Posted on 10/23/2011 8:29:08 PM PDT by Eagle Forgotten
In a stinging comparison that is sure to leave a mark, on Sunday’s This Week With Christiane Amanpour, George Will said the rise of Herman Cain had a lot to do with Republicans coming to the realization that Mitt Romney is their Michael Dukakis. “A technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology,” Will observed.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Thanks for the interesting background.
Wow! He’s right on! I’m almost sorry for all the times I talked about the enormous stick he wears where the sun don’t shine.
“Interesting point. Kerry and Carter are still revered by the commies, while Dukakis was flushed. Why?”
Hell if I know. I think Dukakis collapsed with such suddenness that he actually exceeded “do not exceed” embarassment velocity specifications for a party that is already well know for its lack of shame. I mean, looking back at Carter, as bad as he was, he actually won the election. Looking back at Kerry, he was a war hero. Looking back at Dukakis, the feeling was “what the hell were we thinking?”, and his name even became semi-synonymous with failure.
Good point. Dukakis was even too low for the rats. That’s pretty freaking low!
It was
Kennedy 303
Nixon 219
Byrd 15
Losing Illinois would have brought Kennedy down to 276, and Nixon to 246.
Would the unpledged electors from AL and MS under any circumstances have voted for Nixon? The faithless elector from OK would not have been faithless had Nixon been in the lead.
If so then Nixon needed only 8 more EV plus the unpledged. If not then Nixon needed another 22.
Other question: Would Nixon have endorsed Harry F. Byrd rather than let the election go to the House?
My understanding was always that the unpledged southern electors went for Byrd as a protest vote AFTER they found out they couldnt be a factor in the overall result.
But I honestly believe that Nixon looked at all of this, thought to himself “what a clusterfunk” and decided that it would have been too nasty and complicated to push forward.
I will never understand Kennedy’s strength in the south. Eisenhower did very well in the south in reguards to regional popular vote in 56. In the electoral vote, Ike carried Louisiana in 56. How did Nixon not win it ? I understand Lyndon Johnson was a factor, but honestly...I don’t think that was the only factor. Was it the “traditional” my daddy always voted Democrat situation ? The Democrats were already losing the south starting in 48.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.