It is a common feature of contemporary political punditry to seize upon the history of past election cycles as a frame of reference for current events. One of the flaws of this practice is that the outcome of past elections is seen as predetermined, whereas in reality, American presidential elections, like many phenomena in this particular universe, are influenced by millions of unpredictable and apparently random factors. Just as polls fluctuate from day to day, election outcomes must be seen as a snapshot of public opinion at a specific point in time. In some cases, the margin of victory is sufficiently large to cover up random variance, and one may reasonably conclude that the outcome reflects, at least in some broad and vague sense, the settled judgment of the citizens. Reaching such conclusions from the result of close elections is, however, a dangerous sport.
The presidential election of 1976 was a close election. In the national popular vote, Democrat Jimmy Carter beat Republican Gerald Ford by about 1.7 million votes, or 2 percentage points, but these numbers are irrelevant since American presidents are not selected by the national popular vote. Much more importantly, Carter won the electoral vote by a score of 297 to 240, which would have been a score of 272 to 265 if slightly more than 5,500 Ohioans had woken up that morning feeling slightly more positive about the Ford administration, or perhaps if Cleveland had been hit by a torrential rainstorm during the evening rush hour. At this point, Ford would have needed just 3,700 Hawaiians or 7,250 Mississippians to switch their votes in order to win re-election.
This contemplation should be profoundly troubling to anyone who wants to see a Republican presidential victory in 2012. After all, Ford faced many of the same disadvantages that President Barack Obama faces today: a lousy economy, high unemployment, a faint though not debilitating whiff of scandal, and a general feeling among the public that they didn't really know where the country was heading but were pretty sure they didn't want to go there, which (in Ford's case) was both occasioned and exemplified by Barry Manilow's habit of not writing songs that reached #1 on the charts. And yet, he came quite close to winning re-election -- close enough, in fact, that the outcome might have been different if Carter had been a slightly less appealing candidate, or if Ford had been a slightly more appealing one, or if a truckload of pineapples had overturned on a Honolulu freeway preventing a few thousand voters in a certain part of town from making their way to the polls.
What lessons should be drawn from the results of 1976? I will suggest two: First, Republicans who want to win in 2012 should be very careful to avoid doing things that are likely to make the election closer. Structural factors, such as the economic situation and President Obama's approval rating, currently appear to point in the Republicans' favor. Some commentators have suggested that Obama is such a weak candidate that primary voters might as well go for the home run and nominate a candidate who would normally be too far to the Right to win. This is dangerous thinking. The closer the election, the more susceptible it becomes to a multitude of random factors that are outside of anyone's control. Second, Republican presidential candidates must correctly interpret the mood of the country. In times of economic distress, Americans want a leader who can credibly offer hope for the future. In 1976, they got a preachy moralizer instead. It appears to me that the great danger for Republicans today is that too many of their leading figures are choosing to wallow in "relentless rage" rather than giving the public a reason to hope. But that is a topic for another day.
