1980, 1984, 1988

[ringmastery]

Why did the republicans whip us so badly in the general election? 1984 was so bad that we lost 49 states, even the northeast. Was Reagan that popular?

[Forkboy]

1. Was Reagan that popular?

Yes,sad as it is.

[RandomKoolzip]

2. 1984:

The reason we lost that one is that Mondale was honest enough to tell people he was going to raise their taxes. Reagan lied about it, and thta was the story Americans wanted to hear that year.

[ringmastery]

3. Our candidates want to repeal Bush tax cuts

which in effect is a tax increase.

Why won't the same thing happen again? What was the economy like in '83 and '84? Was it booming then or still in the horrible early 80's recession?

[RandomKoolzip]

5. If I remember correctly (I was eight) 1984 was the year

that he economy started to turn around, and the phenomenon of "yuppies" started to infect the national conciousness. The two are linked.

And, no, it's only a tax increase by default...

[maggrwaggr]

15. the economy SUCKED in 1984

I remember well, I was trying to get a job and there just weren't any. There were 40 year old dads working at McDonalds.

It was a lousy time economically.

[sybylla]

36. That's my recollection as well

I was stuck in a banking job that paid little over minimum wage. The job market wasn't as bad as it had been two years before but changing jobs was a struggle. It was also early in the corporate merger fad. Mergers were often cutthroat and were leaving both management and employees without jobs on a regular basis.

But perhaps it was rosier for those who recall it that way. I would say 1984 may have ushered in a better economy for some, but for the rest of us it didn't arrive until 1994.

[ConsAreLiars]

11. "In effect a tax increase"

What BS! It sort of depends on, well, you know, who actually ends up winning and who ends up losing, doesn't it. YOU may think that not getting a further reduction in taxes for the privileged few is the same as actually getting having taxes raised, by some sort of perverted RNC logic, but any sane person would realize that when rates remain unchanged they are neither increased nor decreased. Spinning like this is so bizarre! It is hard for me to even imagine the sort of vile self-interest that would describe NOT reducing in taxes on the wealthiest few as an increase. Bizarro World, NewSpeak, whatever. I am surprised to see it here.

[ringmastery]

13. Dean wants all the tax cuts

gone.

which is a tax increase on the middle class any way you look at it, that's how the republicans will spin it. You can count on it and we'll get hammered on it.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. That is how the RNC spins it

Why do you spin it the same way? You can read the various Dem candidates' views on how to reverse this give-away to members of the plutocracy on their websites. Why claim that they hurt the middle class when in fact they only replace the reduced taxes on the top 5% or 10% with increased taxes on the rest of us (not you, maybe, but me and other working people for sure).

[Yupster]

27. If Dean eliminates

the new 10 % bracket and puts it back to the old 15 %, then every American who pays a dollar of income tax will have their taxes go up. That's just common sense.

If Dean knocks the child tax credit down from $ 1,000 per kid back down to the old $ 400 per kid, then middle and lower class families will have their taxes go up a lot if they have kids.

If Dean is going to repeal all of Bush's taxes, then middle class Americans taxes will be raised.

I don't see how he runs on that.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Why can't Dean flip-flop on this stupid policy?

If he can change his mind about everything else, why not this? I swear it's almost like they WANT to lose.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Wrong

Not all the tax cuts have gone into effect, so rescinding something that hasn't happened yet is not a tax increase.

Besides, the "increase" will affect mostly the fat cats at the top, not the people who got a couple hundred bucks--or less, which is the vast majority of Americans.

[Gulf Coast J]

30. So if the top bracket went to 90%, that wouldn't be a tax cut?

After all, it's just a return to what it used to be. I make about $40K a year. My take home pay would go down if Dean became president and his tax plan passed. Don't tell my that wouldn't be a tax increase, my self-interest notwithstanding.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Mondale got off on the wrong foot immediately

I saw him make the "I'm going to raise your taxes" pledge, and he looked gleeful as he said it. I knew then that the Republicans would use this, the Democrats would stand around looking confused, and Reagan would win.

In the debates, Reagan was Mr. Smooth, the jolly old uncle tolerantly chiding the nervous, somewhat awkward challenger.

[ALago1]

4. 1988

I believe the Republican win in 1988 can be attributed mainly to the dirty political ads aired against Dukakis.

There was Willie Horton and the "tank fiasco" and that pretty much eliminated Dukakis's chances.

If I remember correctly, prior to such tactics, Dukakis was shaping up to be a formidable opponent to Bush. He was very close to him in polls, and perhaps even leading him in some.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. That was the year "liberal" became a swear word.

How depressing those debates were!

[ALago1]

7. I was only 6...

...but do remember vaguely the general happenings of the election (my parents are politically aware, albeit republicans). One of my hobbies is learning all the political events that went on since my birth because I can vaguely make some connections to my very early childhood.

Yes. The '88 election was a disgrace. However, I think Reagan did much more to turn "liberal" into a dirty word than George Bush I ever did.

[Piperay]

26. The worst was that Dukakis

allowed the Liberals to be defamed, he just let it all go by without a word in defense. :mad:

[pstokely]

17. Dukakis took a month off

the ads ran during his time off

[Silverhair]

20. A month off? I don't remember that.

If he did take a month off during an election year, then he didn't want to win very badly and deserved to lose. When did he take off?

[Piperay]

25. He took off right

after the Democratic Convention and wasn't heard from again till after Labor Day, he really f*cked up. Duke had been way way ahead in the polls but his "vacation" gave Bush the chance to catch up and pass him and that was the end of it all! :argh:

[Silverhair]

18. Don't forget the way Duke bungled the rape question. n/t

[outinforce]

28. WIlly Horton

THere is a lesson in the Willy Horton ad and Gov. Dukakis that can be applied even today.

Unless I am mistaken, the Willy Horton ad was bought and paid for, and run by, another Democrat during the 1988 Democratic Primary season. The Republicans did not run that ad. But, after Dukakis was nominated the after-effect of the primary season was that Dukakis was "soft on murderers" -- an effect that the Horton ad had created.

Dukakis did not help to negate that image when he appeared (to many, at least) to give a reallly wimpy answer to a question about how he would respond if a person broke into his house and raped his wife.

The lesson, I think, from the Willy Horton ad is that Democrats, if they really want to wrest the White House from the GOP, had better be really, really careful about attacking other Democrats during the primary season.

[Yupster]

29. That other Democrat was Al Gore

He was first to bring up the Willie Horton issue in a tv ad, but he didn't use Horton's name or picture.

Bush's ad didn't either. Many probably remember the Bush ad which was a turnstyle.

It was one of those third party issue ad groups that used the ad with the picture of Willie Horton.

I think your point is a good one that the primary season can open wounds that can be bloodied more during the general.

[forgethell]

35. I certainly agree

with your last sentence. Every negative comment about Dean, or whoever gets the nomination, will definitely be repeated in a Republican attack ad. And why not? We have GIVEN them this material, free.

On the other hand, if there is any additional new dirt to be sprung on *, and I, for one, find it hard to believe that there can be any left after the efforts of the last election and the years * has been in office, we will have to dig it up, ourselves. You just know that * and his advisors are not going to volunteer it to us in the interests of "honesty" and "integrity".

[rumguy]

8. why did we whip their asses in 92, 96, and 2000?

Was Clinton that popular? Actually yes he was. His approval ratings during impeachment were higher than Bush's are now.

We'll see how low the pukes popularity sinks when the lies about 9/11 become more and more widely known. That is the ticking time bomb that will ruin the GOP. That and the debt.

[ALago1]

9. Clinton is the reason we won all 3

He is a master politician and most of Gore's success (I think) can be attributed to him riding Bill's coattails.

[ringmastery]

10. we didn't whup their asses in 2000

Gore ran a shitty campaign. He won it, but no way it should have been as close as it was where it was stolen from him.

If he won his home state, florida would have been irrelevent.

[rumguy]

12. His campaign was so bad he got more votes for prez than any prez. cand.

ever...I believe...

Yeah his campaign was kind of a mess. But it's as much the media's fault as it his...

[Dookus]

14. more votes

than any Democrat in history. Reagan has the record for most votes, in '84.

[rumguy]

16. It was a hellava of a lot of votes...anyway you look at it...

voter participation has been getting worse and worse...it amazes me that Gore's "shitty" campaign was able to energize the support it did...

[Silverhair]

22. He didn't get a higher percentage of votes.

The population of the country grows, so a candidate can get a lower percentage and still have a "record" number of votes. Big deal. Are we actually going to try to give Gore credit for population growth?

[rumguy]

24. I give him credit for getting more votes than Bush

for getting a hellava a lot of votes, even more than Clinton in 96! His campaign did surprisingly well given the hostile media climate.

[tritsofme]

21. I wouldnt say we "whipped their asses"

We didn't get 50% or over in popular vote in 92 96 or 00.

We benefited in having Clinton, the master politician that he is, Perot sucking away votes in 92 and 96, and utterly horrible candidates presented by the GOP in each election.

[rumguy]

23. We got more, that's all that counts

We whipped their asses and made them feel the pain...they were squealing like stuck pigs.

[forgethell]

37. Didn't get more electoral votes

that's all that counts. didn't get more SC votes, either, which is REALLY all that counts. Shows the dangers of trying to impose your agenda through the courts, though. That same weapon can be seized from your hands and turned against you, like it was. Regardless of butterfly ballots, disenfranchising of blacks, and other minorities, and every lie, etc that the Bush campaign used, if Al Gore hadnd't taken the case to court, Bush would STILL have been installed in the White House.

So, Al was between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. He was damned when he did, and would have been damned if he didn't. I wonder, though, why we keep thinking we are smarter than the Repukes? Could we have organized a coup like that? I don't think we could have sat in the same room long enough to act so brilliantly evil.

[forgethell]

34. Yes, he was.

He didn't even have to steal the election.