2008 vs 1988

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

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?

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

So, we are in uncharted territory?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.