At what point in their reelection campaigns did Carter and GHWB fall

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

clearly behind in polling, never to tie or regain the lead? Just curious as to how this compares to shrub's position.

One difference is that those one termers didn't have anywhere near the money or media propaganda machinery dedicated to propping them up in power. RW echo machine had not come close to reaching full flower like today.

Any good links to the polling data from these past elections?

[leyton]

1. Methinks Carter fell behind after the debates,

when Reagan was finally seen as a viable alternative.

Somewhere there's a great graphic of polling data for all the recent Presidents, each superimposed over one another so that you can compare their standings at comparable points in their terms. I don't have the link, but hopefully some DUer will come along with it...

[jbane]

2. After the failed hostage...

After the failed hostage rescue attempt, the roof just collapsed on Carter. The debates may have been the event the tipped it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Welcome to DU.

[DemPopulist]

4. For Carter, after the debate; for Bush, after the Democratic convention

For polls, try http://brain.gallup.com/

[Warren DeMontague]

5. What I remember..

In 1992, I was one of the first people to have a Bill Clinton sticker on their car. I remember, fairly early on in the year, people being, like "you've got to be kidding- that guy can't win".. On the other hand, I also remember being very optimistic by the time the election rolled around.

With Carter, I was too young to vote, but I do remember I never liked Reagan, even in the late 70s. Always thought he was an ass. And I couldn't stand Jerry Falwell from the moment he showed up on my TV.

[doni_georgia]

6. Bush and Carter both had pretty sizable leads in April and May

of their respective election years.

[BushHater2004]

7. Carter around the debates, Bush around the 1992 Convention

It also should be added that Reagan and Clinton were both losing at some points in 1984 and 1996.

This race will be a dead heat.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Why do you feel it will necessarily be a dead heat?

[Tsiyu]

10. Cuz some folks is dumb

With Reagan, many people saw a "King." The story of humankind is this way: We want a shepherd who will tell us what to do and powder our itty bitty butts and beat up the "bullies." Reagan represented this paternal leader type. Carter represented weakness ( unable to get hostages out) and the more cerebral expression of the democratic process. This was precisely the time that education took a back seat to personality.

Bush is in the same boat as Carter. People are ashamed and sickened by him. But he still has a solid base of "Paulian's(sorry, Christians is what they call themselves)" who would cut off their left nuts ( and probably already have) to get their Divinely Chosen Dude to stay in the White House and protect them from the bad, bad gay people and pagans and Liberals....Carter never played the ELect God card.

[alfredo]

11. I think the veep pick will decide if you are right.

He's got some good talent to choose from, but most expect and are counting on him picking Edwards. I think Edwards would be a good choice.

If his choice is right, then it could be a landslide.

Molly Ivins said that bush is not good at fighting a defensive fight. The numerous scandal has had him fighting a defensive fight against numerous enemies. Kerry has had an easy time in that he can spend more time speaking about his agenda, and less attacking bush's record and character. So if the scandals ease up, Kerry then can unload on bush.

Remember, bush did a huge negative attack on Kerry and it had little if any effect.
Look for this race to see saw anyway. But Kerry will win.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Carter - Iran Rescue/Poppy - GOOP Convention

Definitely that failed rescue and the resulting second guessing (really the first time I saw the media conjecture like they do now) that made Carter look weak. They also made a big deal of his "Rose Garden" strategy where he cut back on campaigning...unlike Bunnypants who is forever fundraising.

Poppy was a more complex mess. There was the Post Gulf Oil War hangover...being so high in the polls, a shitty economy that, just like now, wasn't turning around and there was no sign it was...and then Perot. By this time in '92, Perot was the "front runner" (right before the BFEE Black Helicopters spooked this wierd dude).

When Perot bailed out (right before the GOOP Convention), he got back in right after, and Poppy brought in Baker to "finesse" things, I thought Clinton was gonna be in trouble, but then came the Convention...and two things out of it. First, the vile and nasty tone of the proceedings...highlighted by Pitchfork Pat. Then by the opening of rifts inside the GOOP itself...that pissed off both sides so that neither side really worked for Poppy.

One common thread with '80, '92 & '00...the party that really wanted to win did. Clinton united Democrats like none had since LBJ, and now Kerry enjoys even greater unity than Clinton...and I expect these bonds to stay strong as we see the prize and it can be won! Bye bye Bunnypants!

Cheers!