Skip to main content

View Diary: 1980 Redux (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Biggest difference? McCain is not the incumbent. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fladem, Newsie8200, quaderni, CParis, IvanR

    We may think he is like Bush. We may say he is like Bush. We may hope the voters treat him like Bush.

    But the bottom line is that he is not Bush. McCain can play up thge difference and lead voters to believe this is change vs. change election -- comfort change vs. uncomfortable change.

    The key demographic of swing voters does not place stock in party label -- each candidate is judged on his or her merits -- as we see in the widely different responses to Clinton vs. Obama.

    Plus here's another key difference: Carter got the shaft because he responded to an energy crisis by asking Americans to sacrifice, which Americans don't like. Carter was pegged as a doom and gloom candidate.

    Unfortunately in this election, it's McCain who is preaching facile solutions that won't alter the American lifestyle; in that sense, he's more Reaganesque.

    And finally, the national tracking polls are now dead even. We may want a landslide, but it ain't happening.

    Obama is different enough that the map will change somewhat, but since every Obama electoral projection begins with "He carries the Kerry states and then...." it's not changing as much as we think. Gore won Iowa and New Mexico -- Obama will win Iowa and New Mexico. Ohio, Michigan and Florida are key battlegrounds.

    (See my diary http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Obama has opened up a front in the Rocky Mountain west -- that may be the principal change we see.

    •  Gore (0+ / 0-)

      Yep, Gore won NM and IO. But if he had also won NH or IN or CO, he would have been president.

      •  My point is the map is little different from 2004 (0+ / 0-)

        and 2000 combined --winning the states that went for either Gore or Kerry, with Ohio and Florida deciding.

        Obama is a sea change in many ways but there's no 1980 landslide in the picture and we shouldn't expect it -- this is going to be very hard-fought.

        •  But the whole point is at this time (0+ / 0-)

          in 1980, no one saw a landslide either. Carter was even ahead in some polls and the race was tight. Think of it this way, we're seeing all over the country a bunch of red states where Obama isn't leading but is overperforming significantly and within 5% pts. With a strong debate performance deep red states like North carolina, Indiana, and Montana are a serious threat to turn blue. In fact, they're already a serious threat.

          So, as of now the race isn't a landslide, but there are TONS of indicators that show landslide potential for Obama.

          •  I share the hope but (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quaderni, quotemstr

            there are lots of election cycles where the early polls show a tight race and it turns out to be......drumroll please.....a tight race.

            Take 1976, which might be the better analogy. The country was realing from Watergate and all the Nixon scandals. It should have been easy as pie to paint Gerald Ford as more Nixon, after all, Ford had pardoned the guy. Should have been a Democratic landslide.

            But voters chose to give Ford the benefit of doubt, and Ford would have won if Ohio had tipped the other way.

            Work like it's going to be a squeaker, and as if Ohio, Michigan and Florida are going to decide it yet again. Because that's the way to ensure a win.

            •  I definetley agree (0+ / 0-)

              with working like its a squeaker, because while i believe the potential for a landslide exists, so exists the possibility of another nailbiter where turnout will determine things.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site