I'e seen this comment made several times in recent weeks--in this case, it comes from a recent piece by long-time Democratic Party strategist Bob Beckel:
"Two things have become obvious about the state of the Democratic nomination for president. The first is that the stars haven'’t been better aligned for Democrats to win the White House since FDR crushed Hoover in 1932."
Not necessarily true. Take 1964. Then, you had Lyndon Johnson as the Democratic incumbent, having just recently taken over for the assassinated John F. Kennedy. LBJ would get a sympathy vote. The economy was good. Johnson passed some major pieces of legislation in '64, such as the Civil Rights Act. His Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, would be, fairly or unfairly (I would argue unfairly) slammed an extremist, out of the mainstream. Johnson had little opposition in gaining the Democratic nomination that year. Talk about the stars being aligned!
Or take 1976. In that year, the Democrats nominated, without too much party division, a popular newcomer to national politics, Jimmy Carter. Meanwhile, the Republicans had a divisive battle for the party's nomination between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan; the eventual nominee, Ford, was an unelected president; the party was in that year irrevocably stained by the recent Watergate debacle and Richard Nixon's resignation from office; and the economy was in recession. Again, talk about Democratic stars being aligned...
It could be argued that, well, the Democrats in 2008 would be in great shape if there was no battle royale for the party's nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But that battle is here, and it ain't going away anytime soon. Such didn't exist in 1964 and 1976. Thus, the fact is, the way things are laid out now, this is NOT the Democrats' best shot at the White House since 1932 (though the odds still favor them).
