Do you ever get tired of reading analysts who ignore that the presidential contest is a competition between two human beings and try to predict what will happen by looking at economic data or other historical factors? For me, the only historical factor that matters is how the American people have treated incumbent presidents. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton were each reelected by much larger margins than they won in their initial campaigns. Carter and Poppy Bush were voted out. The three presidents who started land wars in Asia that we couldn’t win (Truman, Johnson, and Dubya) damaged themselves. Only Dubya even had the chutzpah to run for reelection, and he barely won.
To believe that Obama would lose, you had to think that his presidency was following the pattern of Carter and Poppy Bush. In other words, the economy was too weak for Obama to win reelection. But it’s a mistake to blame Carter and Poppy Bush’s defeats on the economy. They faced, respectively, the most talented Republican and the most talented Democratic opponents of their generation. Reagan and Clinton were political giants, and that is why they won. Bad economic times helped them, but they would win in almost any environment. They had political talent.
I don’t know why so few people looked at this election as a contest between a gifted politician, organizer, and orator and a complete buffoon. It’s mystifying to me. There was never any chance in hell that Mitt Romney would be competitive in this election regardless of economic conditions. He is a truly awful politician. Everyone should have been able to see that.
