stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Too many people hate the Clintons.
|
Is this why Bill won the presidency in '92 and '96? Wasn't his support/approval ratings somewhere in the mid-60% range when his final term ended? |
Bill won the Presidency with a bare plurality in '92, against an incredibly unpopular incumbent and with the help of a spoiler third-party candidate who got 20% of the vote, primarily from conservative-leaning voters. Then he got a "bye" in '96, running against a tired old man whom the GOP only nominated because it was "his turn", and who never had a shot at being President. In other words, Clinton was extremely lucky.
The worst side-effect of Clinton's wins was the increased perception on the D side that "triangulation" was the key to winning elections, which led to Gore's pathetic 2000 campaign and the nomination of "electable" John Kerry in '04. We shall see if the Dems have learned their lesson yet, or not.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I am constantly baffled by the number of people who forget those inconvenient facts.
Clearly the Clintons bring some baggage, but Obama also presents the Republicans with the obvious opportunity to play the race card, which worked quite well for them in '68, '72, '80, '84, '88 and '00. |
Playing the race card hasn't worked too well for Hillary so far. And voters are hypersensitive to direct attacks based on race -- the Rs may have "played the race card" in '88 with Willie Horton (I'm not sure what you're referring to in the other elections), but that's of a completely different order than saying "don't vote for this guy because he's black". I actually hope the Republicans try to play the race card if Obama is the nominee, because Obama is that rare politician with the ability to make people who take cheap shots at him look like jerks. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
