showed four years ago, One who definitely will not is Gene Simmons, lead singer for KISS, who wishes publically that he had his vote back.

PattyMor| 6.17.11 @ 2:18PM

There is still a substantial amount of people who want the gov'ment to take care of them. My response is, with the gov'ment debt at $14 Trillion Dollars, how secure do you think your welfare is?
With that said, Obummer has done a lot of damage to the economy. It will take substantial Rep. majorities to undo the damage. And, we need to get rid of the RINO's.

MM| 6.17.11 @ 3:27PM

Aaron -- Please! It's "DEMOCRAT Party" not "Democratic Party" . . .

Timothy L. Pennell| 6.18.11 @ 7:49AM

That's a stupid question.
He's more like MUSSOLINI!

David | 6.18.11 @ 11:00PM

The Obama, Dukais comparison is so off the mark. Dukakis was painted as weak on defence, Obama has remove osama bin Ladin can be sure he'll remind voters of that at election time. Also Duakais was the last Democrat presidental canidate to be against the death penatly. Since that election all democratic presidental canidates have supported the death penalty and obama is no exception there is a view you can't win unless you have that postion. Lastly the republicans don't have an opponent with the same abilty as George w Bush, Michelle Bachman? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? Please these people may make the teabag party supporters feel good but the cruical independent voters will not be impressed when they see these canidates pander to that movement.