Bill Clinton's run as a New Democrat will fail miserably

[Capt. Obvious]

His candidacy is based on embracing odious Republican positions like welfare reform, Immigration baiting and free trade agreements.

The idiot is running as Reagan Light and rejecting FDR liberalism. News flash to Bill: you can't win by alienating your base.

A lot of people who were indifferent on the 1992 primaries are going to enjoy seeing him get his ass kicked.

[Autumn]

1. Did you stumble into a time warp?

[Capt. Obvious]

3. Maybe

I figured this thread would prove as predictive as this thread

[Autumn]

25. Ah, I see what you mean.

[William769]

5. Let's at least get something good out of this thread.

[FSogol]

7. Beat me to it.

[William769]

8. GTMA!

[geek tragedy]

2. Except that Bill Clinton was a repudiation of losers--Dukakis and Mondale.

After three consecutive ass-kickings at the national level, Democrats were receptive to the idea that something had to change.

There were no signature Democratic policies to defend, because they never won elections.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. And FDR, LBJ

Good point

[geek tragedy]

11. No, Clinton was dealing with the electorate as it existed in 1992. Not in 1942 or 1962.

FDR's voters were mostly dead in 1992. They're all dead now.

[Capt. Obvious]

13. "FDR's voters were mostly dead in 1992"

Fucking. Hilarious.

[geek tragedy]

14. Are you arguing that's not true?

The last time FDR got votes was 1944.

1992 was 48 years later. Crunch the numbers and tell me how many voters from 1944 were alive in 1992.

[Capt. Obvious]

15. No, you're right

The minimum age to vote back then was 50.

[geek tragedy]

16. I guess math is not easy for some folks.

Age in 1944/Age in 1992:

21/69
31/79
41/89
51/99
61/109

You see, voting age in 1944 was 21, not 18. So, the very youngest voters in 1944 would have been 69 years old in 1992.

Virtually everyone 50 in 1944 and over would have been dead. The great majority of those 40-49 would also be dead. Maybe half of 31-39 would be alive, with only the 21-30 in 1944 crowd retaining most of its members in 1992.

[Capt. Obvious]

17. Y u no math

[geek tragedy]

19. still waiting for something resembling a fact or exercise in logic from you . . . nt

[Capt. Obvious]

20. You are just adorable

[geek tragedy]

21. finally, a fact we can agree on! nt

[polichick]

4. What's different now is Dem voters are tired of losing even when they win.

[PeteSelman]

18. Exactly.

If the only way we can "win" is by adopting Reagan's policies, what's the point?

[stevenleser]

27. You are projecting your thoughts onto entire Democratic electorate when in fact they like Hillary

Surely you must know that.

[polichick]

29. It's pretty safe to say that the American people are...

tired of losing to corporations, the 1% and the mic no matter who gets elected.

[99Forever]

31. What "they" would that be?

This Democrat doesn't "like Hillary" nor will I vote for her or any other DINO.

I mean, speaking of "projecting your thoughts onto entire Democratic electorate."

Hypocrite much?

[FSogol]

6. 1992 does not = 2016

[TwilightGardener]

9. Everybody's on to the triangulation game now, though. Progressives/liberals

aren't as stigmatized as they used to be--Obama was pulled more to the left and it's been OK, and the party openly admires Warren. Plus, Ross Perot.

[quinnox]

12. lol

Point taken, predictions made on DU usually don't amount to a bucket of warm spit.

[Capt. Obvious]

22. Except for GT's predictions

He's on point.

I just learned that my grandparents were an outlier in still being alive in 1992.

[Zorra]

23. Yeh, he won. And the country is still going downhill like a corporatist snowball to hell. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

24. But at least he wasn't a "loser like Dukakis and Mondale"

[Zorra]

30. And he was better than Bush, right? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Barack Obama might be able to win in 2016, but he is too inexperienced and not ready for '08

Besides, everyone knows Hillary is inevitable.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

28. Wonder what happened to this Reagan Light fellow!?