you're right, it was apparent early on the nothing was at stake at the presidential level, so neither side went all out, but sides were very cordial.

contrast this to, say, nixon's or (to a slightly lesser extent) reagan's reelection campaigns. republicans often can't help but pile on. they're obviously sore losers but they're also sore winners.

clinton probably could have gotten a few more electoral votes, but what would have been the point?



in the case of rmoney-rand, i think they will prove a formidable fund-raising team. i agree that their money would be spent most effectively on senate races, but rmoney won't abide by that until the final week or two of the campaign, assuming his impending loss becomes clear even to him.

It was the first time I was heavily involved in a campaign. Good times!

I think one big difference is the campaign finance rules are different and the outside groups can throw more money around then ever. I don't see a total collapse happening in this one.

Also remember Dole fell of a stage sometime during the GE. That made him look really good.

I was in Ohio but didn't really understand politics enough to realize that my vote was needed more there, so I ended up voting absentee in my home state of NY.

I missed the 88' election by about 200 days. I vote absentee now from overseas, but get to do it by email.

I missed the '92 election because at 16 I was too young.

I distinctly remember Dole falling off the stage too. It was about the only thing anyone remembers from the campaign. It was pretty dull and very tame by today's standards. Dole had a rep as being nasty and mean but really he is nothing compared to the teabaggers.

With the Ryan Budget now part of the debate it could easily help us hold and/or pick up seats this cycle.

the way the 'Pukes have been.