With all the crossfire from Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich about how “unelectable” the other is (clearly backed up by poll numbers in Gingrich’s case, not so much with Romney) the metrics on the electability of the president are – and have been for a long time – ominous (for Democrats).
It is conventional wisdom that when the economy is the leading issue in a presidential campaign, it is in effect the only issue. And Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics paints by the numbers the enduring problem for Barack Obama as he faces the voters.
A president’s approval rating is one of the most reliable indicators of his re-election chances, and tracks very consistently with the percent of the vote he is likely to receive. And Trende confirms that Obama looks quite a bit more like Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush 41 than he does the presidents who have been re-elected.
The bottom line is this: Republicans must nominate a candidate who does not interfere with the proposition that the election is a referendum on Obama. Much like 1980, when voters decided (though not until the last week) that Reagan was acceptable, they could then simply vote up or down on Carter…and Reagan won the biggest landslide of any non-incumbent in American history. And both Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992 are textbook examples of candidates who did not have well-defined ideologies and were not wildly popular, yet were acceptable enough to knock off unpopular incumbents.
This flies in the face of the notion that Obama must face a “red meat conservative” who gives voice to the deepest, darkest fears of Obama haters. Republicans can not nominate a candidate who himself becomes the issue.
Indeed, history suggests that Republicans must nominate someone who is simply acceptable enough to the general electorate that they can then turn their gaze on Obama and do the right thing in turning him out of office.
