Question about the BUSH'S

It was many factors. 12 years of Republican rule and the economy was in a shambles. Bush Sr. just didn't connect with the common people. This was magnified by something as trivial as not knowing how much milk cost. He got a lot of press over that.

Clinton rode a youth wave into office. He connected with the youth. He was the first to appear on a non-political TV show (Arsenio Hall). MTV had just started the Rock the Vote campaign. Young people actually showed up at the polls.

It was a happy time.

 

I could see Edwards doing the same thing in a couple elections, riding a youth movement. He's pretty solid, and I would vote for him gladly too. I don't think Clarks done either, but this year against Bush was probably his best shot.

Heck, I wouldn't even mind voting Republican if their candidate wasn't such a douche. I know IIII love living in a theocracy.

 

The twin polling questions "Are you better off now than you were four years ago" and "Is the country heading in the right direction" have determined the winner of the popular vote (and electoral excepting 2000) since Carter vs. Reagan. There are plenty of subplots, but you can pretty reliably pick a winner by how those two questions are answered.

 

There were a alot of other factors. Bush had something like a 90% approval rating after Gulf War I, but his support slid among his base, when he broke his "No New Taxes" promise and supported some gun control legislation that many Republicans were against.

Ross Perot entered the presidential race for the first time and did pretty well for an independant. He took almost 20% of the popular vote, campaigning almost exclusively on the economy and protectionism, and showing all these charts and graphs on television, all working to assert that Bush's economic planning was not in the country's best interests. Most of those Perot votes would have likely gone to Bush. I also think Perot would have done better had he picked a better public speaker than Admiral Stockdale, who made his first real appearance in a vice-president debate with Quayle and Gore, and came across as a senile fool. Stockdale did the impossible: making both Dan Quayle and Al Gore look good in a debate.

Clinton's staff were very in tune to media trends at the time, and made good use of free air time, on things like televised town hall forums on C-SPAN, daytime talk shows, MTV, and anything else that was free. Clinton's oratory style was best suited for smaller, more intimate gatherings and he was king of the format. Clinton's ability to "feel your pain" worked for a lot of people who were tuned into the Jimmy Swaggert or Oprah brand of immediate gratification and "feel good-ness." I was as turned off by it from the beginning as many lefties here are with W's swaggering cowboy everyman manufactured image.

Also, since the Cold War had ended, the Republicans had lost their biggest issue (defense). This gave Democrats the edge, since most of the scrutiny was on the economy, which was the main theme to Clinton's campaign. I know many people who liked Bush, but were convinced by Perot of the state of the economy, and voted Clinton because they thought he had a better chance of winning.

Had Bush Sr. not pissed off his base and Perot not ran, I think he would have won easily. After the aftermath of the '92 campaign, with its disingenuous candidates and dumbed down, soundbite laden, short attention span, headline newsish media coverage, I had no choice but to vote in protest for Andre Marrou.

 

"It's the economy, stupid"

 

Deji:

A lot of what you wrote is right, but your basic premise is inherently flawed. Contrary to popular belief, Perot cost Clinton almost as many votes as Bush. Nobody thought he would but he did. This was put to rest by various media sources over ten years ago.

 

I agree with Batman, even though I speculate on his choice of sidekick. A rich reclusive guy who likes to wear outlandish costumes, and gets a lot of media attention inviting a young lad to live at his mansion and do mysterious things at night.. kinda makes you wonder

Nearly all polling analysis then and later showed that even if Perot had not run CLinton still would've won. Even when Perot dropped out of the race for two months Clinton still had the lead in the polls. And I'm saying this as someone who voted for Perot.

 

Most of those Perot votes would have likely gone to Bush.

Not factual. Perot helped the incumbent both times he ran (GHWB in '92 and Clinton in '96), i.e. Perot took more votes from the challenger than the incumbent, i.e. Bush Sr benefited from Perot's running and would have lost by a larger margin had he not.

The skeptics can go to the Cato Institute's web site for a detailed report.

 

why was it that Bush senior did not get re-elected?

During the Democratic primary, iirc, the economy was in a recession. As expected, the Democrats got a big media push during the primaries which put their candidate in the lead. Typically, the Republicans would have rebounded in the polls by their convention. Perhaps the recession gave the Democrats an insurmountable lead going into the Republican convention. The economy had rebounded by then, but as in now the recovery was jobless.

Clinton was also a more likable, charismatic figure than Bush Sr. Clinton may have even won if the economy was producing jobs.

 

Clinton beat Bush in large part because for the first time in at least 4 elections the Dems got tired of being nice and took it to the Repubs. Much like Kerry is doing today.

Got to your video store and rent "The War Room."

 

It's not safe to say that. It will take lot of hard work, and a lot of unknowns to happen in order to get rid of Bush.

 

GW Bush is trying to learn from the mistakes of his father and has started campaigning early and hard against his opponent. GH Bush failed to do that until late in the race. GW Bush has also been trying to shore up his domestic issues while also not downplaying the foreign and security issues. One thing that benefits GW Bush more than his father is that security and foreign policy issues are still a big concern while at this time in 92' they had pretty much faded from public concern. Also Kerry isn't Bill Clinton and is lacking in both charisma and outsider status. CLinton didn't have a long controversial record that could be picked at like Kerry.

IMO this election is going to be close, bitter and with a few surprises and I'm not sure who'lll win.

 

GWB has $150 miilion or more to spend in 15 battleground, swing states. His campaign is run by top notch talent, so GWB will get a bing bang for his campaign bucks. I suspect that the race will be very close and very intense (since Kerry will not back down).