So Thompson supporters...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Considering that Thompson is very ideologically similar to Bush, completely supports Bush's policies and has closely aligned himself with and defended Bush, do you really think he can distance himself from Bush in the general? And if he can't, then do you really believe a candidate seen as closely tied to Bush can win?

[AndrewTX]

YUP

[Wakie]

Consider it this way, if they support Thompson then they probably also support Bush.

[opebo]

Consider it this way, if they support Thompson then they probably also support Bush.

Certainly, but they could also be cognizant of the fact that Bush's unpopularity could be a sign that Thompson will not go over all that well.

[Person Man]

Yeah. They support Bush, nobody else does.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes.

[Person Man]

You know that this will be as difficult as getting Bush himself a third term.

[King]

And Ronald Reagan was also a huge fan and basically a clone of Barry Goldwater.  Your point?

[Person Man]

Uhhh...it was a seperation of 16 years between  the two men....and worse, we are coming off of a disasterous 2nd term. I think that explains enough.

Basically you are talking about reevaluating an ideology after 16 years when  it got 38% of the vote and reevaluating an ideology immediate when it has only 29% of the vote.

Of course Freddy can succed if he totally discredits progressive thought left of Ben Nelson or John McCain, basically destroying the Democratic Party....which no one has done in 150 years...and someone ALMOST discredited and killed a party, ideology and movement in this country 75 years ago, but he was working off the worst man-made disaster in human history and still failed.

[Eraserhead]

And Ronald Reagan was also a huge fan and basically a clone of Barry Goldwater.  Your point?

Come on now! Don't disgrace Barry Goldwater by comparing him to Ronald Reagan.

[Person Man]

And Ronald Reagan was also a huge fan and basically a clone of Barry Goldwater.  Your point?

Come on now! Don't disgrace Barry Goldwater by comparing him to Ronald Reagan.

I know what he was saying, but AuH2O wasn't a theocratic hick.

[Keystone Phil]

it got 38% of the vote and reevaluating an ideology immediate when it has only 29% of the vote.

Talk about poor logic. So only 29% approve of the President. That doesn't mean only 29% approve of conservativism.

[Jacobtm]

After Reagan's presidency, with the fresh memory of Iran Contra, the media assumed that the Republican nomination was posioned, and the Democrats were sure to win.

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

A good campaign from Bush and a standard Democratic campaign from Dukakis led to Bush winning in '88.

[Person Man]

Well, maybe someone else's conservativism but not Bush's conservatism, which Thompson may well possess.

[Person Man]

After Reagan's presidency, with the fresh memory of Iran Contra, the media assumed that the Republican nomination was posioned, and the Democrats were sure to win.

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

A good campaign from Bush and a standard Democratic campaign from Dukakis led to Bush winning in '88.

Not really. Reagan was still in the 50s. Bush is in the 20s.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And Ronald Reagan was also a huge fan and basically a clone of Barry Goldwater.  Your point?

Reagan was hardly a Goldwater clone, but the analogy is asinine. Reagan ran 16 years after Goldwater, and Goldwater was never President, and thus had no effect at all on the political situation anywhere outside of Arizona after 1964 in any way.

A more accurate analogy would be Wilson/Cox in 1920.

After Reagan's presidency, with the fresh memory of Iran Contra, the media assumed that the Republican nomination was posioned, and the Democrats were sure to win.

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

A good campaign from Bush and a standard Democratic campaign from Dukakis led to Bush winning in '88.

Except Reagan was popular at that time. Iran Contra caused only a dip in his approvals that he recovered from. Plus the Iran Contra situation was over and it was a dead issue in 1988.

[Eraserhead]

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone with half a brain cell who thought that Dukakis was more conservative than Bush (even in the early days of the election).

[Person Man]

Lol....yeah. It is quite asinine to think Thompson can make it in the climate. Personally, I don't think there should be a democratic party if they can't even beat Thompson in 08.

[Jacobtm]

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone with half a brain cell who thought that Dukakis was more conservative than Bush (even in the early days of the election).

"So far Dukakis has managed to impress liberals as a liberal and moderates as a moderate. Bush argues that familiarity with Dukakis will breed voter contempt. "When I see one poll saying that two-thirds of the public think Dukakis is more conservative than I am, I say, 'Hey, what in the world goes on here?' I guarantee you nobody will say that when this campaign is over.""

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967634-2,00.html

[Eraserhead]

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone with half a brain cell who thought that Dukakis was more conservative than Bush (even in the early days of the election).

"So far Dukakis has managed to impress liberals as a liberal and moderates as a moderate. Bush argues that familiarity with Dukakis will breed voter contempt. "When I see one poll saying that two-thirds of the public think Dukakis is more conservative than I am, I say, 'Hey, what in the world goes on here?' I guarantee you nobody will say that when this campaign is over.""

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967634-2,00.html

I'm willing to bet that poll doesn't actually exist...and if it does it really says something about this country.

[Keystone Phil]

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone with half a brain cell who thought that Dukakis was more conservative than Bush (even in the early days of the election).

"So far Dukakis has managed to impress liberals as a liberal and moderates as a moderate. Bush argues that familiarity with Dukakis will breed voter contempt. "When I see one poll saying that two-thirds of the public think Dukakis is more conservative than I am, I say, 'Hey, what in the world goes on here?' I guarantee you nobody will say that when this campaign is over.""

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967634-2,00.html

I'm willing to bet that poll doesn't actually exist...and if it does it really says something about this country.

No, those feelings were quite common that year. I remember reading about that in Hardball. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And Ronald Reagan was also a huge fan and basically a clone of Barry Goldwater.  Your point?

Who do you think is more of a factor on the election, Goldwater in 1980, or Dubya in 2008?

[nlm]

Considering that Thompson is very ideologically similar to Bush, completely supports Bush's policies and has closely aligned himself with and defended Bush, do you really think he can distance himself from Bush in the general? And if he can't, then do you really believe a candidate seen as closely tied to Bush can win?

Bush will be hung around the neck of who ever gets the nod from the GOP. Rudy = Bush with some social liberal views, Mitt = Bush+Mormon+flip flopper, Thompson = Bush+lobbyist+Hollywood+very little experience. Any of them will face an up hill battle against the legacy Bush leaves them (except, of course, with the limited number of folks that still love Bush - I think 25% of them post on this board).

[Person Man]

Those are both pretty much what I was going to say next....and what if Dukakis was considered conservative in the begining? It just made the country feel that he was a liar when they found out he was not. Same thing is going to happen to Thompson when they find out he was for choice and campaign finance reform and yet no longer is.

[Nym90]

Sure enough, when the Republicans and Democrats had settled on their candidates, the polls showed that Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead over George Bush Sr. In fact, most voters viewed themselves as conservatives, and were voting for Dukakis cause they thought he was more conservative.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone with half a brain cell who thought that Dukakis was more conservative than Bush (even in the early days of the election).

"So far Dukakis has managed to impress liberals as a liberal and moderates as a moderate. Bush argues that familiarity with Dukakis will breed voter contempt. "When I see one poll saying that two-thirds of the public think Dukakis is more conservative than I am, I say, 'Hey, what in the world goes on here?' I guarantee you nobody will say that when this campaign is over.""

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967634-2,00.html

That's cool that you found that Time article from 1988. Is there a general repository of old articles from Time on their site? It's always pretty interesting to see that snapshot in time of what the general political mood was.

With regards to the question, I would say that while Thompson is charismatic, I strongly doubt he can win in the current environment. Bush would have to do something to turn around his popularity, which seems highly unlikely since he would probably have to change course in Iraq (which of course would cause the GOP base to abandon him, so really there's no good answer).