Like the old Ali vs. Marciano Dream Fight, except with more factors playing a part. Full disclosure, I liked Reagan, but here is my most impartial analysis possible. The winner will be determined on style, substance, and voter results. To be fair, we’ll compare both as if they were meeting at their peak performance before their election – i.e. 1980 Reagan vs. 2008 Obama. Again, for the sake of fairness, we’ll assume an alternate timeline in which John Anderson takes Reagan’s place for two term president in 1980-84, and both are squaring off for 1988 without the benefit of an opposite party incumbent to oppose.
Score 1 – Style:
This is the hardest point to score, since the two candidates would be responding to totally different circumstances, opponents, and questions. Just think back to how much of Obama’s rhetoric relied on linking the financial crisis to “the reigning economic ideology” of “trickle down” economics by conservatives, as he portrayed it. The thing is, without Reagan around, Obama would be going up against a relatively unheard of concept as Carter did making it harder to fight.
On the other hand, Reagan had his best lines in the debate when comparing Carter’s policies to those he (RR) had prescribed or those he implemented in CA. Going against another unknown would negate that strength somewhat.
Another interesting factor is that neither debated someone so far across the political spectrum as they would be in this scenario. Despite the hype, Carter was far more “moderate” than Obama, making him seem wish-washy and the same could be said of McCain and Romney. So, this debate would be testing each in a way they had never been tested in the past.
In the end, I’d give a slight style edge to Reagan because even in our fictional scenario he would have run for the Presidency two times prior and have debated more often, including against Anderson, who I believe was somewhat more serious and knowledgeable than any others contender. It is also worth noting Reagan’s humor and quick wit are an advantage.
Score 2 – Substance:
Reagan had held numerous jobs from manual labor to actor and president of his union before getting into politics – first as an advocate for candidates, then as a candidate and two-term governor of California, which he often noted was a state with an economy larger than most nations. He then spent a decade in pursuit of the presidency, studying the issues, doing in depth interviews and debates, writing articles, and delivering speeches and radio addresses to convey his thoughts to the people.
Obama was a law school “lecturer” for 12 years before being elected a state senator for Illinois. In three years, he would fail in a run for congress, then in 2002 he began campaigning for Senate. In 2005 he became Senator and served for one and a half years before running for the presidency.
On paper, the choice gives a slight edge to Reagan for serving longer and having executive experience. His devotion to studying the issues, evident in his writings and addresses gives him an even greater edge.
Point, Reagan.
Score 3 – Election Success:
Since both ran against the image of unpopular incumbents in the opposite party, both with an image of “the outsider,” RR and BO are well matched.
In 1976, Reagan gave his party’s sitting president a run for his money in a primary lost by under 8% by 1980 he managed an 8 point lead on Carter, despite Anderson acting as an independent (Former Republican) spoiler, taking six percent. He took 44 States and 489 Electoral votes including Democrat strongholds like California, NY, and Mass. In 1984 he lost only Minnesota.
In 2008, Obama knocked out his party’s expected front-runner – though only in delegates, not in popular votes. He won election by 7 points against McCain. He took 28 states and 365 electoral votes. In his reelection, he managed a 4% lead taking 26 states.
In my virtual contest, I compared their respective leads in each state upon their first run to determine which states would fall where. See the accompanying map for details. In total, I found Reagan would claim 34 states and 303 electoral votes, while Obama would hold 14 states and 155 electoral votes. This is without California and PA, as depending on the level of influence attributed to Anderson, these states could go either way. Even giving these states to Obama, his loss only improves to 232 electoral votes. In total, Reagan should win with somewhere between 56.30 and 70.63 percent.
Final decision: Winner, Reagan!