How did Clinton become President twice

[babsbunny]

If the Repubs are so good at stealing elections? Oh I believe the last two elections were stolen, but how did Clinton do that? However He did it, let's do it again!!!

[liberal N proud]

1. It was part of the Liberal conspiracy!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

I really think it was the way he could talk to anyone. And they couldn't fix any election enough to offset his charisma.

[teach1st]

2. I'm not an expert...

...but I believe that the evidence of widespread fraud by anti-democrats began with the 1998 elections, after Clinton had been elected to his second term.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. yup

Also note that Ross Perot bolluxed up the analysis of the 92 and 96 elections. But there was great fear in the Cabal that a new Democratic majority could develop. They have done an excellent job in making sure that this will not happen anytime soon.

[w13rd0]

3. Three primary factors:

1) Bill Clinton's charisma
2) Lackluster opposition (George HW Bush, Bob Dole)
3) Ross Perot

[Lerkfish]

4. simple answers:

back then we had more tamper-proof voting. I honestly believe the republicans hated Clinton beating Bush I and set about to start up voting machine companies. Maybe someone could research that, but I don't think Diebold, Sequoia and ESS (sp?) were up and running at that time.
also consider that those voting machine contracts were awarded AFTER Clinton.

[Totally Committed]

5. It was a different time....

I truly think that the circumstances that allowed him to be elected twice have dissipated. They have come and gone.

It is a new world, post-9/11, and the neo-cons have it all sewn up. What we need to do is find a way to take this post-9/11 sensibility (i.e. the "Values" voters, the "Red Staters", the "National Security Moms", the "NASCAR Dads", etc... all the voters that have been factioned off by the neo-cons), and frame our core issues and beliefs in a way that will allow them to come back to the Democratic Party. Clinton was really good at connecting with his fellow citizens. We need to find a way and a candidate that can do that, and still reflect the deepest values of this Party: Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Non-Violence, and Charity.

The time of Clinton is gone, but we can take some of the examples that he set, and build on them.

TC

[barb162]

21. and Clinton is a master communicator

[kentuck]

6. Division in the Repub Party ?

With Ross perot types splitting the Party over economic issues.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Ross makes the anlaysis difficult

but it is too simplistic to declare that he split the Republican Party. I think most opinions and studies show Ross taking independent voters, swing voters, and basically taking an equal number from both sides.

[kentuck]

10. It's true that Clinton never got 50% in either election...

So it can be argued that he lost some votes also. But, we also note that the Repubs got much less than 50% ...

[Warren Stupidity]

11. so like I said, perot makes the analysis difficult

I say that the country is very divided (no duh) but that the legitimate voting edge is actually Democratic and has been since '92. The difference is the calculated fraud in key swing states starting in '98 and getting worse (i.e. they are getting better at it) each election cycle.

Indelibly etched in my mind is GB sr. on election eve in 2000 smugly predicting that there was no way Florida was going to Gore. He knew. Of course he knew. We laugh about it but it is the BFEE.

[kentuck]

13. Clinton does not prove a Democratic "edge"...

If he never received 50%. We would like to think we are the majority but there is no definite proof of that at this time.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Gore 2000 EOM

[Hobo]

9. US Elections for 400 Alex

What is "He got more votes than the other guy"?



Hobo


:beer:

[wyldwolf]

12. Despite what has already been said here, Perot had no role.

Ross Perot had not role.

Political urban legend.

[kentuck]

15. If neither major candidate got 50% then...

how can you say Perot had no role? That they split evenly? I question that.

[wyldwolf]

17. let me rephrase, then...

Perot did not hand the election to Clinton by taking votes from Bush.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. He makes the analysis difficult

We have to go and guess where the perot votes would have gone. But nevermind that, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, despite the fraud in Florida and elsewhere. I think that pretty much decides where the Perot votes came from: they came from swing voters and had little or no effect on the outcome of the 92 and 96 elections.

[wyldwolf]

18. here are a couple of studies

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

more: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

And another that shows a chart of voting trends:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_votin.html

[OHdem10]

19. Did you forget--This was the year the RR

decided to teach the Republican Party a lesson and deliberately\
sat out the election. Bush Senior was never one to pander to the
RR. In fact he did a few things which made them feel they were
being dissed. This time the RR decided the Rep. Party has to
respect us. An organized sit out this eclection worked. The RR
is only a small part of the Repubican Party. However they proved
to the party--you cnnot win an election without us. Therefore when
W decided to run. he spent 2 whole years courting the RR. That is
why they now hold such sway in Rep.Party and Bush panders incessantly.

Perot was a factor --Common sense tells ykou he took some Republican
Votes fronm Bush Sr. The RR stayed home. Bill Clinton won with
40 some percent of the vote.

This is why I have said and continue to say we must expand our own
party--bring in th half who do not vote. Since most of these
people are poor and or lower middle classk, some in our party
continue to blindly say --Bill Clinton won.

Yes Bill Clkinton won. He was a special person but remember the
percemt with which he won.

[daa]

20. Simple pocket book issues for Clintoin

The economy under the first Bush sucked so it was time for change.

The second election Clinton was creating 300,000 jobs a month and everybody was happy. easy choice again.