Kerry is no Dukakis and this ain't 1988

[Ugnmoose]

I had to chuckle the other day listening to Tim (Prince of Whores) Russert try to spin the idea that even though he is trailing Kerry by 4 to 8 points in most polls, Bush has reason for optimism in that his father was 17 points behind Dukakis at this same time (8 months prior to the election) and won it going away.

Well guess what Timmy boy, John Kerry is no Dukakis and this is by no means 1988. Kerry is a very polished and savvy politico. He will not run a Dukakis type campaign, nor will he fall for or accept the Repuke dirty tactics. And this year unlike any election year in modern times we have a very motivated Democratic base as opposed to a Repuke base that at best will be very lukewarm to their candidate. True Bushco has raised lots of money, but all the ad money in the world won't be able to polish the rust off the good old boy. And the Dems probably will be able to match him in soft dollars from a base that has already shown a strong willingness to open its pocketbooks. Also let's not forget folks like billionaire George Soros who is on record as saying he would spend whatever is necessary to defeat Bush.

I think this is one election campaign I am really going to enjoy!

[mot78]

1. Bring It ON!!!!!

Kerry isn't going to be the Repuke's bitch!!!

[lectrobyte]

2. polish the rust off?

To paraphrase one of the great Zen Masters, you can't polish a turd. Still, don't underestimate the effectiveness of a 200 million dollar ad campaign, or whatever October surprises they may pull out.

[Lexingtonian]

3. yep, that's the newest Gooper talking point

Saw Bill Schneider making exactly the same 'argument' on CNN yesterday. A clear reminder that Analogy is the last word of science and the first of Faith.

The difference between 1988 and 2004 is a ~12%-15% change in the electorate. About 40% of the electorate was liberal-leaning enough in 1988 to convincedly vote Democratic then; Dukakis had to appeal to conservative leaners. That's why he had to be so utterly mushy and try the retro thing- to get aged conservative Roosevelt Democrats back. That got him an additional 6% for 46% but obviously fell short.

We've gained 3% nationally every 4 years since 1988. But our side's earlier generation of incumbents aged out and retired mostly in the middle '90s while Republicans unified the conservative opposition. In 2000 we had a 49/48 advantage (3% consistently stay AWOL from the core conflict) but the R's had the massive structural advantages in place to take advantage of any Gore or Democratic apparatus fumbling.

Now we have an electorate that is 51%-52% liberal or liberal-leaning and 46% conservative/conservative-leaning. Republicans have aging incumbents in the Senate and live by their advantages in House gerrymanderings- they are overrepresented in nearly every single state delegation south of the Potomac or west of the Alleghenies up to the Sierra Nevada/Cascades. (Texas was the last one they didn't have.)

Kerry has to run a competent and clear campaign and the Presidency is his. Gore only undershot his real upper limit in the electorate by about half a million votes, Kerry has a far greater margin of error and the possibility of a decisive majority representing a mandate.

In Congress the Republicans really have only a few opening Old Democrat Senate seats to jump into and a couple they may just barely defend in Democratic states. In the House Democrats are on the verge of breaking out into marginal Republican seats. In both cases 2006 looks pretty good for recovering majorities in both chambers.

[Blue_Roses]

4. No Kerry is definitely

not a Dukakis. I was active in that campaign and there are stark differences in candidates and the times.

[historian]

5. foreign sounding

I remember when dukakis was running, some people in the south were quoted as saying that they dont vote for non american names!!! Well, Kerry is definitely caucasian and white so i wonder what they will say now?

[DieboldMustDie]

6. He's a lot taller...

Yea, it's stupid, but some people cast their votes for the most dumb-ass reasons. :eyes:

[union_maid]

7. Dukakis - fine man..never had a shot to win

I voted for him, of course. I really didn't think he could win. He made the wrong kind of gaffes, he looked comical in a tank, he said, "Belgian endive", he didn't know how to answer a very easy question on the death penalty. Kerry knows what he's doing out there. He's waging a testosterone laden campaign. There's a lot more to him that that, but he knows which of his qualities he needs to project and he's projecting them like a...well, you know. Muscular liberalism! Gotta love it!