2008 vs 1988

[NDN]

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.

Well, accomplished and respected prior to becoming President. After he pardoned Nixon he was of course a pariah, and Congress blocked a lot of his proposals. In any case it seems like the 'best' parallel I can think of. This election really is pretty unique.

[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."

[ag]

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

[Person Man]

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

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

She wants to criminalize abortion, J.J.  No matter how much Ron Paul defines himself as Libertarian, that particular view is NOT Libertarian.  Ditto, Palin.

The conversation I wish the media would have with Palin is about what punishment she would prescribe for having or performing an abortion.  Perhaps that is where her Libertarianism comes into play?  Leave it up to the states?  So if Oklahoma wants to execute them...and if Vermont wants to fine them a penny...it's all good?

What are her views on drug legalization?  Warning labels on movies and music?  Taxes on oil companies? 

I'm not seeing a Libertarian here.  Just a traditional, far right conservative Republican.

[Person Man]

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.

When you try to answer that question, more questions come and take their place.

[pragmatic liberal]

I don't think it's like 1988 at all.

If it's an Obama landslide (or comfortable win), it's similar to 1980.

If it stays close but Obama wins narrowly, it's 1960.

If Obama loses by a substantial margin, then it may sort of resemble 1928 (although Republicans were nowhere near as unpopular in 1928 as they are this cycle -- Coolidge would probably have won reelection in '28.)