You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #24: This comes as no surprise to me. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
24. This comes as no surprise to me.
Elections are as much about voting for your guy, as they are about turning out votes for your guy. He who runs the better campaign (both in terms of image and turnout of the "base") and gets lucky breaks wins elections because that better campaign will be better at getting people out to vote for you.

Going all the way back to Regan-Carter, you'll see this pattern. Regan ran a better campaign than Carter, and had the lucky break of going up against an unpopular President. (I have no direct knowledge beyond Carter except what's in history books, so I'll stay in the modern era)

Again in 1984, Regan ran a better campaign and Mondale didn't plus shot himself in the foot too, lucky for Regan.

Bush-Dukais? same pattern, more effective campaign, and luck that Bush looked less like a loser than his opponent.

Clinton-Bush, again the same thing. Clinton ran the superior campaign, against an unpopular sitting President and had the luck enbodied in Ross Perot.

Clinton-Dole. Clinton ran an excellent campaign, and Dole looked dead from the get go. Lucky for Clinton, considering that during the mid-term elections, Democrats got pasted bad.

Bush-Gore, Bush ran a better campaign than Gore. Rove controlled the tone of the campaign and made Gore play defense half the time. Then they had the luck of it all comming down to FL, where they knew they had the inside track, and the extra luck of Nader.

Bush-Kerry, once more, Rove ran a superior campaign to Kerry's which seemed to never figure out what it was trying to say, simply, to the American people. And Bush had the luck of 9/11 and (enough remaining) popularity of the Iraq war, plus stacking the deck in OH to make sure that key state stayed red.

And now Obama-McCain. Obama, clearly, ran a superior campaign than McCain which will go down in history as what not to do. Obama had some measure of luck on his side because of an unpopular sitting President, and a campaign game-changer in the economy which always favors Dems, generally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC