2000

1. Flipping any election wouldn't have mattered much. If somehow Carter won in 1980, an angrier, larger conservative majority would have won in 1984. If somehow McGovern had won, he'd have been instantly hamstrung by outraged right-wingers and "no more McGoverns! No more treason!" would have been the rallying cry for the Reagan Revolution of 1976. And our entire national nightmare would have started 4 years earlier than it did.

I'm instantly reminded of Noam Chomsky's point that individuals matter a LOT less than movements. Chomsky called Richard Nixon "the last liberal President" not because Nixon was liberal himself, but because the institutional powers of the New Deal coalition weren't yet exhausted.

Thus, Nixon passed the environmental statutes, established the EPA, inaugurated a "war on drugs" that gave primacy to treatment, recognized China and negotiated arms limitation treaties with Russia, etc. All despite being a conservative engaged in a genocidal war in Asia.

Compare Clinton, who came in during the middle of the right-wing ascendancy and, despite being a liberal, enacted NAFTA, made budget-balancing his main priority, picked moderates as his S.Ct. nominees, and enacted draconian "welfare to work" laws. All things Nixon could never have gotten away with.

All this triangulating by the Clintons was necessary because white anger over the civil rights movement swung the solid South behind the Republicans for 2 generations, while the North and upper-Midwest hadn't yet swung Democratic. A Democratic President couldn't govern as a Liberal. He couldn't get his agenda passed through Congress (as Jimmy Carter found, even with larger Democratic majorities than Obama will ever have).

Having Obama instead of McCain will matter, but not as much as building a solid progressive base the same way right-wingers built a reactionary base after 1968, taking power in 1980.

2. As far as the Democratic party ID, Rasmussen finds that it's varied between 10.1 and 7.6% this year, but the important point is that Republican Party ID hasn't shifted even 1 point since 2007! It's stuck at 31% and whether McCain moves up or down in the polls, it doesn't change.

That suggests that the Republicans who died or left the party aren't coming back. Some have become independents.

But, Independents don't vote at the same rates as Democrats and Republicans. Unless Obama manages to increase Democratic turnout as he's trying to do, both Democratic and Republican turnout will be around 62%. Independent turnout will probably be somewhere around 55% again as in 2004.

Unless Republican leaning Independents turn out at the same rates as Democrats McCain is the loser. As you mention 2004 saw a surge in Republcan party ID making up a 3% defecit just prior to the election and then gaining a 2.8% advantage in turnout on election day.

Bush got 11 million new voters to the polls, including 4 million evangelicals, but even if McCain equals that feat, he's STILL going to lose if Obama's base turns out.

The key for Obama is to get up to the 89% support among Democrats that Kerry got, from his current standing of around 80% Democratic support. That's what's keeping this race as close as it is. Democratic party ID advantage is off-set by defections among Democrats, while McCain rallies 89% of Republicans already, and is consolidating them even more with his Swift-boat attacks. He'll wind up with close to the 94% Republican support that Bush got.

But how many right-wing crusaders will actually devote their time to volunteer and mobilize voters and give up time with their families to work for him, the way they did in 2004 when they had a candidate they all believed in, Bush? Obama will have that, but will McCain?

About the only thing keeping the whole right-wing afloat now is their hatred of the forces that are pushing them aside and their desperate clinging to life-raft. But the sea is stronger and will eventually pull them under. They know this and it gives them the power of desperation. Whether that will be enough this time, we'll see.

I attended a Democratic Leadership meeting last night in my city, for my Representative, elected in 2006.

He warned everyone that although those numbers look good, do NOT get complacent, do NOT think it's a done deal.

Regardless of what the polls say about the GOP NOT being energized, do NOT believe it, their candidates will come out fighting like hell!

We've got to keep on working, double and triple our efforts in working to inform and GOTV!!!

I'm not even looking at polls too much these days, just working, doing what even I can to inform citizens and speak out for the Democrats!

WORK WORK  WORK  WORK  WORK

That's how the job's going to get done! We;ve been building the political infrastructure and now it's time to put it WORK within it! AND it does work, believe me, so PLEASE volunteer to do any of those jobs that need to be done!

I was a pro-Nixon sixth grader and a pro-Reagan college student.

I did vote for Gore, but it really took the folly of Bush, Cheney, Frist and DeLay to make me vow NEVER to vote Republican again.

I should have qualified that TEDM has a geographic angle to it as well, urban & metro/suburb.

Let me suggest instead 1960, which was a closer election.  You then have four years of Nixon, Kennedy getting a second chance in 1964, by direct parallel with 1956, and as likely as not winning.  You get the unembittered 1960 Nixon rather than the fellow who lost in 1960 and 1962.  You get close to the same civil rights laws, and a more impressive George Wallace party, but this time southern conservative Democrats can't readily follow the book that Kevin Philips won't have written, not in the same form, and become Republicans.  And you have a War in Viet Nam conducted by--if Kennedy won--two men each of whom realized that feeding the American people nonsense was not a long-term winning strategy.  Furthermore, you would have had two Presidents both of whom came from the North, and remembered that Lincoln fired losing generals, rather than a President who came from the south, and remembered that Jeff David never fired Robert E Lee.  Of course, in 1972 you might have had a libertarian-leaning Republican (Goldwater), but many of the worst trends in recent history, which seem not to have been to the advantage of anyone except part of the racist right, would have washed out a bit.

Sometimes winning the battle is not the way to win the war.

Forget the 1972 election.  If I'm going to flip anything from that cycle, it would be the 1972 Democratic nomination.  Keep the Canuck Letter from happening, Muskie wins NH easily and goes on to win the nomination, losing respectably in the fall.

After Nixon's impeachment (Watergate happens regardless), Muskie gets another chance in 1976, and wins both the nomination and the election.

It proves a lot harder for the GOP to ridicule Muskie the way they did McGovern and Carter, and the Dems don't flounder nearly so desperately when they lose the Presidency in 1984.

I'd still have to go with 2000.  I don't know if there was a way to run Reagan off the road...  There was a great chance he could and would have succeeded a theoretical McGovern Presidency either in 76 or 1980.  NOW, I would have LOVED to see a Kennedy and Reagan election (although I think Reagan would have won due to the scandal that hit Kennedy).  That being said a Reagan presidency may have been inevitable.... unfortunately.  But in 6 years, Bush did more damage than Reagan and Bush 1 combined.  He undid EVERYTHING that Clinton did for the most part, whereas I would argue that Nixon did not undo all of of Johnson and Kennedy's accomplishments.  Don't get me wrong, Nixon and Reagan sucked... but at this point, had Gore not been screwed, I think we would not only have caught Bin Laden (thus turning national security into a huge Dem Plus) but the Electric Car project would have continued and be a good 20-30% of our cars right now; thus lowering our fuel demand and theoretically lowering prices.

In 2004, Bush has a strong ground game, enthusiastic supporters, and a well-oiled GOTV machine.

McCain has none of those things in his favor. The Obama campaign seems to be spending lightly and investing in infrastructure that will essentially be immeasurable until Election Day.

If McCain were to win this, it would go against all historical precedent. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but Obama is no McGovern and I think Jerome is crazy to make the comparison.

My brother (a white teacher) is voting for the first time in his life because of Obama. My friends's husband (a white jock Independent) is voting for Obama. This year is different. There are plenty of stories like these to make me believe that the strategy is real.

Obama took down the Clintons for god's sake. They are still (supposedly) claiming he can't win, which proves to me they are terrified he is going to win. They are pissed because he stole what they view as Hillary's due. None of these aforementioned men I know would be donating money, volunteering, and maybe even voting for Clinton. They have different strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, there is a different feeling coming from people that have never been involved before, but I have noticed something lately-fatigue!  This is going on too long, the workers cannot stay emotionally charged all the time.  
The right wing machine appears to be relentless and even though most of what they say is lies and untrue the masses still watch.

Selection of a VP, however closely watched is not the huge decision that the media is also playing up.  Fact is, our media is so shallow that they are desparate for any action, activity, storm, killing, robbery...the list goes on.  Instant replay for the car chase.  So here is the "election news-again", folks are tuning out, they are more worried about their bills and future.  They want change, but also want to pay the increasing mortgage payment.
BTW, the election I would change is Carter's second run.  All I ever hear about is crazy inflation during that period.  Just think what a different place this would be if the solar panels had stayed on the WH, the solar subsidies would have continued and oil indepence WHICH HE HAD THE VISION TO SEE WAY AHEAD AND PLAN FOR THE FUTURE!  The oil lobby went crazy, everybody got together to bring him down.
Anyway, Carter wanted to change "the way the US does oil business" and the big money reacted with a big stick.  Oil embargo, gas lines, don't forget the hostages and the CIA Bush sr. getting involved behind the scenes...and we know the result of that scheme.  Too bad.  The good guys lost again.

Is this time that different?

Obama's coalition needs one more component--Hispanics.  The TEDM is still a minority.  If Obama can get about 65% of Latinos he wins by 4-5%.  But if they don't turn out or McCain gets around 40% of Latinos, the Democrats are still a minority.

I'm hoping for some leadership changes in the next Congress, but it may take the House flipping back to the GOP for that to happen.  Does Jerome think that could happen this year?

Stop Sirhan Sirhan from assassinating Bobby Kennedy.  Kennedy goes on to beat Nixon in the general election.  

Mary Jo Kopechne uses her experience in the campaign to get a White House job and doesn't have time to ride with Ted Kennedy after the party in Chappaquiddick.  For that matter, the party wouldn't have even happened as most of the party goers would be working in the RFK Administration.  The result is Ted Kennedy's reputation is not/less tarnished and becomes a more viable future candidate.

In preventing the Nixon Presidency, you also prevent the Agnew resignation and Watergate from happening, this preventing Ford's pardon of Nixon.  In doing this, you prevent Jimmy Carter and his disasterous presidency from happening, preventing much tarnish on the Democratic Party.  Even if Ronald Reagan does win at some point, he'll run against a much more competent Democrat and a much less tarnished Democratic Party and will get less of the vote, taking away much of his mandate.  Conservatives, not getting what they want, don't deify him.

George H.W. Bush will not be able to ride Reagans coattails to the Presidency and gets beaten by Dukakis (or someone better than Dukakis).

Also in preventing the Nixon Presidency, you keep a young guy named Karl Rove from gaining experience used to catapult a barely evolved Ape from Texas to the Presidency...

My memory of the 1972 election.  I, too was in elementary school and we had a mock election.  Nixon won in our school by an absurd amount.  I voted McGovern because that's who my parents liked, and was picked on by a group of boys when I let that fact slip, lead by none other than Mark Halperin.  Who was the loudest pro-Nixon voice in class.  And a jerkwad.

Fast forward a scant few months, and Mark's dad found a listening device in their phone.  Suddenly, Mark is the most virulent anti-Nixon person to walk the earth, and heaven help you if you say something pro-Nixon.  I made a sarcastic comment about his switching loyalties, and he claimed to have no memory of ever being a Nixon supporter.  "I always wanted McGovern to win" he said proudly.

Mort Halperin was one of the nicest dads around, always gave out good Halloween candy.  But the Mark Halperin of today remains the Mark Halperin who conveniently forgot that he was a rabid Nixon supporter.

1968.

Humphrey had all the tools to be a good President-- and had Nixon gone down in '68 its likely Humphrey would have served two terms (provided he ended the war by 1972- likely) and the GOP bench was mighty weak.  

You could imagine Reagan running and winning in 1976, he would have admitted the Shah for medical treatment same as Carter, and he would have had a hostage crisis to deal with- leading to a Dem victory in 1980.  
 

I had a similar experience in 1972. My elementary school class, which was overwhelmingly African American, voted for Nixon while I was one of the few supporting McGovern. I was completely mystified.

The only way McCain can win is by depressing Democratic turnout. The most effective way to depress Democratic turnout, and increase Republican turnout, is negative campaigning. African Americans will turn out for Obama no matter what, the only way McCain can affect that is through voter suppression. But another core Obama demographic, young people, are less reliable voters and can be discouraged through negative campaigning. I don't expect to see an attempt at Nixon's southern/suburban strategy, which would probably increase Obama's turnout, but rather more tearing down of Obama's post-partisan, above politics image.

To my mind the big risk for Obama is that McCain will exploit the primary divisions and discourage 'old coalition' Democrats from voting. I don't understand why Obama is permitting questions about Bill and Hillary Clinton to linger, limiting his response to one line statements like

We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success. At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election

If for nothing else George Bush and his kids recede into the woodwork and the rise of the DLC likely never happens.

Not to mention that the country would just be in a better position with reasonable domestic and foreign policies.

Both of those are awesome!

Huey Long lives!  After a third party candidacy in '36, a Republican wins the election with somewhere around 40 percent of the vote, Roosevelt and Long splitting the leftist vote.  In '40, Long wins the Democratic nomination and wins the Presidency handily, after 4 more years of Depression.  With Long at the helm during WWII, who knows what could have happened.  The executive would likely be much more powerful, and the New Deal would look centrist in comparison to Every Man A King.

It's amazing to think what could have happened if Huey Long had survived Carl Weiss' bullet.

The nation would be better off, if only for a few more chapters in All The King's Men.