2008 vs 1988

[J. J.]

Not much. Reagan was far more popular than Bush. Bush's percentage of the vote and Reagan's average approval rating were almost exactly the same, in fact.

And if Palin is the next Quayle, that's not exactly good news for the GOP (though VPs don't really matter of course).

I try to take an historical view of elections; I have been following them seriously since 1980, and semi-seriously since 1976.  I have b]never[/b] seen anything like the last two weeks.  I disagree with Nym, VP's do matter.

First, we saw the "safe" Biden pick, and Obama's poll numbers dropped slightly.  That has never happened.  Even if to provide a sense of security, the numbers go up, at least slightly.  That was first surprise. 

Second, was the outbreak of what can only be described as "Palamania."  Obama delivered a great speech in 2004, but he never took the country by storm the way Palin has.  In less than two weeks, she has become almost iconic.  The GOP has become the M Party, McCain, Mavericks, and Motherhood, overnight.

Other VP candidates have risen from relative obscurity.  Quayle (1988), Agnew (1968, and more meteoric), Miller (1964, who actually did and American Express, "Do you know me," commercial), even Truman (1944).  None have so electrified the county as Sarah Palin.

The closest potential analogies were 1988 and 1980, except this didn't happen after one grand shootout of a debate, but after the country looked at the two tickets side by side.  It may not hold, and it is too early to tell, but in terms of turnaround by a convention, but 1988 may be the correct analogy.

From even a more historical analogies, the 1944 choice of Truman might work, though he certainly didn't have the same political impact.

The period of time between August 22, 2008 and September 5, 2008 was absolutely historic in the political history of the United States.  It may have a name eventually.  The only thing I can say is:

WOW! 

What a fortnight!

[J. J.]

[sarcasm]

Sorry JJ, nothing is interesting about this year. Nothing will be remembered. We are in a rather mundane lull in US political history. We'll be remembered as much as the period between 1868 - 1912 is remembered. As a matter of fact it's almost 100 years to the point.

[/sarcasm]

Fixed. 

And I'm LMAO.

[J. J.]

It seems much more like 1976 than 1988. An accomplished and widely respected Republican candidate running against a 'moderate' outsider in a time of national malaise. Of course McCain isn't an incumbent and Obama in addition to being black is considerably less experienced than Carter was.

Not even close.  Ford was down by more than 20 points.  1992 was like 1976.

[J. J.]

Similarity --  The Democrats nominate a mainstream liberal with little experience to head the ticket.  And a running mate who is highly regarded by both parties (or was, as most Republicans conveniently forget their admiration of Democrats in election years).

Difference --  The 1988 D nominee was a white guy, despite the funny name.  He somehow managed to win West Virginia.  The 2008 nominee is an uppity elitist coon African American who couldn't win West Virginia if the other ticket was Stalin/Lenin.

Actually no.  An SNL commercial parody ended with the tag line "Vote for Bush, he''s whiter."

I would call Dukakis experienced and call Obama as representing the left of the Democratic Party.

I would also question if Palin is that conservative, as opposed to libertarian.

[J. J.]

Similarity --  The Democrats nominate a mainstream liberal with little experience to head the ticket.  And a running mate who is highly regarded by both parties (or was, as most Republicans conveniently forget their admiration of Democrats in election years).

Difference --  The 1988 D nominee was a white guy, despite the funny name.  He somehow managed to win West Virginia.  The 2008 nominee is an uppity elitist coon African American who couldn't win West Virginia if the other ticket was Stalin/Lenin.

Actually no.  An SNL commercial parody ended with the tag line "Vote for Bush, he''s whiter."

I would call Dukakis experienced and call Obama as representing the left of the Democratic Party.

I would also question if Palin is that conservative, as opposed to libertarian.

And your point is?

[J. J.]

Similarity --  The Democrats nominate a mainstream liberal with little experience to head the ticket.  And a running mate who is highly regarded by both parties (or was, as most Republicans conveniently forget their admiration of Democrats in election years).

Difference --  The 1988 D nominee was a white guy, despite the funny name.  He somehow managed to win West Virginia.  The 2008 nominee is an uppity elitist coon African American who couldn't win West Virginia if the other ticket was Stalin/Lenin.

Actually no.  An SNL commercial parody ended with the tag line "Vote for Bush, he''s whiter."

I would call Dukakis experienced and call Obama as representing the left of the Democratic Party.

I would also question if Palin is that conservative, as opposed to libertarian.

And your point is?

Libertarian?

Yes, even on some social issues, she tends to say, "that's up to the voters."

[J. J.]

Similarity --  The Democrats nominate a mainstream liberal with little experience to head the ticket.  And a running mate who is highly regarded by both parties (or was, as most Republicans conveniently forget their admiration of Democrats in election years).

Difference --  The 1988 D nominee was a white guy, despite the funny name.  He somehow managed to win West Virginia.  The 2008 nominee is an uppity elitist coon African American who couldn't win West Virginia if the other ticket was Stalin/Lenin.

Actually no.  An SNL commercial parody ended with the tag line "Vote for Bush, he''s whiter."

I would call Dukakis experienced and call Obama as representing the left of the Democratic Party.

I would also question if Palin is that conservative, as opposed to libertarian.

And your point is?

Libertarian?

Yes, even on some social issues, she tends to say, "that's up to the voters."

That's not my definition of libertarian

That is indicative of someone not willing to impose her personal views on the electorate.