Kerry isn't profiting from Bush's slide? read this history: 1980, 1992

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4962832/

<<Kohut of the Pew center pointed out in his Times piece that the lack of a direct correlation between an incumbent’s decline in the polls and a challenger’s ascent was “the same … in the 1980 race. President Jimmy Carter's favorable rating in the Gallup surveys sank from 56 percent in January to 38 percent in June, yet he still led Ronald Reagan in Gallup's horse-race measures. For much of the rest of the campaign, voters who disapproved of Mr. Carter couldn't decide whether Mr. Reagan was an acceptable alternative.”

“Similarly,” Kohut wrote, “in May 1992 President George H. W. Bush had only a 37 percent approval rating according to a Times Mirror Center survey, but the same poll showed him with a modest lead, 46 percent to 43 percent, over Bill Clinton. Only the Democratic convention and the debates brought about an acceptance of Mr. Clinton.”>>

[NMDemDist2]

1. woohoo I have been preaching that for two months

thanks for the link to back me up :)

[Hippo_Tron]

2. At this point it's Kerry vs. Diebold...

Bush can't win an election legitimately anymore.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

3. and he could before?

wtf?

[dsc]

4. There are a couple of other examples though

One is Kinock vs Major in Britian. Major won despite dismal approval ratings. Another is in Ohio where Taft won with approval below 50. I hope we see the example you sight and not the ones I am siting.

[dolstein]

5. Bush had Perot, Carter had Anderson . . .

But where is the candidate who is going to outflank Bush on the right?

Sorry, but the comparisons to the 1980 and 1992 elections are wrong. Bush starts off with 45% of the vote. Those people aren't going to abandon him, period. The Democratic "solid base" is around 40% of the vote. So Bush and Kerry are fighting over 15% of the vote. And throw Nader into the mix and you can see Kerry's problem. Nader is going to go after the anti-war portion of that 15%. Kerry doesn't have quite the same freedom to exploit anti-war undecideds -- he needs to get two-third of the undecideds to win, and some of those are bound to get turned off by a stridently anti-war message. Nader, on the other hand, would be ecstatic if he managed to get just one-third of the undecideds (or 5%, which would be nearly double what he got in 2000). Also factor in that the distribution of undecideds varies from state to state -- in some, Nader only needs to get 1% of the vote to tip the state to Bush.

[salonghorn70]

6. !he 1980 Race

Most polls said it was very close going into the last weekend. The last weekend was a disaster for Carter. The undecided vote broke heavily for Regan. I still remember Carter's rally at the Alamo on the Saturday before the election. Probably one of the worse rallies I have ever been too. Low attendance. No enthusiasm. After that rally, I knew something was very wrong.

[phiddle]

7. Kerry needs a slogan. How about...

"4 more years?"

[ACK]

8. Kerry has a slogan ... and I like it ... but he needs to emphasize more

The Real Deal.

It brings out all the right imagery and reflects back to Truman and FDR.

He just needs to use it more and push it more as a unifying term for his proposed plans.

_