In 1992, Bill Clinton had the economy to run on. He also had Ross Perot. He also was charismatic and well funded. He also had the broken promises of Bush 41 to run on. He was elected with 43% of the vote. In other words, it was a unique combination of factors (aka: a "fluke").
Ahem, there's a much more recent "fluke" election of a president that you may be forgetting about.
Maybe you would agree that 16 months is a long long time, and we have no idea what will happen between now and the next presidential election. There's no question that Bush will probably do even better among those groups he won in 2000: the Bible belt and white males. But maybe you would also agree that who he really needs to appeal to in order to win are those wishy-washy soccer mom swing voters in PA, OH, MI, and a couple of other key states. It seems to me to be quite in doubt as to whether he has them as locked up as you suggest.
Nothing is locked up. The Northeast and West are not too happy with Bush on the international front alone. It's closer than people might think, but not enough for a Dem victory at this point. Doesn't that seem fair to say?
Nothing is locked up. The Northeast and West are not too happy with Bush on the international front alone. It's closer than people might think, but not enough for a Dem victory at this point. Doesn't that seem fair to say?
Ahem, there's a much more recent "fluke" election of a president that you may be forgetting about.
Maybe you would agree that 16 months is a long long time, and we have no idea what will happen between now and the next presidential election. There's no question that Bush will probably do even better among those groups he won in 2000: the Bible belt and white males. But maybe you would also agree that who he really needs to appeal to in order to win are those wishy-washy soccer mom swing voters in PA, OH, MI, and a couple of other key states. It seems to me to be quite in doubt as to whether he has them as locked up as you suggest.
Oh, here we go again! I wouldn't characterize it as a fluke at all. That's really not the word.
I agree Bush will do better among groups he won. The difference is, I also think he is going to do better among groups he didn't...particulary hispanics. I think you are going to see Bush make a serious run for CA, PA, MI and even NY. Yes, NY. I don't think he is going to write off any state. He's going to run one hell of a campaign. He may just have the money and popularity to blow out the democratic opposition. We'll see.
Oh, here we go again! I wouldn't characterize it as a fluke at all. That's really not the word.
Wow. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Clinton was a fluke but the closest election in presidential history with all of the controversey FROM BOTH SIDES surrounding it wasn't?
You didn't just disagree. You had to jab and take a stab at me personally.
First, you have stated NO facts. At all. Second, OF COURSE you say there is no point in talking about it. Talking about it would mean you would have to 1) Take a positon and 2) Defend it. You can't even do the first one.
The main point I was putting up was the political significance of the "lost jobs" number. Your contention seems to be that unless things get a lot better and fast, Bush is screwed. I disagree with that in the extreme. I'm saying that if things get even a little better, he'll be fine. If they improe significantly, he'll win easily. And if the ecnonomy experiences a sudden boom, he'll be unstoppable. The only way he is going to lose is if things get signficantly WORSE and there is some other factor present...like a strong and well funded Dem opponent. In 1992, Bill Clinton had the economy to run on. He also had Ross Perot. He also was charismatic and well funded. He also had the broken promises of Bush 41 to run on. He was elected with 43% of the vote. In other words, it was a unique combination of factors (aka: a "fluke").
Mark my words, jimmac. If the economy stays the same or gets better, Bush will win.
God what a crock! I can state facts all day but you have your fingers in your ears! Yeah the only fluke was the last election. If Bush had run against anyone else he would have been creamed! During the Bush vs. Clinton election the economy causing a win for Clinton was all that was talked about on the news. " It's the economy stupid ". By Nov. of 04 people will be damn tired of this Bush economy. Hell I'm tired of it now and so are a lot of other people. Yeah try and tell me that if this goes on until next year that people will want to reelect him. He's going down.
You'll notice in all of our exchanges I've never used a four letter word to discribe you. You are pathetic. I suppose if Bush loses they'll have to take you away with a net and sedate you. You'll be mumbling something about how it was all a democratic plot! Now I am stabbing at you because you couldn't have a civil conversation!
Wow. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Clinton was a fluke but the closest election in presidential history with all of the controversey FROM BOTH SIDES surrounding it wasn't?
People like you seriously frighten me.
I wouldn't characterize it that way, no. I'd say it was one of the closest in history. I'd say that we have serious federal election problems. I'd say there were shifting standards for vote counting, a State Supreme Court rewriting the law, throwing out of military ballots on technicalities, and most importantly, inappropriate influence from the Media (and/or incompetence in the Media). Basically, I'd say it was a disaster. That being said, I believe that it was BUSH who was nearly cheated. From the Media's early calls, to the FL Supreme Court rewriting the law, to Gore's team tossing military ballots on technicalities, to a non-statewide recount with a gazillion different vote counting standards. I've always said that the only fair recount was conducted by machine on election night. The only other fair recount would have been a total statewide hand recount with ONE, uniform standard. That never happened.
So no, I don't think the word "fluke" appplies. I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, a charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. The Dems DO NOT have a charismatic leader. Dean is too liberal for a national election, Kerry will not translate very well outside of New England, and Gephardt is just, well, Gephardt. The economy may well (or may not) be better by Novemebr 2004. Bush has not raised taxes, he's cut them...twice. His foreign policy remains popular---in the 60th or 70th percentile. He's seen by average working Americans as a strong wartime leader. He's going to have the biggest war chest in history. He's got a Republican machine and the advantage of incumbency. He's the leader of the 9/11 aftermath. "The people that brought these buildings down are going to hear from ALL of us soon", with the crowd chanting "USA! USA! USA!" is going to be used ad nauseam. He's even got Medicare under his belt..or will quite soon. The Dems have no real agenda other than to attack him...and that will fail. I guarantee that. The only way they can win is if we 1) sink into a near-deapression, 2) Bush is proven to have directly lied about WMD in the court of public opinion, 3) They put up a charismatic and well funded candiate with a real agenda. None of that is going to happen.
" I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, A charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. "
You just don't get it do you. The average worker out there isn't just going to put up with this forever. No matter how many wars and tax cuts Bush pulls out of his hat. When it doesn't put food on the table it isn't going to matter. That's what happened with Clinton vs. Bush.
Bush sr. put on a good show of bluster and toughness also. It didn't matter. As a matter of fact if this economy keeps up people are going to ask why it was necessary to spend all that money on that stupid war in Iraq. No WOMD, no Saddam it doesn't look pleasant.
" I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, A charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. "
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
You just don't get it do you. The average worker out there isn't just going to put up with this forever. No matter how many wars and tax cuts Bush pulls out of his hat. When it doesn't put food on the table it isn't going to matter. That's what happened with Clinton vs. Bush.
Bush sr. put on a good show of bluster and toughness also. It didn't matter. As a matter of fact if this econmy keeps up people are going to ask why it was necessary to spend all that money on that stupid war in Iraq. No WOMD, no Saddam it doesn't look pleasant.
All I can say is......Out the door in 2004!
The economy was about where it is now when the elction took place. You are correct that it was a major factor. It also wasn't the only one. Bush 41 ran TERRIBLE campaign. There is no Clinton savior this time around and there won't be.
You can pretend this is 1992 all you want...but it isn't. It's much, much different.
1992 wasn't a fluke in any way. It was "the economy, stupid," pure and simple. Perot didn't take more votes away from Bush than Clinton, that's a myth. All the analyses showed that Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush, but that many wouldn't have voted at all if not for Perot. The number of voters increased substantially that year, they didn't decrease as you suggested.
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Even fellowship was caught in Kerry's RDF at one point.
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
1992 wasn't a fluke in any way. It was "the economy, stupid," pure and simple. Perot didn't take more votes away from Bush than Clinton, that's a myth. All the analyses showed that Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush, but that many wouldn't have voted at all if not for Perot. The number of voters increased substantially that year, they didn't decrease as you suggested.
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Even fellowship was caught in Kerry's RDF at one point.
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
Uh, yeah Clinton would have had an election landslide, that's why he still didn't break 50% in 1996 and helped the Dems lose the house in 1994.
Fact: Many overseas military people had trouble with the ballots.
Fact: People with an 80% match to a felon's name or birthdate were wiped from the voter records without notification. They turned up at polls and were turned away.
Fact: Truckloads of votes went missing.
Fact: The supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of the US ruled differently in regard to recounts.
Fact: Certain third party candidates took major swing votes.
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
Take a position and defend it jimmac.
It was Bush 41 raising taxes that helped turn the economy around in the first place and set us up for the 90s boom. He helped get our fiscal house in order. It is a shame that all of you republican sheep shun him for the one good thing he did.
Uh, yeah Clinton would have had an election landslide, that's why he still didn't break 50% in 1996 and helped the Dems lose the house in 1994.
Landslide... haahahaaha
Nick
I didn't say he "would have" won an electoral landslide, I said he did. He had more than twice the electoral votes of Bush in 92 and then Dole in 96. Or are you folks going to start saying only the popular vote rather than the electoral vote matters.
Absolutely. Bush will get in, no question ... and this time more people will vote for him the other guy even!
Much different now, much more frightening.
That would be an interesting comment if it had anything to do with who who wins Presidential Elections. Perhaps if the Media didn't tell half the country that Bush had lost at 8 p.m. EST the pop. vote would be different? Hmmmm.
BRussell:
Quote:
1992 wasn't a fluke in any way. It was "the economy, stupid," pure and simple. Perot didn't take more votes away from Bush than Clinton, that's a myth. All the analyses showed that Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush, but that many wouldn't have voted at all if not for Perot. The number of voters increased substantially that year, they didn't decrease as you suggested.
The economy was a major factor. There is really no way to tell how many votes Perot took from either side, unless we are talking about exit polls of registered voters. I think you are wrong here, though. Anecdotally, I know many people, including my own parents (who were major Bush supporters for long time) that voted for Perot instead of Bush. It's generally accepted that Perot had a good deal to do with Bush's defeat. I also didn't say the numbers declined. What I said is that Clinton was elected with less than 25% of the people in country voting for him.
Quote:
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
How profound! "People didn't like Bush and wanted him out". No, they blamed him for breaking his tax pledge and the recession. He also ran a lousy campaign. 1992 can indeed be considered a fluke. That combination of factors is unlikely to occur again.
Quote:
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Kerry will come off as a liberal, academic elitist snob next to Bush. You may not like the Bush photo ops, but I guarantee you they will work for him in mainstream America. As far as debates, you make the mistake (as so many have and will) of UNDERESTIMATING Bush. You forget that by most accounts, Bush won the third debate in 2000. Most accounts have him narrowly losing the first debate, pulling even in the second and outright winning the last (by only a few points to be fair). Bush beat the supposedly much more intelligent Gore....and I'll tell you why: He was prepared, focused and collected. Bush is not a stupid man by any stetch, and those that underestimate him usually get their heads handed to them. Bush will make Kerry look a like a stiff.
Quote:
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
Are you kidding? Bush 41 raised about $30 million for his primary campaign. We're talking almost 7 times that much. And, he'll spend it before the convention, which btw, is in September. This will create a mountain for the Democratic challenger to climb in only 60 days.
I also don't understand your last comment. Are you saying that people will resent his fundraising? I don't think that's true, except for those who aren't going to vote for him no matter what.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
In 1992, Bill Clinton had the economy to run on. He also had Ross Perot. He also was charismatic and well funded. He also had the broken promises of Bush 41 to run on. He was elected with 43% of the vote. In other words, it was a unique combination of factors (aka: a "fluke").
Ahem, there's a much more recent "fluke" election of a president that you may be forgetting about.
Maybe you would agree that 16 months is a long long time, and we have no idea what will happen between now and the next presidential election. There's no question that Bush will probably do even better among those groups he won in 2000: the Bible belt and white males. But maybe you would also agree that who he really needs to appeal to in order to win are those wishy-washy soccer mom swing voters in PA, OH, MI, and a couple of other key states. It seems to me to be quite in doubt as to whether he has them as locked up as you suggest.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Nothing is locked up. The Northeast and West are not too happy with Bush on the international front alone. It's closer than people might think, but not enough for a Dem victory at this point. Doesn't that seem fair to say?
Perhaps.
Originally posted by BRussell
Ahem, there's a much more recent "fluke" election of a president that you may be forgetting about.
Maybe you would agree that 16 months is a long long time, and we have no idea what will happen between now and the next presidential election. There's no question that Bush will probably do even better among those groups he won in 2000: the Bible belt and white males. But maybe you would also agree that who he really needs to appeal to in order to win are those wishy-washy soccer mom swing voters in PA, OH, MI, and a couple of other key states. It seems to me to be quite in doubt as to whether he has them as locked up as you suggest.
Oh, here we go again! I wouldn't characterize it as a fluke at all. That's really not the word.
I agree Bush will do better among groups he won. The difference is, I also think he is going to do better among groups he didn't...particulary hispanics. I think you are going to see Bush make a serious run for CA, PA, MI and even NY. Yes, NY. I don't think he is going to write off any state. He's going to run one hell of a campaign. He may just have the money and popularity to blow out the democratic opposition. We'll see.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, here we go again! I wouldn't characterize it as a fluke at all. That's really not the word.
Wow. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Clinton was a fluke but the closest election in presidential history with all of the controversey FROM BOTH SIDES surrounding it wasn't?
People like you seriously frighten me.
Wow. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
so was this one of those posts where you come off as an asshole but you're really just kidding?
Originally posted by alcimedes
so was this one of those posts where you come off as an asshole but you're really just kidding?
No because I followed it up with an explanation.
Alone: joke.
Not alone: not a joke.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
One.
Two.
You didn't just disagree. You had to jab and take a stab at me personally.
First, you have stated NO facts. At all. Second, OF COURSE you say there is no point in talking about it. Talking about it would mean you would have to 1) Take a positon and 2) Defend it. You can't even do the first one.
The main point I was putting up was the political significance of the "lost jobs" number. Your contention seems to be that unless things get a lot better and fast, Bush is screwed. I disagree with that in the extreme. I'm saying that if things get even a little better, he'll be fine. If they improe significantly, he'll win easily. And if the ecnonomy experiences a sudden boom, he'll be unstoppable. The only way he is going to lose is if things get signficantly WORSE and there is some other factor present...like a strong and well funded Dem opponent. In 1992, Bill Clinton had the economy to run on. He also had Ross Perot. He also was charismatic and well funded. He also had the broken promises of Bush 41 to run on. He was elected with 43% of the vote. In other words, it was a unique combination of factors (aka: a "fluke").
Mark my words, jimmac. If the economy stays the same or gets better, Bush will win.
God what a crock! I can state facts all day but you have your fingers in your ears! Yeah the only fluke was the last election. If Bush had run against anyone else he would have been creamed! During the Bush vs. Clinton election the economy causing a win for Clinton was all that was talked about on the news. " It's the economy stupid ". By Nov. of 04 people will be damn tired of this Bush economy. Hell I'm tired of it now and so are a lot of other people. Yeah try and tell me that if this goes on until next year that people will want to reelect him. He's going down.
You'll notice in all of our exchanges I've never used a four letter word to discribe you. You are pathetic. I suppose if Bush loses they'll have to take you away with a net and sedate you. You'll be mumbling something about how it was all a democratic plot! Now I am stabbing at you because you couldn't have a civil conversation!
You are so still in check it's not funny!
Originally posted by BR
Wow. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Clinton was a fluke but the closest election in presidential history with all of the controversey FROM BOTH SIDES surrounding it wasn't?
People like you seriously frighten me.
I wouldn't characterize it that way, no. I'd say it was one of the closest in history. I'd say that we have serious federal election problems. I'd say there were shifting standards for vote counting, a State Supreme Court rewriting the law, throwing out of military ballots on technicalities, and most importantly, inappropriate influence from the Media (and/or incompetence in the Media). Basically, I'd say it was a disaster. That being said, I believe that it was BUSH who was nearly cheated. From the Media's early calls, to the FL Supreme Court rewriting the law, to Gore's team tossing military ballots on technicalities, to a non-statewide recount with a gazillion different vote counting standards. I've always said that the only fair recount was conducted by machine on election night. The only other fair recount would have been a total statewide hand recount with ONE, uniform standard. That never happened.
So no, I don't think the word "fluke" appplies. I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, a charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. The Dems DO NOT have a charismatic leader. Dean is too liberal for a national election, Kerry will not translate very well outside of New England, and Gephardt is just, well, Gephardt. The economy may well (or may not) be better by Novemebr 2004. Bush has not raised taxes, he's cut them...twice. His foreign policy remains popular---in the 60th or 70th percentile. He's seen by average working Americans as a strong wartime leader. He's going to have the biggest war chest in history. He's got a Republican machine and the advantage of incumbency. He's the leader of the 9/11 aftermath. "The people that brought these buildings down are going to hear from ALL of us soon", with the crowd chanting "USA! USA! USA!" is going to be used ad nauseam. He's even got Medicare under his belt..or will quite soon. The Dems have no real agenda other than to attack him...and that will fail. I guarantee that. The only way they can win is if we 1) sink into a near-deapression, 2) Bush is proven to have directly lied about WMD in the court of public opinion, 3) They put up a charismatic and well funded candiate with a real agenda. None of that is going to happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, A charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
More garbage from the SDW parallel reality!
You just don't get it do you. The average worker out there isn't just going to put up with this forever. No matter how many wars and tax cuts Bush pulls out of his hat. When it doesn't put food on the table it isn't going to matter. That's what happened with Clinton vs. Bush.
Bush sr. put on a good show of bluster and toughness also. It didn't matter. As a matter of fact if this economy keeps up people are going to ask why it was necessary to spend all that money on that stupid war in Iraq. No WOMD, no Saddam it doesn't look pleasant.
All I can say is......Out the door in 2004!
Originally posted by jimmac
By SDW,
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I used it for Clinton because there existed a unique and perhaps non-duplicatible set of circumstances for that election (Bush raising taxes, moving to the center, abandoning Reagan-era polices, Ross Perot, A charismatic and intelligent Democratic candidate who himself moved to the center, etc.) None of this is is going to reoccur. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
More garbage from the SDW parallel reality!
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
Take a position and defend it jimmac.
Originally posted by jimmac
SDW,
You just don't get it do you. The average worker out there isn't just going to put up with this forever. No matter how many wars and tax cuts Bush pulls out of his hat. When it doesn't put food on the table it isn't going to matter. That's what happened with Clinton vs. Bush.
Bush sr. put on a good show of bluster and toughness also. It didn't matter. As a matter of fact if this econmy keeps up people are going to ask why it was necessary to spend all that money on that stupid war in Iraq. No WOMD, no Saddam it doesn't look pleasant.
All I can say is......Out the door in 2004!
The economy was about where it is now when the elction took place. You are correct that it was a major factor. It also wasn't the only one. Bush 41 ran TERRIBLE campaign. There is no Clinton savior this time around and there won't be.
You can pretend this is 1992 all you want...but it isn't. It's much, much different.
All I can say is Dean will be the whore in 2004!
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can pretend this is 1992 all you want...but it isn't. It's much, much different. [/B]
Absolutely. Bush will get in, no question ... and this time more people will vote for him the other guy even!
Much different now, much more frightening.
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Even fellowship was caught in Kerry's RDF at one point.
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
Originally posted by BRussell
1992 wasn't a fluke in any way. It was "the economy, stupid," pure and simple. Perot didn't take more votes away from Bush than Clinton, that's a myth. All the analyses showed that Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush, but that many wouldn't have voted at all if not for Perot. The number of voters increased substantially that year, they didn't decrease as you suggested.
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Even fellowship was caught in Kerry's RDF at one point.
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
Uh, yeah Clinton would have had an election landslide, that's why he still didn't break 50% in 1996 and helped the Dems lose the house in 1994.
Landslide... haahahaaha
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
I wouldn't characterize it that way, no.
Of course not because he is your guy.
Fact: Many overseas military people had trouble with the ballots.
Fact: People with an 80% match to a felon's name or birthdate were wiped from the voter records without notification. They turned up at polls and were turned away.
Fact: Truckloads of votes went missing.
Fact: The supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of the US ruled differently in regard to recounts.
Fact: Certain third party candidates took major swing votes.
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
Take a position and defend it jimmac.
It was Bush 41 raising taxes that helped turn the economy around in the first place and set us up for the 90s boom. He helped get our fiscal house in order. It is a shame that all of you republican sheep shun him for the one good thing he did.
Originally posted by trumptman
Uh, yeah Clinton would have had an election landslide, that's why he still didn't break 50% in 1996 and helped the Dems lose the house in 1994.
Landslide... haahahaaha
Nick
I didn't say he "would have" won an electoral landslide, I said he did. He had more than twice the electoral votes of Bush in 92 and then Dole in 96. Or are you folks going to start saying only the popular vote rather than the electoral vote matters.
Originally posted by Harald
Absolutely. Bush will get in, no question ... and this time more people will vote for him the other guy even!
Much different now, much more frightening.
That would be an interesting comment if it had anything to do with who who wins Presidential Elections. Perhaps if the Media didn't tell half the country that Bush had lost at 8 p.m. EST the pop. vote would be different? Hmmmm.
BRussell:
1992 wasn't a fluke in any way. It was "the economy, stupid," pure and simple. Perot didn't take more votes away from Bush than Clinton, that's a myth. All the analyses showed that Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush, but that many wouldn't have voted at all if not for Perot. The number of voters increased substantially that year, they didn't decrease as you suggested.
The economy was a major factor. There is really no way to tell how many votes Perot took from either side, unless we are talking about exit polls of registered voters. I think you are wrong here, though. Anecdotally, I know many people, including my own parents (who were major Bush supporters for long time) that voted for Perot instead of Bush. It's generally accepted that Perot had a good deal to do with Bush's defeat. I also didn't say the numbers declined. What I said is that Clinton was elected with less than 25% of the people in country voting for him.
People didn't like Bush and wanted him out, and Clinton won in an electoral college landslide. It would have been a popular vote landslide if it wasn't for Perot.
How profound! "People didn't like Bush and wanted him out". No, they blamed him for breaking his tax pledge and the recession. He also ran a lousy campaign. 1992 can indeed be considered a fluke. That combination of factors is unlikely to occur again.
Kerry (the likely nominee, IMO) is a very charismatic figure, and his war hero status is quite a contrast to Bush's staged and tax-payer-funded photo-ops. And with Kerry going against Bush in debates and public events during the campaign, the contrast will be even greater. W. is his daddy's son.
Kerry will come off as a liberal, academic elitist snob next to Bush. You may not like the Bush photo ops, but I guarantee you they will work for him in mainstream America. As far as debates, you make the mistake (as so many have and will) of UNDERESTIMATING Bush. You forget that by most accounts, Bush won the third debate in 2000. Most accounts have him narrowly losing the first debate, pulling even in the second and outright winning the last (by only a few points to be fair). Bush beat the supposedly much more intelligent Gore....and I'll tell you why: He was prepared, focused and collected. Bush is not a stupid man by any stetch, and those that underestimate him usually get their heads handed to them. Bush will make Kerry look a like a stiff.
Bush's fundraising won't be any different than normal: Bush spent a lot more than Clinton in 1992, and Republicans always outspend Democrats. And the obscene political fundraising that Bush displays will be linked in people's minds to his policies, to the economy, and to Bush's largest-in-the-history-of-the-universe deficits.
Are you kidding? Bush 41 raised about $30 million for his primary campaign. We're talking almost 7 times that much. And, he'll spend it before the convention, which btw, is in September. This will create a mountain for the Democratic challenger to climb in only 60 days.
I also don't understand your last comment. Are you saying that people will resent his fundraising? I don't think that's true, except for those who aren't going to vote for him no matter what.