to anyone who remembers past presidential elections well.....

[drumwolf]

Okay, right now it seems as though Kerry and Bush are still neck-and-neck for the most part, with Kerry possibly having a slight edge.

So I have a question to all of you who have followed previous presidential elections closely. At this same point in past elections, how well were the candidates doing? I'd like to compare Kerry's progress in this election with the progress of the eventual winners of previous elections -- in particular, Reagan vs. Carter in 1980, and Bush I vs. Dukakis in 1988.

[KC21304]

1. I think Dukakis was about 17 points ahead at this time.

I was pretty smug about it.



I have to add that John Kerry is not going to let happen to him what Atwater, Rove, and Roger Ailes did to Dukakis.

[Lefty48197]

2. Dukakis was way ahead at this point, and he blew it.

His campaign was inept, in that it didn't respond to the vile, malicious, slanderous campaign of a certain Bush family member. Don't underestimate the Bush family's ability to fight like the trapped rats that they are.

[DaveinMD]

3. This election

is very similar to 1980. Carter was ahead by a slim margin in that election up until the final week. The debate convinced people they could trust Reagan and all the undecideds went for him, and he won a big victory.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. This election is unique

in that all but a few have made up there minds on who they are voting for.

Kerry is getting huge crowds for this early in the campaign.

[kodi]

7. right on target. & if kerry shows in debate what reagan did, bush is toast

all that a lot of undecided people want from kerry is a reason to vote for him. they dont really want to vote for bush because they think he is borderline incompetent, but dont want to be involved in regicide via the ballot box unless it appears so reasonable that they will get a much better leader by such actions.

[LTR]

14. Good point

It seems undecideds are willing to give Kerry a chance, but want to know more about him.

I have a family member who voted for Bush in 2000. He loathes him now, but isn't really sold on Kerry. He does like Edwards, though, and that might influence him.

[drumwolf]

5. Thanks to those of you who've replied so far

A lot of DU'ers here are acting as though Kerry has already been elected and sworn into office.

Your replies ought to serve as a reminder that, even as strong a candidate as Kerry is, he still has the potential to lose to Bush in November, and we have absolutely no leeway to let our guard down.

Might I add that in those previous elections, we didn't have Diebold and BBV?

[eaprez]

6. Reagan/Carter....

...were pretty close until the final two weeks prior to the election then Reagan took off and never looked back. Clinton/Gore knew in August that they had won the White House.

[DaveinMD]

8. the Clinton race

narrowed greatly into October. Then Bush looked at his watch in the debate.

[Chili]

9. another thing that makes this election unique

(1) We've never in history had an imcumbent president so inept that he turns so many of his own base against him (i.e. moderate Republicans).

(2) Never in my lifetime have I seen Democrats this revved up, galvanized, and determined to win an election (been paying attention to elections since the '68 primary)

(3) We've never seen the Democrats make such a concerted effort - especially at the grassroots level - to (a) register voters and (b) get out the vote.

(sorry, that was three things, LOL)

In combination, those elements make us very likely to win in November, but like some have said, Kerry must take NOTHING for granted, including the debates. Any pundits who can actually turn Bush's idiocy in a debate into a negative for Gore in 2000 can do it again to Kerry. They will give Bush pass after pass for stupidity, and criticize every little thing Kerry does. I hope he studied those tapes and took notes, I'm sure he will if he hasn't already. He'll be ready. *fingers crossed*

[featherman]

10. Most apt analogies are 1980 and 1992

In both cases an incumbent with sinking approval ratings was facing a challenger. In these two elections swing voters had mostly made up their minds about the incumbent and were kind of checking out the challenger to see if he was up to the job. More broke to the challenger than the incumbent once that was confirmed. This tipping point came fairly early for Clinton and quite late for Reagan. It is not yet reached for Kerry but may be in sight.
1988 and 2000 were more like "open seat" elections with new guys on each side. Unfortunately, "comfort level" seemed to be the determining factor in electing Poppa Bush over Dukakis and making 2000 close enough for W. to steal.

[quaoar]

11. In 1980

I was working as a campaign aide to a Democratic congressional candidate in Mississippi.

Southern Democratic candidates fled from Carter as if he had the plague. Reagan seemed a shoo-in. And then just before the election there was some momentum for Carter -- at least in Mississippi.

So I abandoned my plan to vote for John Anderson and voted for Carter.

I remember everyone watching in stunned silence that election night as senator after senator went down to defeat. It was the political equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

[jburton]

12. Kerry isn't taking anything for granted

After the Dem convention in 88, Dukakis LITERALLY went on a vacation.

Instead, Kerry is doing like Clinton did in 92 by rollin' right out of the convention on a tour of "middle America" and keeping the momentum going strong.

[quaoar]

13. The Willie Horton ad

And the picture of Dukakis in the tank also had big effects.

[LTR]

15. What killed both of them

Carter was saddled with a sagging economy and the Iranian hostage crisis. Plus, he was an outsider even to Democrats in Congress. He was pretty independent.

Ted Kennedy weakened him and split the party in the primaries, similar to Pat Buchanan in 1992.

Dukakis was a lousy politician. Just could not stand up to Atwater's dirty tricks. The tank thing was foolish, and froze when asked the 'wife rape' question. He stood no chance.

Plus, the 1980's were a dark period for the Democratic Party. They couldn't get much right in the big races. Add to that the Reagan Revolution still going full strength. Bush rode the coattails.

Clinton was a master politician, and saw through all the bullshit. He made few mistakes, and revolutionized campaigning.

Kerry seems to have studied Clinton well. And learned what not to do by studying 1988. Kerry is a much different personality than Clinton, but seems to be adapting those techniques to fit his personality.

[quaoar]

16. 1980 was indeed difficult

Carter's malaise speech was a major bummer. And Kennedy really wounded him badly, especially with his unforgettable convention speech.

By contrast, the party today is more united than I have ever seen. It is truly inspiring.

[LTR]

17. Party unity is a big thing

One thing that has helped the GOP. They have often put up a united front. The Dems have always had too much infighting.

This year, there is very little dissent. Even all the primary candidates are campaigning hard for Kerry.