Posted on 10/20/2004 5:24:16 PM PDT by blteague
Would one of you wonderful Freepers compare the 1988 race to the current race in terms of the status of the race with two weeks to go? In 1988, GHWB won going away, but I wonder what the polls looked like with 2 weeks remaining. Obviously, he was not the incumbent, but the situation seemed to be similar, however I was too young to vote in that election.
I never gave a thought to not voting either. I have had people tell me here in OK that they will NEVER not vote again after what happened in FL. Several said they knew OK was going for Pres Bush and that J.C. would be elected so they didn't bother to vote. Those same people are voting this time and I have a hunch that will be the case across the Country after that Florida fiasco.
You are right about 2002 -- media said we could lose the House and not regain the Senate -- wrong on both counts along with the pollsters and Jeb clobbered McBride in FL in what pollsters told us was a tightening race.
The dynamics of this race is more like 1996, in which you had more dislike for the incumbant than a like of the challenger. Dole ran a poor campaign, so did Kerry.
However, since Bush has no chance,as of now in winning CA, NY, or Il, Bush will get 344 EV with 53% of the vote.
Clinton got a bunch of EV, however, had Dole gotten 500,000 more votes (total) in 12 states, Dole would have won.
53-39 two weeks out. Final was 54-45. one of the few examples where the challenger closed strongly.
I agree with you! I think your numbers are correct! TX where I lived went for Dole! Clinton almost came in 3rd!
First of all, before focusing on '88, focus on '80 and '84.
There was a universal consensus in 1980 that Carter had screwed the pooch, fouling up everything he touched from foreign policy to domestic issues, to the economy, THAT is why Senator Chappaquiddick of the U.S.S. Oldsmobile challenged Carter for the 'Rat nomination that year and damn near pulled it off. Once America got a good look at Ronald Reagan and his 'there you go again' line in that presidential debate, the die was cast and 44 states later, the Buffoon from Plains was sent packing and rightly so.
In '84, the 'Rat Party was laboring under some illusion that former VP Walter Mondale (aka 'Mr Excitement') actually had a shot at beating Reagan. And an over-prepped Reagan in their first debate created a few doubts among the faint hearted. But it was not to last, and Reagan swept the continent with a 49 state landslide, and the only reason he did NOT take Minnesota was that he (Reagan) personally directed his campaign not to mount a major effort there because he didn't want to totally humiliate Mondale.
Now for '88. GHWB waited eight years for his shot, and there was a sense among both Republicans and America in general that he was as well prepared to be President as any American in the 20th Century. GHWB certainly had the resume' but the true Reaganauts never got over their suspicion that Bush was a throwback to the liberal Rockefeller Republicans (he was), and never fully trusted him. (Even after throwing Saddam out of Kuwait, GHWB's comment about a 'New World Order' became the fodder of conspiratorialists everywhere)
But Dukakis was probably the weakest candidate the 'Rats could put up that year ('88) and his absurd choice of Lloyd Bentsen of Texas to run with him was just a pale attempt to emulate John F. Kennedy's selection of LBJ to 'balance' the ticket in 1960. The only notable quote to come out of the whole campaign was Bentsen's cranky old turd of a sneer directed at Dan Quayle about 'you are no John Kennedy', what Bentsen couldn't stand was the thought that HE was no LBJ, and in fact didn't even rise to the stature of a Hubert Humphrey. Nevertheless, Dukakis gave it a good shot, but the American people wanted a 'third term' for Reagan, and electing GHWB was the best they could do.
Now in '92, GHWB was tripped up by his 'read my lips' pledge about not raising taxes, the successful attacks by 'Rats which depicted him as being out of touch with the common folks, plus the fact that Governor Billigula of Arkansas was indeed the slickest liar to come forth in 'Rat circles in many a year. And for '92, picking Al Gore was probably a smart move for Clinton, because Gore (at that time) had an image as a solid moderate, Clinton had that 'aw shucks' quality about him, and the fact is, the Bush/Quayle II campaign was one of the greatest debacles ever seen. There is no reason that GHWB should NOT have been re-elected if he had taken the gloves off and smacked Clinton around for what he was: an adulterous, draft-doding, pot-smoking liar that was up to his armpits in illegal activities back in Arkansas (think 'prison blood scandal', which resulted in the poisoning of thousands of innocent people due to Clinton-condoned corrupt prison blood services).
This election is not like '88, it is more like '84 and in the end, Republicans and Reagan Democrats are going to come home and throw the lever for Bush/Cheney, because when they consider the prospect of actually electing a self-confessed war criminal, a double talking nuancy-boy, a bought-and-paid-for cuckold owned and operated by his billionaire spouse, they will not only vote for George W. Bush, they will SLAM the lever, MASH the button, whatever device they're using, and 'just say no' to John F'in Kerry and his Silky Pony running mate.
This rant brought to you by Mad Mammoth, stomping 'Rats since 1972... :)
Welcome to FR.
This year is nothing like 1980. Reagan had big leads in the summer.
He took the lead for good right after the one debate.
I have serious doubt you are a Republican.
Bush will not lose this election. However, if he does, he will not run in 4 years.
tremendous rant! that's the perspective I'm talking about!!! I'm 34 so I view this through the lense of 1988 on.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis!
'How about 92? Are there any comparisons?'
Actually, I think not. Unlike '92, when GHWB had to face a revolt from within his own party from Pat Buchanan, President Bush has a unified party behind him this year, just as he did in 2000, with the possible reluctance of one John McCain, who (like Buchanan) has come home once again.
Also unlike '92, GWB has not backed away from his low tax policies, and why would he? He saw first hand what happened in '92 to his Dad, and he is not ABOUT to risk repeating that kind of mistake. He understands what Reagan did, and no doubt embraces one of Reagan's great quotes: "if you want more of something, you subsidize it, if you want less of something, you tax it" (paraphrased).
It is true, and it cannot be denied that President Bush has presided over massive spending increases, but to that I say 'so what?' - America is at war, the budget is not as important as winning that war, and IF we must have increased spending in any area (domestic or otherwise), I would rather have President Bush making those decisions than ANY 'Rat you can name, with the exception of Zell Miller.
NOTHING LIKE 1980 ... Reagan won the debates and once the people were comfortable with him, they fired Carter on the spot.
This year, Kerry's very weakness is how much he critiques the President. Bush made the *right* decision on Iraq no matter how hard Kerry tries to paint it as wrong.
This is like 1996 in some ways... Or my preference, this is like 1864. See:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
I second the comment ... awesome rant.
Bush by 8 points is my hope and my prayer!
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.