Electability? Gore & Kerry Beat the 1992 Clinton

[sandnsea]

Are people familiar with the historic vote for Democratic candidates? We win if there's a crisis, and that's about it. Kerry and Kennedy were the only two who faced a campaign as a fresh face, with no Republican crisis. Kennedy was facing Nixon for chrissake, not a "likeable" incumbent "war" president. 2008 is a long ways off, but remembering our history might be in order. Kerry did a helluva job and Gore actually won.

Lyndon Johnson 1964 61.05%
Franklin Roosevelt 1936 60.80%
Jimmy Carter 1976 50.08%
John Kennedy 1960 49.72%
Harry Truman 1948 49.55%
Bill Clinton 1996 49.23%
Al Gore 48.38%
John Kerry 48.27%
Michael Dukakis 45.65%
Bill Clinton 1992 43.01%
Hubert Humphrey 1968 42.72%
Jimmy Carter 1980 41.01%
Walter Mondale 1984 40.56%
George McGovern 1972 37.52%

[SteppingRazor]

1. Yes, Kerry and Gore beat 1992 Clinton...

But so did Bush. Both times.

[Mass]

2. Your point being?

[SteppingRazor]

4. My point being...

That..um... wait. What was my point? :dunce:

[sandnsea]

8. No, Bush didn't

He didn't beat Gore. He didn't beat Kerry nearly as badly as Democrats have been defeated in the past. Clearly we're doing something right as opposed to 1992 and before. We better pay attention to what that really is.

[lancdem]

12. As opposed to 1992?

Our guy won a landslide in the electoral college in '92 and '96. I'll take that any day. He didn't get a majority because there was a strong, well-funded third-party candidate (that wasn't the case in 2000 and 2004).

However, I agree that the closeness of the elections in 2000 and 2004 means that Dems are close to being able to win a majority, which hasn't happened in decades.

[sandnsea]

16. You're hoping for GOP dissent?

That's my point. If you look at the truth of who voted for who in 1992, and NOT the electoral numbers, then you see a different picture. Especially if you put it in historic context where we have only won in the face of a crisis. Between the Civil War and FDR, we only won twice. Delightful thought. :sarcasm:

Gore and Kerry are on the right track to have done as well as they did with no overwhelming GOP crisis.

[lancdem]

20. In 1992, Perot helped Clinton

In 1996, however, he deprived him of a majority. His support dropped a lot from '92 to '96, though, because people began to have confidence in the two-party system again and where the country was headed.

Things are not nearly as bad as they were in the '80s for us at the presidential level. And we're getting close.

The lesson of '92 is, if you have a vulnerable incumbent, you need to take advantage of that and win. Unfortunately, Kerry couldn't do that in 2004.

[sandnsea]

29. The lesson of '92 and 2000 is

Get a third party candidate to run, but make sure they're taking votes from the other guy.

I choose to look at Gore & Kerry, see what appealed to the voters like no other candidate has since Carter, and go from there.

[wyldwolf]

47. there was no Perot factor in 1992

This has been debunked - although many keep repeating it.

[jonnyblitz]

49. I would like to read the debunking because i have been lead

to believe this is true. I am always open to new info.. i will google to see what i might find.

[sandnsea]

51. It is true

Anybody who was out there listening to the voters knows it's true. Those who deny it are using the same logic as those who say Nader had no impact on Gore losing. It's just ridiculous. Perot took votes away from Bush.

[jonnyblitz]

60. i would tend to believe that. I am just curious to read

the other point of view...

[wyldwolf]

56. It's a myth

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%?

--- snip ---

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

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

See also graphical analysis:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2004/05/all_state_voti...

[jonnyblitz]

58. thanks for that..

I will bookmark to read later. :hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

64. Prove to me Kerry didn't

[SteppingRazor]

26. My point was that...

Bush's numbers were also higher than Clinton 1992, not that Bush beat Kerry or Gore (although I do think he beat Kerry, even sans any fraud).

[Zhade]

91. He didn't beat Kerry at all.

NT!

[LittleClarkie]

21. Um, if you discount fraud, then yeah to Kerry. But no to Gore.

Dead even, and the SC had to give it to Bush.

So, no, Bush didn't beat Gore without help.

[FreedomAngel82]

63. No he didn't

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and Bush stole 2004. :eyes: You have no proof of your statement.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. You are comparing apples and oranges

Why not compare the difference between the percentage of the vote between the Republican and GOP candidates?

Or an even better measure, percentage of the electoral vote (the only one that counts).

[Mass]

5. Why? Do you hope another Ross Perot in 2008.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Those numbers are a more accurate reflection on the results

I don't give a rats ass what the percentage is, as long as my guy wins a majority in the electoral college.

[second edition]

41. Could be some repub has to run as an independent

because he can't get the Repub base to support him.

[sandnsea]

7. Why?

The results are the same. We've gotten slaughtered for years, we don't win unless there's a crisis in the GOP. And if you don't look at the percentages, you end up believing a delusion. Like there was something magical about Bill Clinton and 1992, when what really happened was another crisis in the GOP.

[nyhuskyfan]

9. George HW Bush...

Had 90 percent approval ratings coming off the Gulf War. Nobody in the Democratic Party wanted to run.

You can't compare a percent of the vote in a race with a viable third candidate to a higher percentage in a race with only two. Split Ross Perot's votes up, and Clinton would have been, what, 54 percent?

We had the crisis in 2000, and that presidential race wasn't exactly what I would call a "slaughter".

[sandnsea]

10. That's the delusion

It's not true. They were unhappy Republicans and the direction of that party since then makes it pretty clear. Democrats came out registering in record numbers. Remember? Why couldn't Clinton get 54% against Dole in 1996, if people loved Clinton so much?

Gore was a VP, like Truman in 1948. He did win it, there was no GOP crisis. That's why people shouldn't be trashing him the way they do. But he still had a better opportunity than Kerry and didn't do much better than Kerry either, who ran as a fresh face against a likeable war incumbent.

If people don't start looking at the reality of our track record, we're never going to win.

[lancdem]

13. You're forgetting Perot ran in 1996 also and got 10 percent

Clinton increased his share of the vote from 43 to 49 percent. There's no way Clinton could've gotten 54 percent with Perot running and still being a viable third-party option.

[nyhuskyfan]

14. Perot ran in 1996...

He wasn't as effective, but he still got over eight percent of the vote.

Clinton beat Dole 49 percent to 40 percent.

[sandnsea]

19. And so what???

Clinton was the beloved Democratic President leading the path for future Democrats. And he couldn't break 50%?? He was helped by discontent in the Republican ranks. We can't keep depending on that.

[lancdem]

24. I don't think you're seeing my point

Perot running in 1996 had nothing to do with discontent among Repukes (though that was more the case in 1992).

Actually, Dem turnout was low in '96 because the election result was a foregone conclusion. That also deprived Clinton of a majority because polls before the election had him over 50 percent.

[sandnsea]

32. See #28

Clinton was supposedly a popular sitting President. Compare FDR's 60% and Johnson's 60%. Compare the electoral to Reagan. Clinton should have done better. The reasons he didn't are probably the same reasons Gore & Kerry didn't pull those few percentages that would have meant a win. We need to figure out what they are. But also need to remember where we've come from so we don't repeat mistakes of the past.

[dsc]

93. Truman had been President for nearly a whole term by 1948

to compare that to Gore is pretty disingenuous.

[theboss]

11. I think you are onto something

But you can look at these numbers in few ways. Few of them popular with the DU orthodoxy.

One, no Democrat has won over 50 percent of the popular vote in a national election since 1976. So, those who think we would are in the majority at the moment have been deluding themselves for nearly 30 years.

Two, no Democrat since 1964 can truly claim a mandate. So, once again, we need to rethink the marketability of our platform. It doesn't seem to matter who the candidate is, they aren't going to get large numbers running as a Democrat. When we win, it's by scratching out a plurality.

Three, only Democrats who were competitive in the South even get to 49 percent - to make it interesting at the electoral level.

Four, at a national level, things are improving slightly since the 80s (which were positively a debacle). In fact, as a Party, we may not have yet fully recovered from the disasters of 80, 84, and 88. You can't lose three elections by embarrassing margins and not suffer some consequences.

Five, since FDR, the Democrats are much better off nominating southerners rather than northerners. Though, oddly enough, we have not nominated a westerner....ever? How can we have never nominated someone from the West Coast?

[lancdem]

17. Have there been that many primary candidates from the Coast?

Jerry Brown is all I can think of.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Yeh, but

Clinton kicked the shit out of Dole in 1996.

[sandnsea]

18. 49%? Incumbent President?

That isn't hardly kicking the shit out of anybody. He should have easily gotten over 50%, if he and his policies were so damned popular.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Don't hold back

Let me guess, now I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I'd venture to guess you don't like Bill Clinton! That so healthy for the Dem Party, really. I mean it.

As you can see (red is Dem, blue is Rep) he kicked the shit out of Dole by virtue of the electoral vote which, last time I checked, was what counted.

[sandnsea]

28. No

This is an incumbent president kicking the shit out of his opponent. I like Bill Clinton fine, I like alot of his policies. But he doesn't have a magic wand for winning elections, unless it's 'delusion is all that matters'. Which is as valid as anything anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Speculation is not Fact

You disputed my comment, I proved my point, and so you doctored a map to prove ... what?

A win is a win, baby. It's sweet any way you slice it.

Peace.

[sandnsea]

33. That's the 1984 map

Mondale was slaughtered. A win is a win. And Clinton didn't win it the way other sitting Presidents have in the past.

[theboss]

59. A doctored map?

You are under 20 years old, aren't you?

1984 was a wipeout in every sense of the word. Reagan could have deflowered Brooke Shields at halftime of the Super Bowl that year and maybe....we would have competed in Maryland.

[AtomicKitten]

72. Nope

I'm well over 20. We were talking about Clinton, not Mondale.
I put up a map of 1992, the response was a map of the Mondale election?
Perhaps doctored wasn't an appropriate word.
Still my sentiments remain the same.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. That is a SAD ASS MAP

I came into the world about three weeks after that travesty. Sad.

[sandnsea]

52. It's like the 1972 map

Except the '72 map only has Massachusetts. Sad indeed. We've had problems for quite a while.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. You're lucky to have missed it.

It was the first election I ever voted in. Talk about depressing.:-(

[JVS]

23. But Perot got a good % in 1992

If Perot had not been in the race, Clinton would have added a few % points and surpassed Kerry and Gore.

[lancdem]

27. You're right

When Perot dropped out around the Dem convention, Clinton started polling above 50 percent. When he came back in the race in October, he took votes away from Clinton and Poppy.

[sandnsea]

30. No other Democrat had

What makes you so sure Clinton would have?

[JVS]

34. I already said why.

Because some Perot voters would have voted for Clinton

[Mass]

35. Some YES - Who knows how many?

All that is speculation.

[JVS]

36. First see #27

Also consider that Perot got 19% of the vote. Clinton would only need 1/3 of those voters in order to surpass Gore and Kerry

[nyhuskyfan]

37. Many Perot voters would have abstained...

Hence the votes that Clinton actually got would have been a higher percentage -- without even adding more votes.

It's impossible to know how the breakdown of Perot voters would have been split up. But I can guarantee that a lot of non-voters came out to the polls because they thought that the third party representative was a breath of fresh air. Take Perot out of the race and they stay home.

[sandnsea]

39. Problems in the GOP

Doesn't matter how you slice it up, Clinton won because of problems with the GOP. Not because he was so damned popular, although it's a happy little theory. We've been losing the support of the people since 1948, that's a reality we need to face. Comparatively, Gore and Kerry have reversed that trend in national elections. Along with Clinton to some extent. We need to look at that so we don't go backwards.

[AtomicKitten]

40. What is your problem?

Damn, you are one cranky cuss. Damned determined to prove your point, which is what? That you don't like Clinton?

The truth is he is BELOVED by most of the planet. It isn't a happy theory, oh cranky one, it's the truth. He is mobbed wherever he goes. And that is precisely why the Republicans hate him so much. Because he was successful. Whether you acknowledge it or not, he won two presidential elections. Period.

He did a brilliant job at deflecting all the crap, and there was much thrown at him by Atwater and his evil minions. He is probably the most gifted politician of our time.

Back off Clinton. You're just making yourself appear most unpleasant. Being snotty does not prove your point. Your point is based on a tainted bias that does not hold up under the facts.

[sandnsea]

42. I'm talking about winning elections

I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was in 1992.

He didn't do so hot in 1996 either. We shouldn't ignore it or put other candidates down based on a delusion about Clinton's electoral popularity. Clinton won because of Ross Perot in 1992. 1996 would have been much closer without Perot too.

I am not a Clinton hater. I'd rather have him in office than almost anybody. But the numbers don't lie. As popular as he was, he didn't have the magic political path for future Democrats to run on.

[AtomicKitten]

44. You're comparing apples and oranges

He has nothing to do with upcoming elections. I don't know why you insist on entangling the two. Perhaps the DLC is touting some magic formula, but it was Clinton who took charge of his campaign, not the DLC. He ran the DLC, not the other way around. And he won't be running in 2006 or 2008 or ever for that matter.

The Republicans sure as hell knew who he was as governor of Arkansas. In "The Hunting of the President" there is a trail of dirty tricks meant to put him out of commission before he even declared his intent to run for the 1992 election.

If you have a beef with the DLC, then turn your nay-saying and venom there. You are impugning Clinton's success, unfairly in my opinion. He would be an excellent source of advice for whoever runs for president in 2008. He's a brilliant politician. He unseated Bush Sr, depriving him of a second term, and that feet really cannot, at least fairly, be sneezed at.

That's all I really have to say about this, you'll be glad to know.

[sandnsea]

45. You're jumping to conclusions

This has nothing to do with the DLC. It has to do with the reality of the vote going back 70 years, nothing more.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

75. Wow!

I wish I had said it as efficiently -- I have always thought this myself.

Substantively, Gore and Kerry did a lot better than Clinton.

Think about this: Kerry was tagged the #1 liberal in the Senate and he still got within 2.5% of a sitting "war-pResident". To add insult to injury, that old myth that NorthEasterners cannot win was also exploded (or nearly so, depending on your view of the 04 election results :-()

Clinton is fascinating (what amazing memory! Incidentally did anyone listen to Al Franken's conversation with him a few days back, from when he was traveling in Africa? That was just so amazing a display of his prowess!) and interesting, but fairly pedestrian in his analyses and uninspiring in a grand thematic sense. His strength really lay in his ability to assimilate information and synthesize appropriate political compromises.

Kerry and Gore had this knack for subtle rebukes (of opponents) and an expansive, comprehensive view of life and the power of politics/Government that is quite inspiring. I can watch (in Gore's case listen to ;-)) their speeches endlessly, but not so much with Clinton...

[theboss]

65. And that popularity translated into 49 percent of the electorate

I actually volunteered for Clinton in '92. He's really the only politician of my lifetime to excite me in any tangible way - mainly because I came of age with Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis and felt like a battered spouse at that point.

What are the facts? Democrats have not won a majority vote since 1964. We've only won three elections since 1968. We are a minority in the House and Senate. Those are the facts.

I ask you...why?

[The HL]

25. New Political Comic at The Hollywood Liberal

Hey,
Check out the new Political Comic at The Hollywood Liberal.

Bush Talks Politics With Jefferson.

www.thehollywoodliberal.com

If you like it there are lots more at. www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm
Thank You

[OzarkDem]

38. Better to look at Carter, Kennedy & Truman

Today's Dem leaders have gotten lazy and soft on corporate money and media campaigns.

They have to work smarter and harder and get back to organizing at the grassroots level. All politics is local.

[theboss]

66. Those are hard templates to follow

To follow Truman's lead, you have to be a little-known VP and have the President die.

To follow Kennedy's lead, you have to be insanely rich, embrace a new technology, and have a dad willing to buy a few primaries in the South. (And, no, I don't think Kennedy cheated in Illinois in November - at least not to an extant that mattered. I do think he cheated in the primaries though).

To follow Carter's lead, you have to squeak out a win following the most corrupt President in history and run against a dope who doesn't know what type of government Poland has.

[Catchawave]

43. So what percent of voting age apathetic (non) voters were there

at these times? Just curious, because percentages just tell me "of those who voted".

A WHOLE lot of people don't even register, and those that do, a WHOLE lotta of them don't bother to vote at all.

What's misleading about those lower numbers....weren't there viable third party candidates to consider a % too ?

[sandnsea]

46. 1968, yes

13% went for Wallace, that should have been a wake-up call for the potential loss for Democrats. 1972, sad sad sad. We only took Massachusetts. The Libertarian got 1.8%, we flat out lost. The whole country went for Nixon, just like the whole country went for Reagan in 1984.

[theboss]

61. Bush in '88 was not much of an improvement

I can't post maps but that was ugly too. 40 states to 10 with every big one but NY going to Poppy.

Think about that for a second: Poppy Bush kicked our ass.

[wyldwolf]

48. Let me go ahead and say Perot had little or no effect on Clinton winning

It's a political myth created by the right.

[sandnsea]

53. Here's a county map

You're a smart guy. These white, middle class, moderate voters are Clinton voters???

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/perot_vote.html

[wyldwolf]

55. It's all in the numbers

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%?

--- snip ---

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

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

See also graphical analysis:

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

[sandnsea]

57. See the pretty blue Big Sky Country

I lived there in 1992. "Perot votes would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2." They did. Racicot was elected in 1992. It shocked everybody, but that was the beginning of the rightward slide. Note subsequent elections. Perot voters were not Clinton voters. No amount of statistical guesstimating will make it so.

[wyldwolf]

62. anecdotal evidence - That's all you're providing.

Statistics be damned, you just "know."

So here is more hard data:

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

---------------------

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

Read more: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[sandnsea]

67. No, I provided a map

That showed where the Perot vote was and it's all Republican now. Even areas that had been Dem, like Montana, went Republican. And it all started right around 1990-1992.

[wyldwolf]

68. like I said

Anecdotal.

Your entire argument is based on a map that shows Perot voters in some areas that now vote Republican and that "it all started around 1990-1992" (no evidence) and that "I lived there in 1992."

Clinton won Southern states in '92 and '96 and the links I've provided show Perot wasn't a factor in that.

You've not shown by any evidence that Perot voters favored Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Your only evidence is that "Racicot was elected in 1992."

Yet, I provide statistical analysis from exit polling, the Associated Press, etc.

The unbiased reader of our exchange on this topic can see the preponderance of evidence is in my favor.

[sandnsea]

69. Just a big old coinkydink

Gotcha.

[wyldwolf]

70. where is the evidence beyond what you've personally observed?

I mean, you have a map showing SOME of the counties that voted Perot now vote Republican.

But SOME of the counties Perot won STILL vote Democrat and did so in the '96 election. And we now many of the counties we call "red" today aren't nearly as populated as those we call "blue" today.

The evidence simply isn't there to support the myth that Perot cost Bush the election. Further, I don't know why a Democrat would continue to embrace the myth after exit polling and extensive statistical analysis from the AP and other entities show it not to be true.

[sandnsea]

71. Here

This argues the opposite of your cut/paste with statistics and everything. My point is only that if Clinton had really shaken up the electoral landscape, he'd have done it with at least 50% of the vote.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/monos/bushdef/nichols.html

[AtomicKitten]

73. Can't believe I'm responding --

to a point already discussed up thread. What the hell difference does it make when Clinton won the electoral vote by a decent margin?

Maybe red states procreate more and have more offspring. There are a myriad of viable explanations. I'm sorry you aren't satisfied with just winning.

It is clear to me you just want to pound the Democrats, but get a new premise on which to base your point, because this one doesn't float. Your doom and gloom attitude reeks.

[sandnsea]

74. Because we aren't winning

We haven't been winning. And we don't even know who has done well in the last 100 years, who hasn't, or why. That last thing I would ever do is post a gratuitous post to pound Democrats. Since you haven't even gotten my point, there is no way you could know whether it floats.

[wyldwolf]

77. I don't think you're pounding Democrats. What you are doing...

...is arguing a point that has already been proven to be false. When someone rolls out righwing editorials to make their points, their argument is in trouble.

[sandnsea]

79. See #78

I posted that to show numbers can be spun any which way. Just like 43% of the vote, worse than Dukakis, has been spun into Clinton the charismatic campaigner who brought the Democratic Party out of the losing column. It just isn't true.

[wyldwolf]

81. why? The rightwing spin?

The numbers I've shown haven't been spun.

[sandnsea]

83. Says you

That's what spin is all about.

[wyldwolf]

99. no, says the Associated Press and others news organizations

Amazing in your zeal to be right, you've used a rightwing source and thrown any logic out the window.

[sandnsea]

109. A map and demographics

jesus mary and joseph. How can you choose SOMEBODY ELSE'S statistics over what you KNOW and what you SEE. Anybody ought to be able to look at that map and the demographics with it and KNOW who those voters are. It's just stunning. Perot voters are Clinton voters. Just stunning.

[wyldwolf]

110. because anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it

We're going around in circles. You showed a map that had Perot winning in some areas that now vote GOP. So?

He won in areas that now and still vote Dem. Proves squat.

jesus mary and joseph!

[sandnsea]

113. Maps and demographics aren't anecdotes

Ignore history. Just yell chickenhawk 5 times a day, that'll win it for us.

[wyldwolf]

149. they are in the sense that you've used them

Taking a map and saying, "Oh, look! See SOME of these counties Perot won? Well, the GOP won SOME of these counties years later, proving that Perot cost Bush the election!"

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Wait! YOU haven't provided any demographics!

[wyldwolf]

76. what difference does it make that I "cut and pasted" statistics?

Does that make them invalid?

First, I must point out that your link is a rightwing source and contains a fallacy or two:

Here is one of several exaggerations from it:

The double Bubba ticket did not do very well in the South, carrying only two states in addition to the home states of the candidates.

Actually, in addition to Arkansas and Tenn., The Clinton/Gore ticket also carried GA, LA, KY, and WV for a total of SIX southern states.

Your article, as rightwing as it is, in no way refutes in statistics I've given. It merely tries to spin Bush's loss as being Perot's fault.

[sandnsea]

78. spin is spin

that's all, it can be done any which way.

My point is that I don't think we've really looked at the last 20 or so years clearly. No matter what Clinton did in 1992 or why, there's no excuse for him not doing significantly better in 1996. If triangulation and moderation were so popular. There's also the huge change of the power of Foxnews and right wing radio. Republicanism has become a faith almost, like the New Deal used to be.

Perot & Nader both show there's a large part of the population looking for something different. A government within its means, for the worker, honest, and not so interventionist around the world (or in people's business). The last 3 elections, we're getting 48-49% of the vote. We're not getting a majority.

Clinton couldn't even get 45% in 1992, based on his own ideas and campaign. Conventional wisdom is Clinton was this charismatic campaigner who burst on the scene in 1992, generated excitement, new voters turned out at the polls, ushered in the age of the New Democrat. Truth is, he did worse than Gore or Kerry, he did worse than Michael Dukakis for chrissake. 43% of the vote!! How did that get spun into a road map for the Democratic Party? That's all I'm asking.

[wyldwolf]

80. what you're doing is spin - rightwing spin

What I've done is present statistical facts and exit polling data.

Your argument has no basis.

[sandnsea]

82. 43% is not spin

Getting less of the vote than Dukakis is not spin. Not even breaking 50% as a sitting President is not spin. Continuing to lose seats in the House and Senate is not spin. Clinton is not the answer for the Democratic Party.

[AJH032]

85. Why would it matter?

"Clinton is not the answer for the Democratic Party." Whether you think so or not, why would it matter? He can't run again anyway.

[sandnsea]

87. Clinton politics and campaign

But even Clinton the person doesn't appear to have rallied the people the way we've been led to believe. Although good on his PR people for making everybody think so.

[AJH032]

89. how do you back that up?

Clinton is an excellent campaigner, even the Republicans have admitted as much. How can you say that his campaigning does not help other Democrats? You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Please don't say Gore or Kerry either. Gore pushed him away, and he was sick for much of Kerry's campaign. Clinton's approval ratings remain in the 60s.

[sandnsea]

90. FORTY THREE PERCENT

He did not rejuvenate the Democratic Party in 1992 like it's claimed. 43%. I'm stunned people are ignoring how bad of a number that is.

[wyldwolf]

100. this discussion wasn't about perecentages - remember?

It was about whether Perot took enough votes from Bush to give Clinton the win - which he clearly did not do.

[sandnsea]

108. a crazy southerner for you too

Yep. Perot voters were Clinton voters who were just waiting for the right crazy southerner to vote for. Got it.

I'm done. Too crazy for me.

[wyldwolf]

112. sorry your rightwing talking points and anectdotal evidence let you down

..but they will... everytime!

[sandnsea]

114. maps and demographics

Pretend they're not real. for whatever psychotic purpose that I'll never understand. I thought you were more sensible than that.

Or does it jab a big hole in your Clark for President cuz he can win like Clinton theory?

[wyldwolf]

132. personal insults aside....

...you projected future events on to the map you gave.

And still, you're wrong.

So, you wanna divert to a 2003 primary argument? That all you have?

[sandnsea]

123. The Nation, okay?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040802&s=phillips

And two other articles from 1992, 1996

http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch_archives/062292.htm

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9604/22/pooley.shtml

Perot voters were not Clinton voters and everybody knew it then and most people still know it.

[wyldwolf]

130. There is nothing --- NOTHING -- in those articles...

...that say Perot gave the election to Bush.

Try again.

No wait - you've already said you were done.

[sandnsea]

131. Now you're just being dishonest

I'll be damned if I go back through them and pick out the quotes. Unfriggin' believable.

[wyldwolf]

134. You're in denial

Doesn't really matter if you pick out the quotes.

Anyone who reads them will know they don't say that Perot handed the election to Clinton.

But you're really showing your true colors... rightwing talking points... ad hominem attacks...

[sandnsea]

138. Actually, you are

Putting on somebody else what you're guilty of yourself, classic Rovian tactic. Using talking points instead of common sense, but putting that on me. And now attacking me by accusing me of attacking you. It's a classic tactic of Clark supporters, I might add.

[wyldwolf]

148. more of the same from you... Insults? Bringing CLARK into it??? HA HA HA

You can't prove your point, so you throw around insults and try to bring back the primaries.

Sad. Pathetic.

You were never one for providing factual info, though.

Amazing how far off topic you've gotten.

My theory is you know you've lost the debate so you're trying to turn this into a flame war so the thread will be locked.

[AJH032]

84. he actually did quite a bit better in '96

He got 49.2% of the vote (about 9% more than Dole) in 1996, which is about than 6% more than he got in 1992. 6% of the United States is a LOT of people. Additionally, he actually lost southern support in '96 because of his veto of the ban on partial birth abortion, which means that his popularity everywhere else went up a lot.

[sandnsea]

86. A sitting president should break 50%

And not even have to try. Perot lost 10% of his vote in those 4 years. Clinton was not appealing to voters the way it's been spun. He got less of the vote in 92 than Dukakis did in 88. What kind of energized campaign is that?

[AJH032]

88. it shows how bad the "L" word is

Clinton had a great economy and charisma on his side, and yet the right kept labeling him "liberal, liberal, liberal." He tried to moderate his image in '96 and he won 6% more of the vote.

And don't believe that Perot didn't take any votes away from Clinton. You might remember that back in 1992, Perot dropped out of the race for a while, and both Bush AND Clinton's poll numbers went up.

[sandnsea]

92. Where'd those voters go?

When Nader voters were taken out, Bush's poll numbers went up too. Does that automatically mean Nader didn't hurt Gore or Kerry? The Perot argument is the exact same one Nader voters make. It defies reality. Perot hurt Bush, Nader hurt Gore.

If Perot voters are Clinton voters, where'd that 19% of the 1992 vote go? There should be landslides for Democrats all over the west, and Clinton in 1996 too.

Perot voters are likely the key to future victories, but I don't think the Democratic Party has them figured out yet, not Dean or the DLC. But Kerry and Gore did alot better job with them than the 1992 Clinton did, and just as good as the sitting 1996 President Clinton.

[AJH032]

95. you're very wrong

Nader in 2000 got more votes in many states than Bush's margin of "victory" (including Florida). Additionally, according to polls, Nader voters would have voted significantly more for Gore than Bush had Nader not been in the race.

Now, go back to 1992. Let's look at the Perot vote. You assume that it was a conservative voting bloc that voted for Perot. But that is WRONG. In other '92 races, Perot voters voted for DEMOCRATS. In fact, 56% of Perot voters voted for Democratic governors that year, while only 18% of Perot voters voted for Republican governors (the congressional races were practically even). If Perot had not run, and these voters voted for Clinton/Bush in the same proportions as they voted for other Democrat/Republican gubernatorial candidates, then Clinton's margin of victory actually would have INCREASED by 7.5 million votes. At the very least, their votes would have been split roughly in half between Clinton and Bush (as their congressional votes were).

Stop believing that Perot cost Bush the race, or even hurt him at all.

[sandnsea]

102. So Clinton would have got 62% in 1992?

That's what I'd have to believe in order to believe your theory that Perot didn't hurt Bush at all. I posted a map it had the demographics of the Perot voter. They match the voter we've lost in 30 years or so. Call them Reagan Democrats. Call them swing voters. Call them whatever you want. With the numbers we had in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, we didn't appear to be attracting Perot voters or any other kind of voter in very large numbers. Clinton didn't change that in 1992 either. That's the point.

With the losses in the House & Senate, I'm not sure how much progress we've made at all.

"Nader voters would have voted significantly more for Gore than Bush had Nader not been in the race." Yet any number of people will come up with 100 theories as to why that isn't true, just like those who come up with theories like Perot didn't hurt Bush.

[AJH032]

105. Your theories defy all data

-When Perot dropped out of the race temporarily, Clinton's poll numbers shot up as well as Bush's
-Perot voters favored Democrats more than Republicans (56%-18%! How can you argue with that?)
-I don't know if you remember the '92 election, but many Perot voters were simply anti-Bush voters, and would have gone for Clinton had Perot not been in the race, according to polls.
-If Perot hurt ANYONE, he actually hurt Clinton

" 'Nader voters would have voted significantly more for Gore than Bush had Nader not been in the race.' Yet any number of people will come up with 100 theories as to why that isn't true, just like those who come up with theories like Perot didn't hurt Bush. "

My theories are based on factual evidence (polls, voting data). Yours are based in the fact that you don't like Clinton and are trying to take away from his victories.

And please, show me any theories presented by anyone that gives an argument backed by hard data as to why Nader did not hurt Gore.

[sandnsea]

107. Believe what you want

Perot voters were Democrats. Fine. Good. We just need a crazy southerner to run. Oh wait.

[AJH032]

115. another point

you're basing your theories on old demographic data from decades ago (along with your dislike for Clinton). As we saw only a few days ago, districts can easily change color, even in a short amount of time. So to base your argument on that is really, very weak.

[sandnsea]

117. What??

What decades old demographic data? Where did I say I didn't like Clinton? Like I said, this is just way too crazy for me.

[AJH032]

118. to quote sandnsea

"That's what I'd have to believe in order to believe your theory that Perot didn't hurt Bush at all. I posted a map it had the demographics of the Perot voter. They match the voter we've lost in 30 years or so. Call them Reagan Democrats. Call them swing voters. Call them whatever you want. With the numbers we had in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, we didn't appear to be attracting Perot voters or any other kind of voter in very large numbers."

That's decades old data, and as I said, no voting district is stable. They easily change. How else could we have landslide Republican victories followed by landslide Democratic victories followed by landslide Republican victories (Nixon, Carter, Raegan, for example)

[sandnsea]

120. We never had a landslide Democratic victory

Carter didn't win anywhere near the way Nixon or Reagan did. The map is from 1992. The demographic, white middle class younger voter, is what it is. If we've got that vote, it's a surprise to me. White people haven't disappeared out of the US. They still make up the majority vote in those blue areas on the map. Some voting districts really don't change at all.

[AJH032]

122. you're confused

Never had a Dem landslide? What was Johnson in 1964?

And you brought up maps from decades ago.

And yes, voting districts do change, quite a bit. How else did Hackett get 48% of the vote in a district where Republicans usually win with 70%+? People are willing to vote for candidates in the opposite party if the incumbent is doing extraordinarily well or poorly, and the alternative is attractive. Why is that hard for you to swallow? This is exactly what happened in 1992. People were disappointed with Bush's economic performance and were looking for an alternative. That came in the form of either Perot or Clinton. Sorry, but you're just wrong. I've been wrong on things before, and I know, it sucks. Time will heal.

[sandnsea]

124. When you change the story as you go

Nixon Carter Reagan, those were your examples. My original post said that the only time we've done well is when we were on the heals of some sort of catastrophe. FDR, LBJ, Carter, and to some extent, Clinton. That is true of Hackett too, if one read ALL of Joe Conason's article in Salon.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/08/05/hackett_ohio/index.html

Read the articles up above, The Nation post. You're wrong again. You just are. Perot voters were not Clinton voters, they just weren't. No wonder we can't win if people are that screwed up about who our voters are and what makes them tick.

[AJH032]

126. irrelevant

Oh, sorry, Carter wasn't a huge victory. That really changes everything I've said.

"Perot voters were not Clinton voters, they just weren't."

Yep. Forget the polls. Forget the voting data. Forget facts. Forget every piece of evidence that contradicts that. You know the truth. Okay.

Hey, you want to know something funny? A friend of mine voted for Perot back in 1992 because she liked his style and background, and because she didn't like Bush. And you know what else? She said she would have voted Clinton if Perot wasn't in the race. I know it's just one person, but hard numerical data doesn't seem to be enough for you.

[sandnsea]

128. 3 articles, map & demographics

You're the one who is ignoring everything that's posted except what you want to believe. The entire point of the original post was to look at the numbers and what was going on with the various wins. And to note the slaughters. And to note the win that wasn't quite the wild triumph that it was proclaimed to be, Clinton's. 43% of the vote isn't a revitalization of the Democratic Party, rallying of the grassroots, energizing new voters, a road map, or anything else. It's a damned pathetic showing. And writing it off by saying people preferred Ross Perot over Bill Clinton, well that's actually more pathetic.

[AJH032]

135. you're just going in circles

I never said anything about revitalization. This little conversation I'm having with you deals with one claim you made, and that is that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992. I've already debunked that, many times. Your arguments are weak, as they lack anything that backs them up. The articles you posted may make the claim that Perot hurt Bush and cost him the election, but no facts, evidence, polls are used to back that claim up. And you don't have anything either. I do, and I'm right. I make my opinions after I see evidence. I don't decide on something I'd prefer, and then look for people who agree with me, and cite them.

And why is it so "pathetic" to say that a percentage of the electorate might choose Perot over Clinton? Afterall, in this last election, about 60 million people preferred arguably the worst president we've ever had.

Goodnight.

[sandnsea]

140. Yeah but I DID

I really don't care who Perot took votes from. MY point has always been that 43% is not the number of a guy who did all the things for the Democratic Party that it is claimed Clinton did. That is a HORRIBLE number.

Yes there are poll numbers that say some Perot voters would have voted for Clinton. But there are other numbers, in those articles, that say Perot voters would have went Bush 2-1. Doesn't matter to me. If Clinton had really rejuvenated the Democratic Party, there shouldn't have been ANY Democrats voting for Perot. Clinton's politics, charisma, whatever, weren't building this party to a place where we had a majority. And that's what his legacy is supposed to be, as far as the party goes. It isn't true.

And if we don't truly understand those Perot voters, whether they were Bush or Clinton voters, we're never going to get a majority again. The real road map is those dark blue Perot counties. That's where the people are at who are generally unhappy with this bloated, intrusive, corrupt government.

[AJH032]

142. okay, fine

I'm not going to argue whether Clinton rejuvenated the party or not. It's my opinion that he did, considering we lost badly three consecutive times before him. But I don't know it to be true, so I'm not going to argue it. One thing I do know, however, is that Clinton rejuvenated America. That should be his legacy.

[sandnsea]

143. On that we can agree

I had no hope I'd ever be proud to live in this country again. It took me a while, but by 1998 or so, I was proud and hopeful. Two years of proud and hopeful is worth ALOT. I'd just like to have that back!

[AJH032]

146. yeah, me too n/t

[AJH032]

119. deleted

double post

[dsc]

94. Why?

Truman didn't. Wilson didn't. Lincoln didn't. Absent Perot, Clinton would have broken 50%.

[sandnsea]

101. He should have anyway

If he was really the great campaigner with such popular policies. He won and that matters. But I'm not sure basing our future on ideas generated by someone who got a lower percentage than Dukakis is such a good idea.

[AJH032]

106. again

Clinton beat Dukakis by 3.1 million votes.

[dsc]

133. In a three way race I'll take it

He also beat Dukakis as he only got 48%. I won't claim his policies were all that great but he was a fabulous campaigner.

[sandnsea]

139. 43% , fabulous campaigner

49%, as a sitting President, fabulous. Maybe thinking that was fabulous was what put us in a position to lose. I would hope a sitting President would do better than Dukakis. I bet if you asked anybody on the street, they'd say Clinton beat Dukakis by 5-10 pts, in 1992 or 1996. Because Clinton was a fabulous campaigner who energized the party and Dukakis was the worst candidate in history. I bet most people would think that. It's not true though.

[AJH032]

96. Dukakis?

Dukakis got 3.1 million less votes than Clinton overall. But you seem to care only about percentages, so see my other post re: perot.

[CTyankee]

97. Excuse me for wading into this (I'll be sorry)

I have a few theories about Dems losing so often or not pulling high re=elect numbers:

Our embrace of civil rights, which was the right thing to do, cost us southern voters.

Our embrace of women's rights and gay rights, again the right thing to do, lost us votes. Being in the vanguard of rights is often not popular, even with women and gays). I know I am mystified that there are any sentient women or gays who are Republicans, but there we have it.

The labor union movement in this country is and has been in big trouble (see above for a big part of the reason this is so. The repubs successfully picked them up). A major blow to our party.

We were right on the war in Vietnam, McGovern was right, Humphrey was right (after he snapped to), Mondale was right. But it wasn't popular to not be pro-military. Brainless flag waving beats thoughtful opposition to a cruddy war every time.

The right wing in this country has been well organized, taken the long view, devoted tons of money to think tanks to develop strategies and have a rigidly obedient population. We are liberals and because we are liberals we always have and always will lack that obedience. We squabble among ourselves A LOT. The Repubs shut up and vote.

The media got the willies and lost whatever nerve they had when the right started with the "liberal media" drone a while back. Over the years this strategy has worked well for the right. We are always fighting a defensive war in the media.

I'm sure there are more but that's my 2 cents and I've been voting since 1960.

[sandnsea]

103. I agree

But if we're going to lose when we take unpopular stances, then you'd at least think the rank and file would understand and not beat our candidates to death.

Since we have slid in Congress, what did Gore & Kerry do right that enabled them to get as high a percentage as sitting Presidents. Figuring that out matters.

[UDenver20]

98. THAT'S BECAUSE WE PICK STUPID CANDIDATES...

WE PICK THE MOST REDICULOUS PEOPLE WE CAN INSTEAD OF THE MOST ELECTABLE.

WE ONLY WIN WHEN THEY SCREW UP... OR BY ACCIDENT.

[sandnsea]

104. Since the Civil War

It's all been just stupid candidates. That's a theory I guess.

[CTyankee]

111. George McGovern was a stupid candidate?

I'm sorry, I don't get that. McGovern was a war hero, been married to the same woman forever, smart, midwestern, salt of the earth. It was the damn flag waiving thing I wrote in my post. How did Nixon steamroll McGovern?

[sandnsea]

116. Ask the other poster

#98 is his post, his theory. Not mine.

[CTyankee]

125. Una momento, your post just said

It's all their stupid candidates. So what was so bad about McGovern?

[sandnsea]

129. *sigh*

Poster: THAT'S BECAUSE WE PICK STUPID CANDIDATES

Me: Since the Civil War. We've just picked stupid candidates. That's a theory I guess.

You: Missed obvious :sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

136. Ok, stupid candidate was a sarcasm moment for you

So let's talk about how stupid McGovern was. WWII war hero, no corruption, a stand up guy. What was his big problem with the American people (except as I said the antiwar thing)?

[sandnsea]

137. Here's an interesting article

Maybe proposing to give every American $1,000. :shrug:

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_cooper_e1972an.html

[UDenver20]

141. HE CARRIED ONE STATE PLUS DC?!?!?!?!?!

what the hell does his war record matter if he couldn't carry more than 2% of the States...

I rest my case.

[sandnsea]

144. The question is why

These are good guys that America literally kicked to the curb, HARD. Why?

[UDenver20]

145. Because...

It doesn't matter how good of a guy you are...

It matters how good of a candidate you are...

[sandnsea]

147. It matters what your party stands for n/t

[Placebo]

121. CLINTON '08

[UDenver20]

127. I rest my case.

See above.

[TheDonkey]

150. yep, Ross Perot is the HERO of '92

poppy might have had 2 terms if he wasn't there