hi all

i am young(23)...some of you folks are approaching 30 or even higher, and thus have experienced about 7 or so more years of politics than me...i just heard that obama might be another dukakis...and i heard how in 1980, there was some dem fiasco where everyone thought kennedy was the winner but mondale got picked or something, and the dems lost hard core in 1980. and i've heard how obama is like robert kennedy 40 years ago...so i'm just wondering what similarities yall find with this current election year, and what happened in the past, and if u see a different result or what not

4/23/2008 6:09:28 PM

every year is different. people will make comparisons that suit their interests.

4/23/2008 6:19:04 PM

The Dukakis line is being used by Hillary supporters in an attempt to claim he is out of touch.

Mondale was Carter's vice presidential running mate in 1980. The battle was between Kennedy and Carter.

If people are looking at Mondale comparisons, it is 1984 between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale in which Hart had the popular support, but Mondale had the support of the party insiderss.

4/23/2008 6:28:31 PM

oh i had just heard how dukakis had like a 17% lead but ended up only winning 10 states

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM. Reason : cause i can see that happening to obama]

4/23/2008 6:34:26 PM

I see a lot of similarities between this race and the 1976 cycle.

In 1976, the majority of the population was sick of Republican corruption and the aftermath of a hugely unpopular war. They turned to a self-proclaimed Washington "outsider" with impeccable character who preached mediation and diplomacy over hawkishness. Of course I'm talking about Jimmy Carter. Much like Obama, the media treated Carter like the second coming of Jesus, propelling him to the nomination.

From wikipedia:

Quote :

"The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond: "What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.""

Much like Carter's failed economic policies, I worry that we are falling into the same trap with Obama. If he is elected, we could be headed for the kind of downturn we haven't seen since the late 70's, early 80's.

4/23/2008 6:45:55 PM

i'd frankly be far more concerned about the economy if mccain were in charge.

4/23/2008 6:49:11 PM

^absolutely agree

4/23/2008 6:54:21 PM

Obama is talking about raising taxes, including capital gains taxes, as well as instituting windfall taxes on large corporations.

McCain is advocating cutting taxes, particularly on capital gains and the corporate tax rate.

Economic theory suggests that Obama's policies would be much more detrimental to the economy, particularly in the short term.

4/23/2008 6:56:06 PM

depends on what economic theory you look at

mccain himself was against the tax cuts he is supporting now just a couple years ago.

4/23/2008 6:57:31 PM

^No, it doesn't. Almost every economist will tell you that as a general rule, cutting taxes will spur the economy, and raising them will slow it.

Sure, McCain flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts. What's the relevance to my statements?

4/23/2008 7:01:02 PM

yes, it really does.

for example:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0DB173BF937A2575AC0A9659C8B63
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/politics/washingtonpost/main3978743.shtml

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM. Reason : there are more]

4/23/2008 7:15:28 PM

Prawn Star has really echoed my sentiments. I feel like Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter for a number of reasons and feel that he is going to do a lot of damage with his good intentions and bad economics.

4/23/2008 7:25:17 PM

Quote :

"Far from acting as an economic tonic, the tax cuts "are neither sustainable nor beneficial" without massive cuts in government spending far beyond what Bush or any candidate to succeed him has proposed, said Alan D. Viard, a former economist in the Bush White House who is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The most popular cuts -- those known as "middle-class" tax cuts -- are more likely to slow economic growth than promote it, Viard and others said. "Those are the provisions that detract from long-term growth even if you finance them with a reduction in government spending," said Robert Carroll, a former Bush Treasury official who teaches at American University. "If you pay for them with future tax increases, I think that would be awful." "

^not to mention that many people on obama's campaign staff are some of the brighter economists around right now. (http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/04/economics_of_barack_obama/)

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2008 7:26:25 PM

^It's a good thing McCain is advocating tax cuts on capital gains and corporations, then.

Of course tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts is bad policy. McCain has made a career out of being a budget hawk, so I thought it went without saying that he's proposing spending cuts.

4/23/2008 7:30:39 PM

well aside from what he advocated, he voted for the bush cuts.

4/23/2008 7:34:36 PM

?... I think you mean he voted against the Bush tax cuts.

BTW interesting link you posted in your edit. I'll have to read it over some. Most of what I know about Obama's economic policies were gleaned from debates and political ads.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama pivots to the right after primary season is wrapped up. I liked him a lot more before primary season got into full swing.

[Edited on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 PM. Reason : 2]

4/23/2008 7:41:44 PM

i guess i assumed they had up for some sort of vote since their original inception.

he does want to make them permanent though.

4/23/2008 7:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Vote Summary * McCain voted no on 6 tax cuts including the two big votes - final passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. * McCain voted yes on 3 tax cuts including 2 which received near unanimous support in the Senate and were relatively non controversial. * McCain was not present for an additional 3 tax votes, including 2 on the very important American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. * McCain does not support permanent repeal of the estate tax, a major goal of the taxpayer movement."

Yeah, he has definitely flip-flopped on tax issues in his bid to become president. It's tough to tell where he will stand if elected.

4/23/2008 7:48:07 PM

maybe the dems learned and instead of causing a 1980, or causing a 1984, thats why obama is gonna win the nomination...maybe the dems knew this would happen and know they are gonna win but its just looking now like mccain is viable

4/23/2008 8:29:23 PM

isnt it odd how both bushes have had like a bad economic downturn as they are about to leave office?

4/23/2008 8:40:26 PM

Quote :

"isnt it odd how both bushes have had like a bad economic downturn as they are about to leave office?"

the eventual fallout from supply side policies really isn't all that odd

4/24/2008 1:09:42 AM

But you can't really blame Bush I for the lousy economy he inherited. It was pretty much on the rebound by the time he left office. Bush II on the other hand...

4/24/2008 1:14:30 AM

UNC is a private college, right?

4/25/2008 8:29:50 PM

Quote :

"Bush II on the other hand..."

He inherited the fallout of the dot com bubble (compounded by the fall after 9/11) just in time to ride the Dow to 14,000 before the housing bubble burst.

I'm not endorsing G.W. by any means, I just don't think that any president has much influence on economic trends.

4/26/2008 4:35:07 AM

The tax cuts and the war definitely held off what looked like a sure recession in 2003.

However, irresponsible fiscal policy and lack of oversight in the mortgage industry led to this year's recession. The buck stops with Bush, even if Greenspan sowed the seeds and previous presidents failed to address the regulatory issues that allowed lenders and sub-prime borrowers to get us into this mess.

4/26/2008 5:01:23 AM

...

I thought it was obvious that this is 1968 all over again.

4/26/2008 11:36:03 AM

^^ I'll agree with that, but throughout history hasn't improved regulation occurred mostly as a reaction after something bites us in the ass?

4/26/2008 1:22:03 PM

i'm going to be the devil's advocate here and say that i think that the comparison between Obama and Robert Kennedy is accurate....


he'll be shot dead before the election ever gets here if he wins the nomination

4/28/2008 6:14:06 PM

rofl

4/28/2008 6:15:39 PM

lol.

4/28/2008 6:18:54 PM