|
I'm worried too, but let's not forget that in every single one of those contests you named, the party with the heavily contested primary was heavily favored against.
(1) The Republicans (Goldwater OR Rockefeller) were strongly discounted in '64; it followed the Kennedy assassination and Johnson's approval ratings were stratospheric.
(2) The Democrats were expected to lose in '68; it was close and in the end Humphrey nearly won, but Nixon had been favored throughout the campaign.
(3) The Democrats would not have won in '72; most expected a Nixon landslide as the year began and that's exactly what happened.
(4) The Republicans were strongly counted against in '76; it followed Watergate and the unpopularity of the Ford administration. It was a miracle it actually ended up being so close.
(5) In 1980, although early polling (and even some late polling) had Reagan losing due to his perceived extremism, the Carter administration was extremely unpopular and was not likely to win against any Republican. Reagan was actually probably one of the weaker candidates the Republicans could have nominated as he scared off moderates, yet he still won in an electoral landslide.
(6) No one would have beaten Reagan in '84. He was extremely popular.
The kind of situation we have today of a highly contested primary within the party that is strongly favored to win the election based on polling trends and dissatisfaction with the state of the country is not like the examples you posted above.
Remember too that 1960 was a contested primary. 1968 was a contested primary on the Republican side (although, granted, nowhere near as fractious as the Democratic one). 1976 was a long drawn-out contest on the Democratic side too. In 1992, the nomination wasn't decided until June and Clinton trailed Bush at that point.
|