The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

[Kalihiboy]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

The Democrats let Walter Mondale run on 3 straight tickets, the last two landslide defeats to Ronald Reagan.

George McGovern, Al Gore and John Edwards all lost their home states too.

Sidenote: both George McGovern and Sergeant Shriver, the 1972 Democratic ticket are both alive in their 80's now. Shriver replaced Thomas Eagleton late in the game, he died not too long ago.

What could be taken from Michael Dukakis defeat in 1988 was the fact he won some states, enough to put in a dent in the massive GOP wall that could not be penetrated in 1980 and 1984, that helped lead to Clinton's breakthrough in 1992.

Aj

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

The Democrats let Walter Mondale run on 3 straight tickets, the last two landslide defeats to Ronald Reagan.

Okay. Mondale is one exception over the last 50 years. But my original message is still valid, which is that Democrats seldom give second chances to their failed presidential/VP candidates, in contrast to the GOP. (Nixon losing in 1960, but getting the nod again in '68. Dole losing as Ford's running mate in '76, but getting the Presidential nomination in '96. Reagan narrowly losing the Presidential nomination in '76, but rebounding to win it all in '80.)

What could be taken from Michael Dukakis defeat in 1988 was the fact he won some states, enough to put in a dent in the massive GOP wall that could not be penetrated in 1980 and 1984, that helped lead to Clinton's breakthrough in 1992.

It's true that Dukakis didn't suffer the same kind of embarrassing landslide that befell McGovern ('72), Carter ('80), and Mondale ('84). But even though his 1988 presidential bid had a more respectable result than any of the above, Dukakis still came out of it labelled as a loser by the media and he never had a serious shot at the Presidency after that. The same could pretty much be said for his running mate, Lloyd Bentsen. Not only did the former Texas Senator lose his own home state, but he couldn't deliver a single southern state over to the Democratic ticket that year.

It's also debateable in my mind if Dukakis' '88 campaign paved the way for Clinton 4 years later. Let's face it. The single biggest reason why the elder Bush lost to Clinton in 1992 was because the economy was in a recession, and both Clinton and Perot kept hammering the incumbent President on that issue. But had the econony been robust that year, the election results likely would have been a different story.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

But my original message is still valid, which is that Democrats seldom give second chances to their failed presidential/VP candidates, in contrast to the GOP. (Nixon losing in 1960, but getting the nod again in '68. Dole losing as Ford's running mate in '76, but getting the Presidential nomination in '96. Reagan narrowly losing the Presidential nomination in '76, but rebounding to win it all in '80.)

So... to contrast the two, the GOP has done it thrice, the Dems once. Not really a huge difference.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

So... to contrast the two, the GOP has done it thrice, the Dems once. Not really a huge difference.

In terms of numbers, I guess not. But make the effort to look at the bigger picture.

When you consider that 2 of those GOP retreads actually became President, the significance of this not-so-huge difference (as you put it) between the 2 parties becomes readily apparent, does it not?

Let me put it another way: Would you even begin to compare the impact (both good and bad) that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan have had on American history vs. the legacy of Walter Mondale?

Not really a huge difference? Riiiiight.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Let me put it another way: Would you even begin to compare the impact (both good and bad) that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan have had on American history vs. the legacy of Walter Mondale?

Since Mondale never had a term as President, that's an unequal comparison.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Since Mondale never had a term as President, that's an unequal comparison.

Exactly. There is no comparison.

[Kalihiboy]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Edwards endorsed Obama today. I have all of the convention, elections and inaugurations dating back to Truman on tape, an interesting portal back in time.
Can you imagine sitting thru 10 straight hours of 1972 election coverage even though you know who won already? Political junkies might understand it I suppose.

Aj

[oceanpacific]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I'd say that Ross Perot caused the senior Bush's 1992 defeat rather than the 1988 "inroads" by Dukakis. That was responsible for Clinton slithering in with only 42% of the popular vote.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I have all of the convention, elections and inaugurations dating back to Truman on tape, an interesting portal back in time. --- Political junkies might understand it I suppose.

Fascinating collection, AJ. The only past political material I still have on videotape is The Comedy Network's (predecessor to Comedy Central) coverage of the 1992 Vice Presidential debate - the one with Admiral Stockdale's famous "who am I - why am I here?" opening.

[Kalihiboy]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I'd say that Ross Perot caused the senior Bush's 1992 defeat rather than the 1988 "inroads" by Dukakis. That was responsible for Clinton slithering in with only 42% of the popular vote.

If you took out Ross Perot's votes, Bill Clinton still defeats Senior Bush. I'd say George Wallace's votes in 1968 contributed greater to Hubert Humphrey's defeat because Wallace if I rememebr right even won some electoral votes. Perot was not able to do this in 1992 and further fell off the pack in his ill advised and late run at the 1996 election.

Remember Reagan's second term had the Iran Contra Scandal as well as a huge Stock Market crash one year before the 1988 election. I think given the fact Reagan destroyed Carter and Mondale who with two combined elections of electoral votes couldnt even catch the number of electoral votes that Dukakis was able to accomplish. I just felt that things would change in 1992 and they did, end of a 12 year run by the GOP in the White House.

We have had either a Reagan, Bush, Dole or Clinton on every ticket since 1976. One possible reason why Hillary is not doing as well people might simply be tired of these 4 names after 32 years.

Aj

[Kalihiboy]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Fascinating collection, AJ. The only past political material I still have on videotape is The Comedy Network's (predecessor to Comedy Central) coverage of the 1992 Vice Presidential debate - the one with Admiral Stockdale's famous "who am I - why am I here?" opening.

Didnt Stockdale die recently? His debate with Gore and Quayle was one of the best. SNL tried to perform a mock VP skit of that one, but Stockdale alone just being himself provided enough laughs on that debate.

Aj

[oceanpacific]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

If you took out Ross Perot's votes, Bill Clinton still defeats Senior Bush. I'd say George Wallace's votes in 1968 contributed greater to Hubert Humphrey's defeat because Wallace if I rememebr right even won some electoral votes. Perot was not able to do this in 1992 and further fell off the pack in his ill advised and late run at the 1996 election.

Remember Reagan's second term had the Iran Contra Scandal as well as a huge Stock Market crash one year before the 1988 election. I think given the fact Reagan destroyed Carter and Mondale who with two combined elections of electoral votes couldnt even catch the number of electoral votes that Dukakis was able to accomplish. I just felt that things would change in 1992 and they did, end of a 12 year run by the GOP in the White House.

We have had either a Reagan, Bush, Dole or Clinton on every ticket since 1976. One possible reason why Hillary is not doing as well people might simply be tired of these 4 names after 32 years.

Aj

Clinton had a plurality of the POPULAR vote, but his majority of the ELECTORAL votes was impacted by Perot's presence. Perot didn't have to win electoral votes to contribute to Bush's defeat. He just had to drain off enough votes from the Republicans to enable Clinton to win the electoral count.

[Adri]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I keep hearing suggestions (from reporters mostly) that Clinton is hanging on in hopes of striking a deal with Obama for Obama to pay off her campaign debts. That sounds like crazy talk to me (and the CNN reporter I saw last night did say they checked with Obama's campaign and his campaign denied talking to Clinton about paying off her debts but then another pundit jumped in and said things like that *do* happen and Obama wouldn't want to anger his supporters by letting them find out their donations to him went to pay off Clinton). If Obama get the nomination, he'd need all his money to run against McCain and why would he pay off the debts of Clinton (especially as nasty as this race has gotten)? It would take incredible brass for Clinton to suggest such a thing, if she did suggest it.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I keep hearing suggestions (from reporters mostly) that Clinton is hanging on in hopes of striking a deal with Obama for Obama to pay off her campaign debts. That sounds like crazy talk to me (and the CNN reporter I saw last night did say they checked with Obama's campaign and his campaign denied talking to Clinton about paying off her debts but then another pundit jumped in and said things like that *do* happen and Obama wouldn't want to anger his supporters by letting them find out their donations to him went to pay off Clinton). If Obama get the nomination, he'd need all his money to run against McCain and why would he pay off the debts of Clinton (especially as nasty as this race has gotten)? It would take incredible brass for Clinton to suggest such a thing, if she did suggest it.

First of all, it would be illegal for Obama to cut a check to Clinton using his campaign funds. What is actually being rumored is talk about top Obama donors giving their money to Clinton to pay down her campaign debts, which would be legal. Now, you can put your hands to your ears and say, "Nah, nah, hah. That isn't happening." But there's so many reports from differents sources all saying this that it's becoming harder and harder to dismiss it out of hand.

And what is not up for speculation is this: it was officially announced last week that Obama and Clinton have joined together to raise money for their party. This is significant and it is one definite sign that Obama and Clinton fundraisers are already working together and talking to each other.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/05/dean_announces_1.php

[Kalihiboy]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Clinton had a plurality of the POPULAR vote, but his majority of the ELECTORAL votes was impacted by Perot's presence. Perot didn't have to win electoral votes to contribute to Bush's defeat. He just had to drain off enough votes from the Republicans to enable Clinton to win the electoral count.

This may be true but I don't think the history books credit Ross Perot,
and I do not recall on election night anyone talking much about Perot's impact on the election. His run as a 3rd party candidate was most certainly impressive, but by 1996 he was not a factor at all.

1992 was moreso a combination of the economy in a recession and Bush's 90% popularity during the Gulf War that was shrunk in half by election time, ironic that his son is suffering some of the same sins of the father.

But in hindsight I'd take Senior Bush over what we have now in the White House in a heartbeat.

Aj