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.
Not sure about exactly two weeks out but if I recall, Bush was actually ahead late in that race by about 15 and Dukakis actually closed pretty strong to make it somewhat respectable - 8 points... So it's not very similar to this one. Sorry
No, I don't think it's similar. Heck, Bush carried California.
It was not this close at all. Bush senior was riding the Reagan popularity wave and a little of his own after slapping around Dan Rather.
You cannot compare this campaign to any other -- 9-11 happened unless you forgot about that and what makes this election so unpredictable and why polls are meaningless. Only thing that counts is the votes on election day and every last Republican better be voting!
The Dimwits were ahead by 17 points after their convention. The tank photo fiasco, the GOP convention etc. erased the lead and Bush 41 pulled ahead.
This race is similar to Reagan-Carter, as Reagan was down about 5 points until the debates then things changed. Of course that's a scary thought because Reagan won big that time as the challanger and this time Kerry is the challanger and it would mean Bush may turn out like another Carter.
That was before I and hundreds of thousands of California conservatives voted with our feet.
Hey, Dat's right. You wants me and Guido should come over der and slap yuse around for not votin.....
I already put my W vote in on Monday in NC, but I don't think things are in doubt here. I have to believe that conservatives realize what's at stake and how it can't be close at the end of 11.2. I never gave voting a second thought until I watched Gore try to steal Florida. I wonder if the Republicans were surprised how agressively they tried to steal the election by targeting the four primary Democratic counties for recounts. I bet they have each county and precinct in the country identified for recounts, if necessary. I pray that America remembers 9.11 and wish every night the destruction of the WTC was shown on television.
Well, one thing that I remember that was similar is that the media was totally (pardon the pun) in the tank for Dukakis. They tried to insinuate that the race was much closer than it actually turned out to be.
I totally agree.
There is no predicting this race, because of 9/11.
In 2002, the results were unexpected, and no matter what the polls say I don't think the outcome can be predicted.
Another factor that affects today's polling: People are getting fed up with a campaign that has been going on for 18 months. I'm not convinced that people are being straight with Pollsters at this point. What you'll tell a complete stranger (who obviously knows your name and phone number) and what you'll do in the voting booth may not be the same. And, of course, the questions matter. I might respond that the "country is going in the wrong direction" and I might wish the President had not taken us to Iraq. That in no way makes me a Kerry voter. Nothing -- including Saddam torture -- would make me a Kerry voter.
Kerry is no Reagan newbie. Kerry wouldn't qualify to be a pimple on Reagan's ass.
wow...I can't imagine W subjecting himself to this again.
Yeah, one thing 1988 has in common with 2004 is that both election seasons have seen Dan Rather exposed as a biased, arrogant fool. Then again, that could describe pretty much any period of time in the past few decades.
Polls seem to be all over the map. The 4 polls 1984-1996 all had the victor with a 10-point plus lead in the polls, and the final results matched. It doesn't make sense to compare with those elections, since this is a close election more like 1976, 1980, or 2000.
Bush has a huge likeability factor going for him. In this regard, I think he is different than his father-who, while a good President, just didn't connect with people. Of course, Bush Senior had to follow Ronald Reagan.
Bush has a huge likeability factor going for him. In this regard, I think he is different than his father-who, while a good President, just didn't connect with people. Of course, Bush Senior had to follow Ronald Reagan.
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.