Posted on 07/03/2016 6:07:06 AM PDT by Jim Noble
In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll...
Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points...
This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed...
Another poll, conducted in Texas, also showed Mr. Dukakis gaining ground from the convention...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
GO TRUMP!!!
Pols are compromised! much like the media
As we all know, Bush regained the lead after his convention and never lost it.
That year, the GOP convention came after the Democratic convention.
Dukakis’ bounce was ephemeral and short-lived.
Bush’s bounce proved long-lasting and significant.
We’ve yet to see how the conventions play out this year.
Thanks for the historical reminder.
People need to make sure to stay positive and get out and vote for Trump, not allow Dems to discourage us from voting.
I bet $10 this guy Dukakis is going down.
We also know there are lots of Willie Hortons out there. To many.
Well, Hillary bounced when it became apparent she would be the nominee, but she’s losing ground again.
I expect that after the conventions, each candidate will get a bump. But afterwards, when it’s just the two candidates head-to-head, the effect of the bounce will wear off and the voters will begin to actually decide.
I read yesterday where Trump is going to have real people, not career politicians, speaking at the convention. It should be way more interesting than past conventions. And, who knows, with real people speaking, the Republican convention might have higher ratings, which will result in a higher bounce for Trump than Hillary will get from the DNC convention, even though it occurs later.
Excellent post. Thank you.
There is now only one choice for “all” Americans...and that is, voting for DONALD J. Trump. Doing other then that, means Americans have voted to slit their own throats, their children’s throats, their grandkids throats. Oops, I, meant “beheading” “Obama/Clinton” “Muslim Brotherhood/ISIS” style!!! San Bernadino, Orlando, Paris, Brussels, Bagdad, Ankara, Bangladesh, Iraq, London, Madrid, etc., Obama loves his Muzzie Terrorists!!! Wake up, Americans!!! Obama & Clinton just love Criminals & Terrorists!!! GO DONALD J. TRUMP!!!
And if anyone believed that, they also believed polls are always right, conservatives are never under represented and the news media is unbiased.
I think Trump's convention is going to be unconventional and inspiring for America. Rather than have a politician and after politician get up and speak, we are going to hear real people of real accomplishment from many walks of life give testimony.
And that example will lift people up and make a different on election day.
I don’t see how Bush ever had a chance...
...(the late) Lee Atwater figured out that he could win if he sounded like a conservative. I remember quite a bit from back then:
1) No new taxes (likely would have been re-elected if he stuck to it, but once Atwater died Bush had no one around him that could make him look like a conservative).
2) Burning of the American Flag. Dukakis thought it was fine, but didn’t, and then Bush went to an American Flag factory to rub it in (probably Atwater’s idea).
3) Dukakis being so against the death penalty that he didn’t even think the (hypothetical) rapist of his wife would deserve it. That was a debate question, back when the media came closer to doing its job.
Bush connected enough in 1988 by shedding the wimp factor (as they referred to him back then) and looking like a real conservative, although he clearly was not.
George Bush Jr. did the same and won two elections.
Jeb Bush didn’t think it was a winning strategy.
I like two women Lt. Governors
Jenean Hampton and Evelyn Sanguinetti. Real women with powerful resumes and stories.
Lee Atwater was one of history's few really indispensable men. He was as essential to GHWB as Stonewall Jackson was to Robert E. Lee. After each man was lost the other never really had it again, and with major historical consequences.
Great post!
There are plenty of qualified women and minorities that Trump can choose from. It would be nice to see one of them on the ticket.
Unlike Democrats who choose minorities or women because of race or gender and despite the fact that they have no qualifications, Trump will choose a qualified person.
Although I like Newt, I do not think he would be a good choice. I remember how the media went crazy trying to bash Newt every chance they got, because his “Contract With America” was wildly successful, and they can’t stand success.
According to what theory of human relations would it be "nice"?
Now joy to us, boys! for our victory’s won,
We have cleaned out the nests of the traitorous hoards,
Our work has been done, has been thoroughly done,
We have hewed our way down to the Gulf with our swords.
Oh! The men of the West for such fighting are best,
No better there ever could be,
They delivered a land that was foully oppressed,
As they hewed their way down to the sea.
—from “The Men of the West,” Edward Willet, 1865
One of the clubs that Democrats reliably use to bash Republicans is the “racism/sexism” club. If the ticket consists of a couple of old white guys, the Democrats will be carpet-bombing the media with commercials about Republican bigotry and the “old boys club.”
Even with, for example, a minority woman on the ticket, the Democrats will still do their best to bash—but some of their teeth will have been pulled. Oh, they will try to discredit that person (by claiming that she is not a “real” woman, blah-blah-blah), but all except the true believers can see through that.
What I am saying is that from the strategic point of view, it would be a great move.
From the idealist point of view, I fully understand that selecting someone (even a fully qualified person) just to put forth an image of diversity is not a great situation. Sadly, though, the ideal of selecting people according to their character and not the color of their skin is not reality yet, and will not be as long as Democrats continue to get mileage out of bigotry. Which means, for the foreseeable future.
I remember when President Dukakis reminisced about those days...oh, wait a minute....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.