Have to disagree on that one. This election was very winnable for the Pubs. There was only one problem, and that was the candidate.
Please name one general election in which the economy began to tank and the incumbent president’s party retained the presidency. I’m not aware of one. I take to heat Carville’s maxim “it’s the economy, stupid”.
House prices had tanked. The stock market had just been crushed. Unprecedented nationalisations of private banks, insurance and corporations were taking place. The Treasury Secretary got on bended knew to beg for a trillion in stimulus to stem an all out financial collapse. About the best that can be said is that unemployment had not yet begun to soar, as it is a lagging indicator.
You can disagree all you want, but the economy dominated the election, as it always does. That is my point.
Please be aware that the nation is highly polarized, split right down party lines. About 40% of the voters would not vote Democrat if you held a gun to their heads. Another 40% would similarly rather drink Hemlock than vote Republican.
That leaves the middle 30% to decide national elections. These are the least informed, least involved, least principled, most wishy-washy voters. Not to say they are not moral or have their own personal convictions, but they are the ones who either hate both parties equally, or are apathetic, or are completely confused. Most of the nation votes with their wallets first - and that middle 30% most of all.
The election was not winnable in the least. There was no Republican candidate who was going to be able to ride Bush’s coat-tails to victory after that middle 30% perceived Bush as having wrecked the economy in the first place, just as they were deluded into thinking Bill Clinton was actually responsible for the great economy he lucked into having throughout his administration, on the back of what Reagan and later the House Republicans did.
This is not to say they Republicans had a good candidate. McLame is a solid Rino and that is why Democrats crossed over and voted for him in the early open primaries, and how we got stuck with him as he gained electoral votes and then later campaign funds. McLame was a disaster. With a good economy, I would be happy to blame him for the loss. In a bad economy, it just didn’t matter either way who the Republicans ran. Like I said, Reagan himself would not have won gain, the way he was able to win, ironically, because Carter oversaw a ruined economy with massive inflation and rapidly dwindling quality of life.
“It’s the economy, stupid.” Carville nailed it, the immoral soul-less weasil. But he did nail it. It’s the economy, stupid.