Historical parallels as such make very bad history owing to the fact that it takes events completely out of context. Any historian worth his salt wouldn't go along with that - history does not repeat itself ladies and gentlemen - context, it's all about context.
Ditto.
I agree its fun to look at historical patterns and wonder 'what if...?', but unfortunately patterns don't usually apply when trying to tell the future.
Looking back at the last election, you could have argued that Kerry would have won hands down, because of the following:
1. No president who originally lost the PV had ever won re-election.
2. Bush's approval ratings throughout 2004 were relatively very low for an incumbent. Going by history, this was a very bad sign for re-election prospects.
3. The challenger was a liberal Catholic senator from Massachusetts with the initials 'JFK'. Sound familiar?
There are other points too, but I forget them right now.
The majority of people don't
usually vote in elections based on what happened in the past, unless its actually relevant.
