In addition, in the 2 elections you reference, there were no polling averages. Obama wins all of those to.

Again ... Mitt is toast.

And the GOP is on its way to extinction.

One thing I have to wonder about is complacency. If too many people get the idea this will be a landslide win for Obama, then why take the time to go vote. It's important to continue stressing the need for all of us to GOTV, whether we believe Mitt to be toast or not.

The OP is referencing national polls of today against polls from a few decades ago.

1) The science of polling has improved dramatically.
2) The frequency of the polling has increased significantly.
3) The number of polling organizations has also increased significantly, which create the relatively recent use of polling averages.

Add to this the ability to break these polls, and data down not only by state, but also by district, and the OP's point is nonsense.

Having said all this, we should absolutely keep focused, and CRUSH Mitt like a bug, and drive the RW screaming into the night.

But after reading your post, I think that would be a waste of money, since Obama has it in the bag.

The OP is referencing national polls of today against polls from a few decades ago.

1) The science of polling has improved dramatically.
2) The frequency of the polling has increased significantly.
3) The number of polling organizations has also increased significantly, which create the relatively recent use of polling averages.

Add to this the ability to break these polls and data down not only by state, but also by district, and the OP's point is nonsense. Comparing the polls of back then to now is silly, and the notion that Romney might be like Reagan as similarly ridiculous.

Having said all this, we should absolutely keep focused, and CRUSH Mitt like a bug, and drive the RW screaming into the night.

But as always, you should decide when and how much you donate, using whatever criteria you select.

and increase the senate.

Gallup has always been a tool.

Dukakis in the tank looked silly, the Willie Horton controversy made him seem irresponsible.

Coming off as silly, irresponsible and a cold-fish will sink you pretty quickly no matter what your poll numbers may have been prior.

No one's more of a cold fish than he.

I'm sorry but aren't they trying to compare apples to thumbtacks?

I'm really despising these people more than ever..

Plus their polling might have been primitive back then.

Unless there is a similar event that will tank President Obama's numbers, we have nothing to worry about in terms of a huge poll swing in Romney's direction.

We've got all the skeletons out of his closet ages ago. We know about Jeremiah Wright, that guy from the weather underground, barry snorting coke in college, the birth certificate issue, etc. etc. There isn't a whole lot of dirt not uncovered by either H. Clinton (2008 primary), McCain (2008 general), Romney (2012 general) or the GOP as a whole.

When the story about Willie Horton came out along with that disasterous photo of him in a tank - we were pretty much doomed.

I agree we can't get too cocky, but trying to scare people with this stuff doesn't help. My suggestion....ignore all polls and GOTV!!!

He'd manage to look cool, whereas Dukakis could not.

In 88 Duk got torpedoed by Bernard Shaw's rape question
yes, the Willie Horton ad was a factor but the rape question reaction, all sober and non-offended was the real killer for him.

But still, Mike D. couldn't muster any passion.

They are probably hoping for something surprising to occur that will detract from Obama and help them out. I hope that Dems have people looking out and prepared to respond appropriately.

But I will admit that anything can happen in 60 days.

That's a term I've never seen used around here before.

WTH is "Obama's media"?

the game has changed a lot since 1988. Three network channels no longer control the conversation.
Internet and narrow channel communications are Obama's secret weapons.

...and "Newsbusters" is all about "exposing liberal media bias."

Need more be said?

Odd phrasing.....to say the least.

nor any gaffes more serious than Rmoney's already existing and soon to be more just plain stupidity.

We shouldn't forget the past. Anyways It was a much different race. Dukakis wasn't an sudo-incumbant coming from a hugely successful administration like Bush was.

What are you implying?

St. Reagan's 2 terms.

Right here on DU.

Dukakis lead was BEFORE the RNC convention.

The Party which has their convention last has an advantage, because they, in the minds of many voters, will debunk and refudiate, what the other party just said. They, essentially get to have the last word, and they head towards the election with the momentum.

Conventions
year ** RNC *** DNC *** result
1980 * 14 Jul * 11 Aug * R victory (E)
1984 * 20 Aug * 16 Jul * R victory
1988 * 15 Aug * 17 Jul * R victory
1992 * 17 Aug * 13 Jul * D victory (E)
1996 * 12 Aug * 26 Aug * D victory
2000 * 31 July * 14 Aug * D victory, stolen (E*)
2004 * 30 Aug * 26 July * R victory
2008 * 1 Sep * 25 Aug * D victory (E)

So in 5/8 years, the party with the later convention won the election. Not a perfect predictor, but there are some explanations for the off years. 1980 - a divisive Democratic primary, a media that spent 4 years tearing down Carter, a weak economy and a hostage crisis. 1992 - Perot being a wild card, getting almost 19% of the vote, as much as 30% of the vote in Maine. In 2000, there was the Nader factor, the SCOTUS factor and the media's extraordinary War on Gore for about two solid years. In 2008, there was a huge economic collapse, and the excitement of the first black President, and McCain's VP pick back-fired much like Mondale's.

Dukakis got 40% of the white vote and lost. Obama can win with 38% of it.

There are just so many more Latino, Asian, and African voters as a share of the electorate.

If the Repubs aren't successful in reaching out to these groups they might never win another general election. It's that dire for them and good for us...

A right wing site that thinks the entire media is biased in favor of Dems. they think shows like Hannity are fair and balanced.

I've read a few of your other posts. Nice try, but... FAIL.

Ditto for Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The Repubs should be scared.

1. This convention was held in July, which feels like an eternity ago and was far from the election. Obama's convention came almost two months from election day - so, a far smaller window for things to go south.

2. Bush had a convention of his own after Dukakis took a lead. Romney's convention came before Obama's and he didn't receive a bump - Bush did. In fact, most pundits call Bush's '88 convention speech his best and it was key in getting him back into the race.

As for Carter-Reagan ... Gallup was the only poll that showed Carter taking a lead in the polls nationally after the DNC, however, most had Reagan up by 30 prior to the convention and a much narrower lead a bit later. Also, Reagan had led Carter throughout the spring & summer - by huge amounts - in '80, suggesting he had a great deal of support. Romney has never led Obama this year.

Because of CU the GOP has far more ammo than Obama. 23 billionaires I think? contributing up to $2 billion in negative ads.

And R/R and Rove have pulled ads from MI and PA.

Gosh shucks, ain't that something, OP.

RR has the corporations money, but Obama has the support of the people.

As Democrats gather in Charlotte, N.C., the optimism is palpable. But the party has been dangerously overconfident throughout this election, and some are still in denial about the big money behemoth they are facing this fall.

Mitt Romney just announced his third $100 million month. He has approached this presidential campaign like a private-equity bid: the man with the most money wins.
But campaigns are only part of the money in play post–Citizens United. The 2012 elections are expected to cost an unprecedented $5.8 billion dollars—$2.5 billion on the presidential race alone—according to the invaluable Center for Responsive Politics. And when it comes to the super PACs—the new, new thing in campaign finance—Democrats are being left in the dust.

Take in this reality check: the Mitt Romney-associated super PAC Restore Our Future has outraised the Obama-associated Priorities USA Action by a 5–1 margin, despite Priorities’ raising a personal best $10 million last month.

This is indicative of the unequal playing field in Election 2012. Conservative super PACS and outside groups have raised $248 million—nearly four times the $65 million raised by their liberal counterparts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/05/will-republicans-vast-super-pac-money-advantage-swing-the-election.html

The campaign $ is very different than the Superpac and 501c4's.

Let's be honest, people have been saying 'Citizens United' since last year as if it's going to somehow change the race dramatically. Months later, two months before the election, and? It's a problem ... but sooner or later their impact becomes nonexistent.

But I still anticipate, on election day, when exit polls show Obama leading in Ohio and Florida and Virginia and North Carolina, that some poster will say, "BUT DON'T FORGET CITIZENS UNITED!"

Dukakis, Kerry and even Carter ran flabby and weak campaigns. Im not surprised they lost. Anything can happen, but I still think O/B will win.

heck, I voted for him, but he was a horrible candidate.

Obama is not a horrible candidate.

Anyone not Fox, Beck, or the Teabagger Tribune?

In the polls, and has R/R running scared as hell.

I, personally, also think Obama would look badass in a tank.

liked Reagan.

....and before the RNC.

Makes you wonder if Obama's media are going to point these numbers out while they applaud the recent polling data.

Don't hold your breath.

Posting from a Rethug website....good job.

as a result.

This is still a very racist country.

THis from the Daily Beast

Will Republicans’ Vast Super-PAC-Money Advantage Swing the Election?
by John Avlon Sep 5, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Conservatives are lapping liberals in the post-Citizens United fundraising game, writes John Avlon. Plus, Rahm hooks up with Obama’s Super PAC

As Democrats gather in Charlotte, N.C., the optimism is palpable. But the party has been dangerously overconfident throughout this election, and some are still in denial about the big money behemoth they are facing this fall.

Mitt Romney just announced his third $100 million month. He has approached this presidential campaign like a private-equity bid: the man with the most money wins.
But campaigns are only part of the money in play post–Citizens United. The 2012 elections are expected to cost an unprecedented $5.8 billion dollars—$2.5 billion on the presidential race alone—according to the invaluable Center for Responsive Politics. And when it comes to the super PACs—the new, new thing in campaign finance—Democrats are being left in the dust.

Take in this reality check: the Mitt Romney-associated super PAC Restore Our Future has outraised the Obama-associated Priorities USA Action by a 5–1 margin, despite Priorities’ raising a personal best $10 million last month.

This is indicative of the unequal playing field in Election 2012. Conservative super PACS and outside groups have raised $248 million—nearly four times the $65 million raised by their liberal counterparts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/05/will-republicans-vast-super-pac-money-advantage-swing-the-election.html

"shifts the election debate to a more substantive tone." He's a corporate tool, talking head for CNN. It's in his, and his bosses, better interest to say this.

that the more people see him, the less they like him.

From the article........But campaigns are only part of the money in play post–Citizens United. The 2012 elections are expected to cost an unprecedented $5.8 billion dollars—$2.5 billion on the presidential race alone.

His wife had a drinking problem. He acted cold and couldn't relate to people. AND nobody knew who he was outside of MA.

In Obama we have an immensely attractive PRESIDENT who has made impressive gains despite formidable opposition. The Republicans in Congress are pretty much despised by a large segment of the public. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Michelle Obama and the two girls are hugely popular. You can't look at them as a family and see anything wrong. They relate to the average American beautifully.

I just don't see how anybody can compare this election with Dukakis/Bush or with Carter/Reagan for that matter. Carter had a huge foreign policy disaster resulting in the hostage situation that ground on and on and on. His opponent was a former movie star with acting talent who could "sell" himself very well. People responded well to him and liked him. Carter was cold and aloof.

If it weren't for the obvious racism (which we should have known would raise its ugly head) the poll numbers would be even higher for Obama, despite the recession.

I don't think there is any comparison AT ALL with past races. It's all different now.

Two more words: the tank.

Those were both post-convention.

I don't think anything that the GOP could come up with would have that much of an effect in shifting public opinion about Obama. Dukakis was not an incumbent President; those negative attack ads were things that, rightly or wrongly, defined him for a lot of people who ended up voting against him. Obama is a known quantity and people's opinions won't shift that much in this election. Romney and Ryan are more likely to lose that kind of support between now and Election Day.

Clinton watched, learned and beat Bush I and Dole by smashing their bullshit. First, don't allow people to attack you without an instant blowback onto their attacks. Second, don't do stuff that don't reflect yuor values. Dukakis rode around in a tank as a way to show how much he supported the military, why not lay out clear policy proposals instead. Obama is not Dukakis.

This year, it's been reversed; Obama is the likable guy, AND he's ran a wonderful campaign......Romney, on the other hand, is not only plastic, but his campaign's been nothing BUT gaffes & idiocy since this spring.

Bush, Sr. won fair and square back in 1988......but this year, the GOP will have to cheat to win. No question about it.

2000 election will be repeated because the circumstances are identical!!!! Every election Democrats lose is stolen. Those bastard Republics.

Oh dear!!!!! I think I am going to runaway in panic for a while. I'll be back in a bit...