Ray Malone's Commentary

Today many pundits and reporters are quick to tell us that 2008 is the year of the liberal. That the Republicans have tons of negatives and George W. Bush dragging them down. They expect a great victory for the Democrats in the November election. They go through a litany of bad poll numbers. Such as the direction of the nation, the disapproval of President Bush, the perception of a bad economy, and the disapproval of the War in Iraq .. et all.

Yet even a cursory study will show of the results of presidential elections are determined by the appeal of candidates running for the office and very little else. Consider 1950. Ike had ended the very unpopular Korean war. Ike had provided 8 years of peace and prosperity and had earned great respect for the USA in the world. The Hero of WWII had lived up to his reputation as a great leader. He had managed to contain the rise of communism in the world, and had the nation on the right track. So what happened to his chosen successor Richard Nixon? Nixon lost.

Jack Kennedy, the son of a Hitler Fan, and the son of an anti FDR Democrat won. Why? The voters liked Jack Kennedy and the did not like Nixon all that much. Kennedy was the more likable. Yes the media was very much in favor of Kennedy. But was that the decisive factor?

Well lets fast forward to 1980. The economy was down, inflation was in double digits, unemployment was in double digits, and interest rates were in double digits. Iran was holding our hostages and had for several months and Jimmy Carter had been unable to do anything about any of our problems..

Yet just 2 months before the 1980 election all the polls including internal Republican polls, showed Carter leading Reagan by 20 points. How could that be? The media was telling voters that yes, times were not good. That was because the presidency had become too big a job for just one man.. even one as great and talented as Jimmy Carter. And things would be far worse under an incompetent dumb actor such as Ronald Reagan.

The voters were buying it. The internal Reagan campaign numbers said so. During that period William F Buckley wrote a column recounting what a terrible candidate Ronald Reagan had turned out to be.

That was the view of most voters until they got to know Ronald Reagan. The media will tell you the debate won the election for Reagan. Carter had refused to debate Reagan saying he did not have time. It took too much time to be president was Carter's reason. Carter did not have time to campaign or debate. That is, not until Carter's own polls showed Reagan was going to win. Then Carter found time to debate. The debate was a gamble that Carter took because he had no other option.

Why did Reagan win? The voters liked him and did not believe the media's description of Reagan. They believed Reagan could fix things. Reagan proposed real fixes. And even voters who did not agree with Reagan's proposed fixes for the problems voted for Reagan. Exit polls showed some voters had the attitude.. we need to do something.. even if its wrong. My point is early polls can't predict who will win. They can tell you the current situation. .

What I am saying is it does not matter what the polls say at the start of the Presidential campaign. It does not matter what the voters think of the previous president. It matters what the voters think of the candidates and their solutions to what the voters see as the current problems.

One side note. When their are no problems the voters don't want anything done. A joke after the 1924 election was based on the very good times and voters not wanting any change. The joke said the voters didn't want anything done and Calvin Coolidge won because he did nothing better than anyone.

But when there are problems what solutions do the voters want? The answer is solutions to the problem that voters think of as the major problem. Proposing solutions to a minor problem while not addressing the major problem is of little value to a candidate.

Let me take you back to 1932. Herbert Hoover was the hated US president defeated by the beloved and cherished FDR. But what did FDR run on in 1932. He claimed that to fix the economy the federal Budget needed to be balanced, federal spending cut, and the size of government reduced. FDR proposed staying out of the rest o the worlds problems, and keeping jobs at home.

Why? Roosevelt needed the Southern Democrats. So he said things they would support. NONE OF WHICH HE DID WHEN ELECTED. Roosevelt offered a plan he said would fix the economy. Hoover said government should stay out of the economy. Hoover looked, acted, and sounded like an ordinary Midwestern small town guy. Roosevelt sounded like a filthy rich New York aristocrat who could make things happen. He had the last name of a filthy rich New York family. And his cousin had been president 30 years earlier and had been for the Little guy.

My point is a likable man who has plans to fix things the voter wants fixed wins. But the person they like depends on the nature of the problems. If both candidates have proposed fixes, the most likable candidate wins. In fact in most elections the most likable candidate wins. But It has to be fixes for the RIGHT problem.

Now is Obama likable? Sure he is. Is Hillary likable? About as much as an angry Alligator who crawls in the swimming pool with your kids.

But what about solutions. Hillary is about health care.. she is about socialist solutions to social problems. That is unimportant to a person who has lost or fears losing his job. Let me put it this way. People get hungry more often than the get sick.

National Security? It could be an issue except George W. Bush has kept us safe for 6 years. The average Joe thinks there is no real threat. So why are we in Iraq getting our people killed? So the McCain appeal which is based on the fact he created the plan that is winning the Iraq war, is of little value in an election.

Consider that WHILE the leaders of the victorious nations in World War II were meeting to divide up the spoils, the major author of that victory was voted out of office for a socialist promising good times. At the end of WWII all those people making bombs, planes, tanks, guns, armor, and the materials of war, were laid off. It was the economy stupid not reward the guy that won the war. The English voted Churchill out of office with in weeks of winning WWII.
It was the economy, stupid.

The people in England are not that different from us. Solving yesterdays problems will not win an election. Consider that George H. W. Bush won the first Gulf War. All of the opposition predictions about the length of time it would take, the cost in men and materials, all of the negative predictions were wrong. George H. W. Bush was right. But the war was over and as Bill Clinton said.. it was the economy stupid.

History says the War is not all that good an issue for McCain.

Now who has effectively determined what the voters will want? I think that is Romney. Who is off base with the voters? McCain and Hillary. Who doesn't even know where the base is? Obama.

Do you know which historical figure is most like Obama? Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. Dewey talked only in platitudes. Dewey was for peace.. not war. Dewey was for good .. not evil. Dewey was for love.. not hate. Dewey was for caring.. not indifference. Dewey was for security... not danger. It turned out Dewey was for losing ... not winning the 1948 election.

What I do know is those that try to predict the future based on their own logical assumptions, about what voters will do THIS TIME are almost always wrong.

History repeats itself because human beings react the same way to the same situations over and over and over.

So those that say this is THE YEAR FOR THE LEFT. and a TERRIBLE YEAR FOR THE RIGHT.. need to study what humans have done in the past.

If the Republican candidate can convince the voters that he has solutions to the problems we face, and can convince the voters that he is good and very likable person who will solve those problems, that Republican can win and carry at least the house with him.

If on the other hand either Hillary or Obama can become the better candidate on the things voters care about, then it could be a very good year for Democrats.

It will be interesting to watch what happens as the year rolls on. What I do know is that if one has an understanding of what humans do in certain situations, it is easy to make accurate predictions. The problem is always determining what the situation is in the eyes by those very same voters.