Posted on 06/10/2008 9:54:25 AM PDT by Signalman
Since projecting Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. based on today's numbers is all the rage, it might be helpful to reflect on the fact that presidential polls predict nothing in late July, much less in May.
Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll
Published: July 26, 1988
LEAD: In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.
In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.
This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.
Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Read the rest here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=940DEFD7113EF935A15754C0A96E94826 0
The basic point is that anyone referencing presidential polling in May as an argument towards "electability" is either being dishonest or hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about. The only value of these polls is to help candidates choose where to spend their time in their general election campaign. That's it.
Exactly.
I bet money that McCain will win.
i remember this... and right after the RNC that summer, Dukakis was on a decline... down, down, down...
Nope- you’re grasping at straws... it’s utterly naive to even think this applies... Different times, different situation... Biggest change-— we don’t have Reagan as the GOP leader... Instead, we have Bush/Cheney... by the way, where the HELL is Cheney? He’s been MIA for most of the past 8 years... he’s been an unmitigated DISASTER
Nope- you’re grasping at straws... it’s utterly naive to even think this applies... Different times, different situation... Biggest change-— we don’t have Reagan as the GOP leader... Instead, we have Bush/Cheney... by the way, where the HELL is Cheney? He’s been MIA for most of the past 8 years... he’s been an unmitigated DISASTER
I'm not worried, either. I'm terrified!
The news media didn’t have as many weapons back then to pump up their messiah: gas prices, Iraq, housing “bubble”, etc.
What was the big issue of 1988 - deficit spending? Iran-Contra? Belinda Carlisle leaving the Go-Gos?
IMO, those issues didn’t resonate with the voters, today’s do.
I didn’t know this though: (from wiki)
Dukakis’ campaign suffered a setback when staff member Donna Brazile resigned after she spread rumors that Bush was having an extramarital affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, who had been his secretary throughout the 1970s (the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign).[28][29]
We need to get Obama a ride in a tank.
That’s what I’ve tried to bring up elsewhere, the press never admits it will be a blowout for their guy. And I have particularly cited Michael Dukakis.
BTW, has his sister ever been noted for any acting work since his candidacy has started to gather dust? She got an Oscar the year he was nominated.
Thanks for the oldie and reminder...
It brings to mind what I thought may have been the turning point in that election — VP Bush’s performance at the GOP nominating convention. That was the first time that the US learned of GHWB’s outstanding record as a WW-2 vet. This point was best made, in my opinion, by a cartoon that gained wide circulation following the convention (don’t remember the cartoonist). It showed a very small and weak looking Dukakis pointing to a huge and imposing George Patton-like vet with Bush’s face and Dukakis saying “Get a load of the wimp!”
I wish I could find it to share with fellow Freepers — I think another “get a load of the wimp” moment will be coming up during this campaign.
Where is NYC Republican? He’d say we are all whistling past the graveyard.
It is a totally different time and demographics have changed. Obama will energize his base in ways that Dukakis never imagined possible. And, I look for extensive voter fraud, particularly in some precincts with an overwhelming Obama base. McCain will be quite lucky to win this one.
I believe we conservatives will learn someday that for the things that matter to us, Dick Cheney was the man.
The rest of your comments about different times is one which I wish I'd had written but no doubt could not have done so with such clarity. The whole of the Republican establishment is sleepwalking toward disaster.
"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."
McCain will lose because he is running a piss poor campaign to say the very least. McCain is about as exciting as watching the grass grow. McCain will only win if Obama screws up or maybe a reveling October surprise. Other than that forget it.
The Republican party gave conservatives the middle fingers. Unlike in 1988. So you are comparing apples with oranges.
Thanks... I don’t doubt that Cheney’s been invaluable behind the scenes... but, one of the VP’s most important roles, especially in an age where image trumps nearly all else, is to VISIBLY and VOCALLY support Bush’s policies... Think back to Gore... For all of his faults, he was an AMAZING attack dog, in support of all things Clinton... If Cheney had displayed that type of support, Bush, and by extension the GOP/Conservatives, wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Posts 5, 6, etc etc
Bush and his people ran hard on crime and foreign policy. They fought hard. Bush ran as a conservative, not a moderate, with his “Read my lips” pledge decrying new taxes. The people had Reagan's “shining city on a hill” behind them.
Dukakis pulled nine states back into the Democratic column. There is no such analogy between today's campaign and 1988, a time when the Gipper had undone the Democratic mess of Carter and his vice president ran suggesting the continuation of successful policies.
They asked Barry Goldwater that year, “Are there any more Republican landslides coming?” His response: “I think we have one more.”
One difference between then and now is that Bush had Lee Atwater and a strong rapid response team while Dukakis had ...well, no answer. This year, Obama is not surrounded by amateurs and McCain doesn’t have an Atwater to help him.
I consider myself fairly astute when it comes to politics... yet, I have to ask... what’s going on in Iraq right now? When do we know what benchmarks need to be achieved before we’re done with the mission... Why isn’t Bush on TV EVERY single night, talking about the progress we made that day... Really, every single night... We’re spending billions of dollars there... HE should communicate, and rally the masses... What a joke...
And yes it is a genuine photo op.
In “Not MY Grand”Ma Richards’ Texas, they named a stretch of Houston freeway after Senator Lloyd Bentsen during that campaign fiasco too.
These once in a lifetime recognitions just all happened to come in an election year when Dukakis-Bentsen needed a push.
Are we allowed to call Obama a wimp? Or a wuss?
Or is that racist?
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.