2008 is 1976 all over again

Randy made an analogy to 1976, which other have made and to a great extent I agree with. John McCain, like Gerald Ford, has been at odds with Republican conservative activists. But in 2008 there was no Reagan in the race. Many tried to wear the mantle, and in all cases, it fit not too comfortably. Thompson and Romney were the best chances the GOP had of unifying conservative candidates, but Thompson's low-energy campaign and Romney's Mormonism and changed position on abortion were too great a hurdle. When McCain was challenged on his conservative credentials, he retorted that "he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." This is true, but the conservative lament is how a Reaganite degenerated in time to a RINO (ACU rating in 2007 was only 65%). Yet there it is: The GOP has nominated a candidate who, while prolife and a fiscal conservative, has the feel of a Ford not a Reagan.

On the Democrat side, a not-very-experienced fresh face with a winning smile and a naive view of foreign policy won in Iowa and then over time surged ahead of the
rest of the pack. That candidate ran on change and on being 'unsullied' by the taint of having been in Washington politics too long. So in 1976, the Democrats chose Carter as the agent of change and today they pick Barack Obama - "Change we can believe in."

That's right - Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. (Dick Morris agrees.) Barack Obama beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in Democratic contests in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State, and his now leading in the Potomac state contests. It turns out that Hillary averted disaster in the 'super Tuesday' states only because she racked up early voting leads. (Note to self: Avoid early voting in primaries.) Flush with money, Obama can compete all the way to the convention. The question now is not when will Hillary be coronated, it will be: When will Hillary have to concede? or maybe, How much dirty tricks will Hillary pull with Super-delegates to eke out a win?

The mindless, shallow pap that served up Carter's vacuous campaign is the main course for Obama's campaign - "In your heart you know he's trite." And why not when its a winning message? National Journal rated Obama the most Liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate last year. Had he run as an angry ideological uber-liberal, like Edwards, he would not be getting the support of people who are wanting to believe in 'the audacity of hope'. Instead, a vague, vapid, liberal, empty suit campaign fits the guy whose #1 qualification to be the nominee is that he WASN'T in Congress to vote for a war that the Democrats have spent the last few years demagoguing against.

So what will McCain v Obama look like electorally? Intrade has an answer ... take the state Intrade outcome probabilities and map it on an electoral map and it looks like this:

1976 was a close race. 2008 may well be a close race again. Some conservatives will see that analogy and conclude - "I won't vote for McCain. I am waiting for the next Reagan." I don't think it is a responsible thing to send America through another 4 years like we lived with Carter, in the vague hope that a Reagan would materialize out of it. Maybe we will have the country so bamboozled, that like Clinton, Obama will get 8 years not 4 years; and the damage to our cause, our culture and our country will be irreversible.