What do you think of Bill Clinton's argument that he was in third place

[senseandsensibility]

on June 2 in 1992, and that he later came through and won? He said this in my hometown, San Jose, CA, today at our State Convention.

Is this a valid one? Does it justify Hillary staying in?

[Crunchy Frog]

1. Not particularly valid, as far as I can tell.

Clinton won 39 states. His nearest competitor won 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1992

Sounds more like grasping at straws than anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. It's Probably Not True

Bill took the lead from Tsongas after New Hampshire. If I recall correctly, Clinton virtually swept the Super Tuesday primaries - they may have been later back in 1992, but not *that* much later. I recall this reasonably clearly as I was on the Tsongas team.

I suspect that The Clintons are having another "I was attacked by snipers" moment.

[senseandsensibility]

4. He said that he was in third place behind Bush 1

and Perot. He also said that Perot was in first place.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Then It's Irrelevant

Most primaries are past. The votes are in. The Clintons have lost.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Well, that's different, then.

Since he did have 5 months to go with 50 states yet to be counted.

[stevebreeze]

18. super tuesday was second week in march in '92

Clinton came in second or third place in NH but was given the "win" in the media as it was next state over from Paul Tsongas.

[Garbo 2004]

3. He was the presumptive Dem nominee in April 92. Third place in polls behind Bush & Perot.

http://www.observer.com/print/67023/full for one example.

[nsd]

5. It's not the same thing.

Bill Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee in June 1992. The nomination race was effectively over and had been for some time. Dropping out was not an option since the Democratic party would have been without a nominee if he had.

When he says he was in "third place", all he means is that he was running third in some of the polls for the general election against Bush and Perot. The election itself was five months away, the conventions hadn't happened yet, there had been no debates, the fall campaign hadn't started, and no votes had been cast.

In Hillary's case, we've been through several months of campaigning and debates. Lots of votes have been cast -- the vast majority of pledged delegates have already been allocated -- and it's in that measure that she lags, not just in some poll. Dropping out, or merely toning down her campaign (Huckabee-style), would help the party by making sure that the likely nominee isn't so bloodied by the convention that he can't win.

[senseandsensibility]

6. So he wasn't beating up another Dem?

Although he did say that he was behind Bush and Perot, he left that little tidbit out about already being the Dem nominee. Not the same thing. Thanks for clarifying.

[BlueManDude]

8. He forgot to mention he had the Dem nomination sewn up at that point.

[VolcanoJen]

9. It's about as valid as his continuing fib that he didn't wrap up the nomination...

... until June.

[housewolf]

11. That actually is a true statement.

There were 2 candidates in the race up until the convention. Bill Clinton didn't win enough delegates to cinch the nomination until the California primary in June.

[VolcanoJen]

16. There wasn't a single human being in this country...

... that thought Jerry Brown was going to win the nomination. Jerry Brown won his last primary in March, and, IIRC, his campaign started sinking in earnest in April when he said he'd choose Jesse Jackson as his VP.

Still, he stayed in the race and dogged Clinton through June, but never won another primary, and was never taken seriously. I've always thought that this claim that "Bill didn't have the nomination wrapped up until June" is made with a bit of a wink and a nudge.

[housewolf]

21. Nonetheless

While Bill Clinton was the "front-runner" prior to June, he didn't have the delegates needed to win the nomination until the Calif primary. Technically, what he says is true. It wasn't officially "wrapped up" until June. Until one candidate has a majority of the delegates, anything can happen and it's still open even if one is a clear front-runner. Jerry Brown continued to win delegates throughout the entire primary season, including some in California. Clinton may have been favored, but he didn't have the delegates until June.

I'll call Bill Clinton out on many things that he says, but on this point he's telling it like it was.

[housewolf]

10. No, he wasn't - there were only 2 candidates & he was the front-runner

In 1992, Bill Clinton lost the first 2 primaries and won the third (I think it was South Carolina, after having lost Iowa to Tom Harking and New Hampsire to Paul Tsongas). From them on he was the front-runner. There were 5 candidates running that year. Early in the primary season, 3 of them dropped out leaving Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown to fight it out. Jerry stayed in the race until the convention, ran in all the primaries and collected delegates and actually winning a few states but, as best I remember, Bill Clinton was the frontrunner from there on out.

However, he didn't accumulate enough delegates to cinch the nomination until the California primary in early June. But there were only 2 candidates running so of course he wasn't in third place.


on edit - just saw an up-thread post saying the BC was talking about 3rd behind Perot, Bush I & himself. Since June was still the primary season, I thought the was talking about the primary race. My mistake, my comments apply to the primary race.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. Did he really say that?

http://www.seattlepoliticore.org/2008/02/25/the-1992-democratic-primary/

Bill was the clear front runner now; however a grassroots strategy by Jerry Brown pulled him awfully close to the Arkansas governor. Brown used a 1-800 number to call mass numbers of people and receive funding for his campaign. His wins in Connecticut and Colorado made it look like he was going to take over Bill. However a series of controversial bumps set Brown behind and Clinton won the Democratic nomination in early April after his win in New York.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. It would be valid for him to say that after New Hampshire

Now, with all but 10 races decided, and with Obama in an effectively insurmountable lead, it's just a stupid thing to say.

[housewolf]

15. It may have be a true statement if he was talking about a Perot, Bush I & Clinton race

However, unlike Hillary today, Bill Clinton cinched the nomination on that day when he won the California primary (and his delegate count exceeded his opponent's by a sizable margin going into Calif so Calif was not a hotly contested race), and there were a variety of plausible scenarios by which Bill Clinton could win the GE.

There's really no comparison as to where BC was on June 2, 1992 and were Hillary is today.

[UALRBSofL]

17. If you listened a little closer he said

He and Gore were in 3rd after the democratic nomination behind Perrot and Bush in popularity polls and so don't believe in polls. I watched him on video stream today when he also talked about the trickle down economy that Reagan/Bush implemented and we know Obama has endorsed Bush41 and Reagan. So....

[karynnj]

19. He was versus Perot and Bush

Perot soon after dropped out saying the he was threatened by Bush. A substantial amount of his support went to Clinton and did not return when Perot re-joined the race, but did not regain the level he had been at because many thought that whole episode crazy. Bush was below 40% approval.

This is NOTHING like this race. 1992 was a year where any Democrat would win. In 2008, the issues are in our favor, but the Republican, McCain is not below 40 percent in terms of favorability and he has BILL CLINTON saying nice things about him daily. Ay minimum, he and HRC need to direct their fire at McCain - which HRC did a few days ago. HRC has the right to stay in - even if long term it might have been better if she didn't.

[totodeinhere]

20. When he was in 3rd place the race was still wide open.

This time it's not.

[mikekohr]

22. Upon Perot's Return in 1992, He Won 19% of the National Vote

The demographic Perot attracted was referred to as the "Radical Middle." Those voters were moderates and swing voters that were demanding substantive change of the political system and discourse. Perot occupied the middle od the field and forced Bush to rely on his base. Clinton had the Democratic base which is always a bit bigger than the right end of the political spectrum. He won with approx. 42% of the popular vote.

Today's self identification figures are 37% Independent, 36% Democrat, 27% Republican. When leaner's are figured in its a blow out for Democrats in this election cycle, 51% Democrat, 37% Republican. But there is underlying danger in these numbers for us. Two of the remaining three candidates for President attract the support of moderates and independents, and one of those two is Senator John McCain.

The race in 1992 is ultimate proof of the vital importance of the moderate/Independent vote in winning the White House. Whomever holds sway over the "Great American Middle," wins the White House. It is not enough to control ones base. We need Independents, swing Republican voters and an energized youth/first time voters to win in November and lift the entire ticket.

We have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections. Not appealing to, and energizing the "middle" of the political spectrum, the biggest of the three demographics explains why, and also explains 2 of the 3 losses of the White House the Republican Party has suffered in the last 40 years.

We ignore these facts at our own peril

mike kohr

Victory in '08

[Honeycombe8]

23. #1...I don't think that's a true statement. #2...campaigns got off to very late start comparedtonow

Compared to this election, the 1992 election got off to a very late start. June was just a few mos. after the campaign season got under way.

June THIS time is a YEAR after the campaign season got under way.

It would be comparable, though, to Clinton being in third place in, say, NOVEMBER.