I'm tired of people comparing this to 2004.

[Drunken Irishman]

It isn't 2004.

In 2004, Bush was an incumbent and the economy had yet to go south.

Yes Iraq was worse off than it is today in terms of American causalities, but more Americans supported the war compared to today. Also, no sitting American president had ever lost while leading the country in war.

Yes Bush was incompetent, but the country was still only three years removed from September 11th and unease still dominated American mindsets. Whether you want to agree with it or not, 2004 was an election dominated by which candidate could keep America safer. It is a debate the Democrats lost. But that debate isn't one we're having today because domestic problems are the number one concern for most Americans. Had they been in 2004, John Kerry would be running for re-election right now.

We must also realize that four years ago, Kerry was down fairly big to Bush during most of the month of September. Obama, however, has consistently led McCain since winning the nomination back in May. Sure there have been times where McCain passed him in the polls, but it was never lasting and there is no evidence that changes now.

So for all the comparisons to 2004, there are far more differences and that's why we can't compare the two. This election is no more similar to 2004 than it is 1996.

[VolcanoJen]

1. Hell, I'm tired of people comparing it to 1988.

The MSM says, "Liberal bloggers say she's Dan Quayle!! But Bush/Quayle WON!"

Riiiiiiight. Like Barack Obama is Mike Dukakis. Like Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War and 9/11 happened during the REAGAN Administration. Like gas was $4.00 a gallon back then.

[progressiveforever]

3. Point taken- but we have to guard against overconfidence

I have never had so much at stake--my son is 17 and McCain can't have him.

[gateley]

7. Agree. It IS comparable in my mind that in 2004, I never DREAMED

W would win reelection with the situation in Iraq spinning out of control. And even now, with how much WORSE off our country is, the polls are so close.

I'm not taking anything for granted, and it's not a done deal.

[WheelWalker]

2. You're right. It isn't. More like 1960, I think. nt

[progressiveforever]

5. And 1960 was a squeaker....

I want a landslide, but I think Obama's electoral total will be in the 270-280 range.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Right Down To A Uber Charismatic Candidate Against A Charismatically Challenged Candidate

~

[treestar]

4. You're right. And Obama has more charisma than Kerry

Like in 1992, when the economic issues were in the forefront, that is the time to turn to the Democrats.

[politicasista]

9. I think it's time to leave Kerry alone. (And Gore for that matter)..

they are not running this time, except that Kerry is running for Senate in MA. Gore is now a respectable private citizen and spokesperson for global warming climate change. (also Kerry had charisma in 2000 when he was considered as Gore's running mate). They tried out for the highest office in the land and it didn't work out. They were up against an unfair and unbalanced media, lousy Dem infrastructure, and a relentless Rovian machine.
Both are now helping on Obama win the WH, and Obama is learning and listening. He isn't just winning this on charisma alone, but skill and support from the party, something that Gore and Kerry didn't have when they were running.


1992 was a different race because Clinton ran against a struggling economy and lousy Bush I, not to mention the Perot factor. The media was fair and balanced in 92 compared to 2000, 2004 and now. And we were not at war or had had the worst, or one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. History or the worst terrorist attack in U.S. History in 92. There was no Rovian machine in 92.

[politicasista]

6. I don't like it either, but the big difference is that Obama has Democrats

defending him against the smears. That is something that Kerry didn't have in 04, Gore didn't have it in 00 either.

[depakid]

8. You certainly CAN compare the patterns of campaigning

and apply priniciples of mass communication, psychology and sociology to the processes.

That Democratic consultants fail to do year after year- despite what seem to many to be obvious lessons both grounded in empiracal research learned the hard way is astonishing, particularly considering that the party of creationism often applies them rather handily.

[YvonneCa]

12. If we allow the same tactics to succeed again in 2008...

...then we have failed to learn the lessons of 2000 and 2004. That is worth remembering.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. Excellent point; Bush was always the favorite in 2004

An incumbent with his party in power only one term had a decisive situational edge.

We dreamed that huge percentage of undecideds would push Kerry over the top, but looking back that was fantasy. Bush had basically a 50/50 approval rating. Kerry's favorable number was also in the 50/50 range. It was a polarized nation with 9/11 unease. So how did any of that equate to a 75/25 split among the low number of late undecideds?

In 2008, Democrats have been the 60/40 favorite all year. You could substitute Hillary for Obama or change virtually any variable and it would still be 60/40. I'll take my chances. McCain's only logical path is to narrowly sweep all the crucial swing states like Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Possible, but very unlikely unless he is even or leads the national polling.

[question everything]

11. Should be compared to 2000

where it was clear that Bush was nothing more than a frat boy but too many voters were charmed by him, figuring that there would be enough "adults" to steer the country in the way that... well, would continue the economic expansion during Clinton.

And this is with Palin (and the ticket now, really, is Palin-McCain).

People enjoy her zingers, her one liners, her "common woman" and think that, hey, there will be adults in the White House to... I don't know.

Too many voters want the president to be personable. This is why Clinton was so successful. This is why we have had hard time with Gore, Kerry and, let's hope, not with Obama.

We love our leaders to be intelligent, educated, talking in complete paragraphs and to know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, too many voters rely on one line "news."

Our job is to convince most voters that access to affordable health care, restoring jobs and confidence take more than one line zingers and a tired old man.

[politicasista]

16. Leave Gore and Kerry alone out of your praise

of former pres Clinton and Obama.


It looks tacky when people put other Democrats down just to talk up others. It only plays right into the hands of the GOP. JHO.

[Jennicut]

14. Comparing campaigns to each other is rediculous and can we finally give Kerry a break?

Who has been a better supporter of Obama then Kerry? Plus, he gave an awesome speech at the DNC. We have a lousy economy and one of the most disliked presidents ever. In 2004 Katrina had not even happened. Actually, 2004-2008 has been the worst moments of the Bush administration with Plame, Katrina, losing the 2006 congressional elections, the attorneys being fired, Gonzalez. Bush having another term might just have helped the Dems out in ways we may just now begin to see. This has led to the primaries having such a high turnout on the Dem end. Palin might excite the fundies for awhile but at the end of the day its still old McCain they will have to vote for and he risks losing independents by going to right-wing. Actually, we may get more on our side because of all of this. Anyways, 2008 is 2008 and should not be compared.

[politicasista]

15. Thank you

:kick: :hi:

[SheilaT]

17. I don't think this year

can rightfully be compared to any other year.

But to correct a mild misperception, Bush had approval ratings UNDER 50% four years ago. And there had been a steady erosion of jobs in this country even then. Plus, there were constant reports of people who said they'd voted for Bush in 2000 and were not about to do so this time. And no stories of someone who'd voted for Gore and now intended to vote for Bush.

Plus, as someone pointed out, Kerry beat Bush in every single demographic except white men. So his "winning" was a bit of a mystery, to say the least.

I personally think that one of the most important things we need to do is to bring back exit polling and get people to understand just how valid exit polling actually is.

[blm]

18. Bush and Rove were at their MOST POWERFUL in 2004 and were at their weakest point by early 2007

and 2004 was post 9-11, while 2008 is post Schiavo, post Katrina, post Iraq Civil War.