Talk about post-hoc storytelling -- The Economist's Lexington column refers to Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign as "obviously doomed" during the GOP primaries:
And whereas the Democrats usually engage in mud-wrestling to see who will get their party's nomination, the Republicans are generally disciplined. They like to rally around a top dog as early as possible (for all the McCain mania in 2000, the insurgency was quickly put down, though George Bush senior was damaged by friendly fire in 1992). They even lined up behind the obviously doomed Bob Dole in 1996.
Indeed, given the conditions under which the election eventually took place, it was extremely unlikely that any Republican candidate would beat Clinton (from a political science perspective, anyway). But it's not like GOP primary voters were passing up super-electable candidates -- Dole's closest competitors were Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan.
More importantly, Lexington is telling a fantasy version of history in which events are obvious before they happen. At the time of the GOP primaries, Clinton's victory seemed less obvious to many observers, including The Economist itself. On March 9, 1996 -- immediately after the GOP primary voters had chosen the "obviously doomed" Dole -- the magazine wrote that Clinton's "potential troubles loom large":
Polls show Mr Clinton comfortably beating Mr Dole in a head-to-head race (by 52% to 44%, in a recent Pew poll). But such polls at this early stage mean little, and the president's potential troubles loom large. Economic growth has slowed. Mr Clinton's hopes of campaigning as a peacemaker have suffered setbacks in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. His Whitewater worries are far from over.
Then, on May 18, it referred to the belief that the election was over as "foolish":
If you believe the opinion polls, America's presidential election is all but over, six months before the voting booths open. To believe that would be foolish, given that voters seem to change their minds even more often than before, and presidential campaigns are strewn with elephant traps. Yet what is extraordinary is that talk that Bill Clinton has already as good as won is coming not from complacent Democrats but from despairing Republicans--the same party that barely two months ago made Bob Dole its candidate-presumptive by an overwhelming margin. Mr Dole's cause is hopeless, they mutter noisily, because, well, so is he. His speeches ramble, his campaigning is dire. The despair may be justified; or it may not be. Let Mr Dole prove his detractors wrong; this week he made a bold effort to do so by resigning from the Senate, his political home of 36 years...
By June 22, the magazine was touting Dole's improving prospects in the wake of the developing Whitewater investigation:
All this is bound to take a toll. The presidential race is anyway starting to tighten. A month ago, polling by Time/CNN showed a 22-point gap between Mr Clinton and Bob Dole; that has narrowed to just six points. In a close race, the damage from scandal could tilt the balance.
Until recently, Mr Clinton was widely seen to be all but assured of a second term. Even Republicans despaired of their chances and their dreadful candidate. Now Citizen Dole looks revitalised and the president looks vulnerable. It would be no surprise if the "fourth annual White House Summer Picnic", as the First Lady called it on Wednesday, turned out to be the last.
By September 7, the magazine was declaring that "barring calamity, the president['s] lead looks unassailable." But it was indicating considerably more uncertainty before the fact. Maybe GOP primary voters were not as foolish as Lexington thinks.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Brendan. That's some good research.
It's always good to not let hindsight cloud our true recollection from history, otherwise we'll never truly learn from it.
Posted by: Matt | December 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM