Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 26, 2020, 03:41:57 pm
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  2008 vs 1988
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2008 vs 1988  (Read 5771 times)
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 07, 2008, 11:21:00 pm »

What similarities if any are there? I keep hearing '88 being thrown around as a close match to this year. Two things I can thing of that would make it close : coming out of a previous controversial eight years and having a relatively unknown GOP VP pick who got attacked out of the gate.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2008, 11:37:04 pm »
« Edited: September 07, 2008, 11:39:53 pm by Seven Jokers, Seven Trumpets »

The big difference is that the incumbent party isn't reliable. That could be the sole difference. This could be more like 1928 than 1988, however. The incumbent party may simply get a free pass because the opposition is simply asking too much due to their candidate's identity. We also may be at the end of the line on this part of Spaceship America in the sense that  reality may soon mug us of our denial and place us on a new path. I am thinking it could be a simple as collective reawakening. Perhaps Iran, the Global Economic Cooldown or a major natural disaster may threaten our way of life.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2008, 11:55:52 pm »

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).
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2008, 01:56:25 am »

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!


Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2008, 02:19:34 am »

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.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2008, 03:22:19 am »

I think the 1928 comparison is good. That should have been a Democratic year, 1926 had been a good Democratic midterm, but the decision to nominate AL Smith, a Catholic, made the election about him instead of being about eight years of corrupt Republican rule. The Republicans recruited a well-respected figure from outside the power structure to run(Hoover) who was able to separate himself from the Coolidge Administration, and offer change without risk.

The irony is that had Smith won, he would have refused any New Deal since he was a strong Free Marketer, and the entire New Deal Democratic Coalition never would have been. Instead Hoover, who deserved better, got stuck holding the bag and the Republicans were screwed for a generation.

I think there are similarities here. We have an opposition party that had all the dynamics in its favor, but chose to nominate a chancy candidate(Obama) who made the race about him. We have a Republican who at least pretends to be a respected outsider(McCain) who may win one more term to the Republicans. Evidence from American history though suggests its a term the GOP probably does not really want. No third term in American history has ever been successful for a party in power, and at best it ends with a temporary rout, at worst with a realignment. Given the changes going on in the world economy and balance of power, I would venture that the next 4 years are not going to be much fun. While I would prefer a Democrat in office because the party is not in denial of the existence of these changes like much of the GOP, I have seen no indication that either McCain or Obama is in has the vision or ability to deal with them.

I think the Democrats are better off losing this year.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2008, 05:36:58 am »
« Edited: September 08, 2008, 06:34:50 am by Fritz »

No third term in American history has ever been successful for a party in power, and at best it ends with a temporary rout, at worst with a realignment.

Um, 6 terms in a row for Jefferson-Madison-Monroe?
5 terms for Roosevelt-Truman?

Edit: I could add 4 terms for McKinley-Roosevelt-Taft...
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2008, 09:25:53 am »

No third term in American history has ever been successful for a party in power, and at best it ends with a temporary rout, at worst with a realignment.

Um, 6 terms in a row for Jefferson-Madison-Monroe?
5 terms for Roosevelt-Truman?

Edit: I could add 4 terms for McKinley-Roosevelt-Taft...

...and those were real game changers. The two-party system really wasn't around until after the 6 terms of Jefferson and Roosevelt-Truman was during a period where our country's survival was really at stake....  The McK dynasty is pretty interesting, though. This could be another McK, but I think this will probably be another 1928...or at least a 1908. Then again, 1992 was kinda a 1912, wasn't it?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2008, 11:15:17 am »

[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.  Wink

And I'm LMAO.
Logged
NDN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,495
Uganda


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2008, 11:18:18 am »
« Edited: September 08, 2008, 11:21:51 am by Pastor Richards' Statue »

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.
Logged
perdedor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,643


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2008, 11:21:47 am »

Not much. Reagan was far more popular than Bush.

I think this about sums it up. To suggest that this year is similar to 1988 would be to suggest that Bush is anywhere close to as popular as Reagan was between the years of 81-89, which would be a a delusional suggestion.
Logged
NDN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,495
Uganda


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2008, 11:22:45 am »

Not much. Reagan was far more popular than Bush.

I think this about sums it up. To suggest that this year is similar to 1988 would be to suggest that Bush is anywhere close to as popular as Reagan was between the years of 81-89, which would be a a delusional suggestion.
Yeah, it is a pretty bizarre comparison.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2008, 12:10:19 pm »

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.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2008, 01:08:18 pm »

So far, I'm going with 1928. If America needs a crisis, like none other before, to get back on track, I'm all for it... it will hurt us all. Trust me on this. In fact, it will make things especially hard on me.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2008, 01:46:47 pm »

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.

I would not use either the words accomplished or widely respected to describe Ford in 1976. Quite the opposite actually.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2008, 05:15:01 pm »

No third term in American history has ever been successful for a party in power, and at best it ends with a temporary rout, at worst with a realignment.

Hardly:

Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (1801-1825).
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2008, 05:29:38 pm »

Madison's first term was not that successful and in fact he nearly lost the popular vote in 1812, and a had as a close a fight as he could given the state of the federalists. By 1816 there really was only one party and its a hard comparison to make. Unless you are suggesting that the Democrats will completely collapse and be merged into the GOP.
Logged
Punditty
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2008, 04:59:04 am »

I remember 1988 quite well.

I was living in Southern Illinois at the time, attending the university. Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, a local and the late Hunter S. Thompson's longshot pick for the Democratic nomination that year, lived about 12 miles from where I did. He was a local favorite and I had planned on voting for him in the Illinois primary.

However, Jesse Jackson visited the campus a few days before the primary. I saw Jesse and actually shook his hand as he exited the student center. Up to that point, he was the most famous politician I had ever met. I had seen Simon in passing, sans handshake, but until he ran for the presidency Simon had nowhere near the public profile that Jackson had. I got into the voting booth and thought, what the hell, I may as well vote for the man who shook my hand. So I did.

As far as the campaign dynamics, it's a whole new ballgame now. The Internet didn't even exist (for public consumption at least), cable TV systems had something like 40 or 50 channels, and Pat Buchanan had yet to give his culture war speech at the 1992 Republican Convention. Divisiveness of the highes order, that (though I voted for Pat in 1996 as an anti-NAFTA protest vote). News cycles that don't end but overlap into each other like some snake eating the very skin it is shedding were not part of the scene in 1988. This was before America had been introduced to reality TV, and the cult of celebrity, while huge even then, was nowhere near where it is today.

But in terms of the political landscape, I would have to say 1968 is the closest analogy I can think of. LBJ's popularity was barely above what Bush's is now, and the country was trying to wind down an unpopular war. Other factors were in play domestically, but the war was the dominant issue. So with Bush as the LBJ figure, McCain as the Nixon figure (forget the cross-party stuff) and Obama as the Humphrey figure (and that is very hard to imagine if you remember HHH), then you might have some sort of strange basis for comparison. But Obama is more like the nominee that RFK might have been had he lived and won. So it's kind of like asking if the 1927 Yankees played the 1976 Cincinnati Reds, who would win? Interesting, but not really applicable in a direct way.

Punditty
http://www.allvoices.com/users/Punditty
 
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2008, 02:46:15 pm »

So, we are in uncharted territory?
Logged
JSojourner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,525
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2008, 03:58:38 pm »
« Edited: September 09, 2008, 04:00:19 pm by JSojourner »

What similarities if any are there? I keep hearing '88 being thrown around as a close match to this year. Two things I can thing of that would make it close : coming out of a previous controversial eight years and having a relatively unknown GOP VP pick who got attacked out of the gate.

Similarity --  Experienced, war hero leading the GOP ticket chooses a far right extremist beloved by the Talibagelicals as a running mate.

Difference -- The running mate for the GOP this time around is not an incompetent boob.

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.

Similarity -- Both Republican Presidential nominees were once moderates but caved in to the demands and manipulations of the religious right. 

Difference --  When the first Bush was elected, he very subtly began to push back against the extremists in his party and set a center-right course, rather than hard right.  He took some flak but nothing like what John McCain will face.  The far right media machine is very well oiled now.

Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2008, 05:10:42 pm »

What similarities if any are there? I keep hearing '88 being thrown around as a close match to this year. Two things I can thing of that would make it close : coming out of a previous controversial eight years and having a relatively unknown GOP VP pick who got attacked out of the gate.

Similarity --  Experienced, war hero leading the GOP ticket chooses a far right extremist beloved by the Talibagelicals as a running mate.

Difference -- The running mate for the GOP this time around is not an incompetent boob.

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.

Similarity -- Both Republican Presidential nominees were once moderates but caved in to the demands and manipulations of the religious right. 

Difference --  When the first Bush was elected, he very subtly began to push back against the extremists in his party and set a center-right course, rather than hard right.  He took some flak but nothing like what John McCain will face.  The far right media machine is very well oiled now.



I think you underestimate the appeal of Joseph Stalin as a Presidential candidate. No one doubted his qualifications to be commander in chief. I think the Man of Steel would do quite well in Appalachia, especially when he released his plan to send all the coastal elitists to gulags in Alaska.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2008, 05:19:21 pm »



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.



Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2008, 06:16:20 pm »



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.




Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2008, 06:41:08 pm »



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?
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,225
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2008, 08:52:34 pm »



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?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC