QUESTION: How did CLINTON do so well in the "RED STATES" ???

[nickshepDEM]

12 years ago in the 1992 election Bill Clinton won in a landslide. He did almost the exact same thing in 1996. At the time of these elections I was 8 and 12 years old so I dont really know much about what happend durring those campiagns and what not.

In 2004 all I keep hearing about is the "RED STATES". The Republicans act as if they OWN these states. Well if their so god damn RED how did Clinton do so well in the SOUTH and MIDWEST? Also I keep hearing Kerry ran a bad campaign. How good was Clintons campaign? It must have been AWESOME to do that well in the south and midwest. What do we have to do to get back to this type of map?

[Vincardog]

1. Simple get FAIR open elections

[alexisfree]

2. wow

wtf !! that is one more reason to believed in fraud

[UdoKier]

3. Because Clinton was a Southerner and a moderate Republican.

If he had been a liberal or a Northerner, or if there had been no Perot factor, things would've been different.

[tgnyc]

50. It's all about being a Southerner

Carter won red states too. So did LBJ. But not Dukakis or
Mondale or Gore (hadn't really been a Southerner since he went
to Washington) or Kerry.

The red states -- especially the Southern ones -- don't trust
Democrats who don't come from the South. One of the many
failures of the Electoral College is that it empowers the
South to hold so much sway over the Demcoratic electoral
prospects in just this way.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Kennedy won southern states

In fact the only southern state Nixon won, I believe, was Florida. The racist party candidate (can't remember which racist party it was) won Alabama and half of Mississippi's electoral votes, the others went to Kennedy.

[Radical Activist]

100. That's what Johnson was put on the ticket for

It was also before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed.

[American Tragedy]

105. That was before the Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act changed everything in American presidential politics.

[tgnyc]

127. Exactly. I should have said it's about the South and the CRA

of 1964. It was at that moment that the South relaunched the Civil War. From that moment on, only Southern Democrats have had a prayer in any Southern states.

[Debs]

119. It was

Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia

[wyldwolf]

86. because he was a southerner and a moderate democrat

Perot played no role.

[UdoKier]

130. Was it the passage of anti-labor NAFTA, or the...

...destruction of the welfare safety net that made him a "democrat"?

Maybe it was the way he allowed consolidation of the media, kept taxes low for the rich or mercilessly continued the sanctions that killed 500K Iraqi children that were his progressive hallmarks.

The only remotely progressive achievements I remember during Clinton's term were the EIC and Family UNPAID Leave Act.

Clinton was a charming, likable and highly competent president, but I cannot accept the notion that he was a democrat. He slowed down the republican assault on and destruction of our country somewhat and he was more humane, but he never tried to reverse it.

But to be fair, there are only a handful of real democrats left in national office, anyway.

[BluegrassDem]

4. He's got the total package

Clinton has "IT". It's the special something that you don't find in too many politicians. He has charisma. He can talk shit and people will believe him, most of the time. He's from the south and doesn't come off as a liberal elitist, like some others in our party. That's why he was able appeal to people in the south and west.

The Democratic Party doesn't need a whole lot of changing, we just need to find the right person that has the total package, and we will win again.

[blueknight]

6. clinton was the best politician ever!

i know hard core re-pugs that admit they like to listen to clinton. i think john kerry is a good man, but had the charisma of a toad.

[Traction]

36. It'll take years to find it again

Reagan was the Republicans "total package" and they still haven't found anyone remotely as popular since. Love him or hate him, he could do no wrong in voters eyes. It would have been really interesting to see him in his prime running against Clinton.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Clinton vs Raygun in an open election would've been very interesting

Granted Clinton would've kicked his ass in the debates.

[ArkDem]

57. A huh huh huh, you said package....

[babylonsister]

117. Indeed. Where is that right person? We're

all looking. I like the way you think, BgrassDem!

[bobweaver]

5. Here are the reasons I think Clinton won in 1992....

1. Clinton was a masterful campaigner. Politicians will be studying and imitating his style of campaigning for decades.

2. The U.S. electorate was discontented in 1992. The economy was in the doldrums. There were riots in Los Angeles. People wanted a change, and the Democrats played upon this.

3. Perot helped Clinton win by drawing away votes from Bush.

In 1996, Clinton won mainly on incumbency, the improved economy and lack of any current war.

[Paul Hood]

7. Ross Perot n/t

[nickshepDEM]

9. I researched it and...

In 1992 Perot got around 16 million votes and Clinton won the popular vote over George H. W. Bush by around 6 million votes. Then in 1996 Perot only got 8 million votes and Clinton won the popular vote by 7 million votes over Bob Dole. I dont think all of those 8 million votes would have gone to Dole had Perot dropped out of the race. Sure he was a factor but was he THE factor?

[Paul Hood]

16. I'm talking about the '92 election.

If he hadn't won that then '96 would have been a moot point. He did lose some of those "red states" in '96 that he won in '92 but he made up for them by winning Florida.

[Zynx]

37. Studies have been done on Perot's effect and your argument is wrong.

Perot only cost Bush a few states according to exit polling. In some states he even took more votes from Clinton than from Bush.

[DaveinMD]

62. actually, only one state

Ohio would have gone for Bush. That's all.

[Yupster]

71. So Cinton would have won Montana

without Perot.

Oh come now.

[DaveinMD]

73. yes he would have

in that election. Montana elected a Democratic Governor and legislature this year. They have a Democratic Senator. Its not a place that Dems never win.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Montana isn't as much of a red state as you would think

Despite the fact that they think that they gain more power. Montana is a lot more democratic than its neighboring Idaho, Dakotas, and Utah. Montana has a strong progressive/labor tradition. The reason it is red all of the time though, is that Democrats don't spend any time campaigning there because it only has 3 electoral votes.

[MontanaMaven]

84. Montana and the West Will Show the Way

I moved to Montana in '92. People here like it when you show up. Clinton showed up and I shook his hand. This is a retail state. This is an independent place and will go blue again as it did this year on the state level. Rural America is hurting and was looking for a leader. They were real interested in Edwards, but they gave the nom to an Easterner. And then no one showed up. We need regional primaries to make the candidates pay attention. That's what people want. Just a little attention.

[AP]

20. Google "condorcet" "bush" "perot" etc...

and you'll see that Clinton would have won with or without Perot in the race.

[Geek_Girl]

67. It's more than how many votes Perot took from Bush

During the campaign in 92 Perot was ahead in the polls and Bush and Perot were slinging mud left and right. Most of Bush's efforts during the campaign were negative against Perot mainly. Meanwhile Clinton continued to campaign on the economy and was reaching allot of middle class voters and he was able to do this without allot of negative mud being thrown his way.

Be the time it was obvious that Clinton was gaining ground it was pretty much too late for Bush. Bush managed to take down Perot with his typical negative campaign but couldn't do it Clinton.

[AP]

10. Nope. Clinton beat Perot and Bush head-to-head according to exit polling.

[cmkramer]

26. Also

Didn't the exit polls show that Perot actually took about the same amount of votes from Clinton as he did from Bush? Where he did help Clinton was when he dropped out. Clinton had moved into a very slim lead at the time but it was well within the margin of error. But after Perot left the race and the success of the convention, Clinton got a lead that he never gave up.

Speaking of Perot, I'd love to know why he was so supportive of Junior when he had nothing but contempt for the old man.

[Yupster]

35. I have seen this in many articles, but

have never seen it in a poll. I don't know if it's true, or repeated legend.

However, you can look at the 96 exit poll.

One question they asked was who you voted for in 92.

Of the people who voted in 96 who said they voted for Perot in 92, here's who they said they voted for in 96.

Dole 40 %
Perot again 30 %
Clinton 20 %

Looking at those numbers I'd think it highly unlikely that Perot drew equally from each side.

Still, I don't see how you can look at the 92 numbers and take Perot out and find 270 electoral votes for Bush. It's closer for sure, but Clinton still wins.

[Yupster]

34. My reading of the Perot factor

from looking at the numbers. See if you agree.

Perot made the race much less close than it otherwise would have been, but Clinton would have won anyway, though closer.

Perot gave Clinton the following states for sure

Georgia (C-43, B-42, P-13)
Montana (C-38, B-35, P-26)
Nevada (C-37, B-35, P-26)
New Hampshire (C-39, B-38, P-23)
Ohio (C-40, B-38, P-21)

Those five states alone make it a very close race and make the map look a lot more even than the historical result.

Perot may have cost Bush one or two of the following states.

Colorado (C-40, B-36, P-23)
Kentucky (C-45, B-41, P-14)
Maine (C-39, B-30, P-30)
New Jersey (C-43, B-41, P-16)
Wisconsin (C-41, B-37, P-22)

In 1996 no one was going to beat Clinton, an incumbant president with peace and prosperity with him. Still, even facing Bob Dole, Clinton became only the second president in history to win his reelection winning fewer states the second time as the first time. The only other one was Woodrow Wilson who also faced a divided Republican Party his first time.

on edit -- there are no states that Clinton lost in 92 that could be reasonably argued that Clinton would have won if it were just a two man race. If there is one, I'd like to hear it.

[Zynx]

38. Montana, Georgia, and Nevada I would agree.

Ohio and New Hampshire though are not clear at all. The Perot vote varied from state to state on who it hurt more. Exit polls showed that Perot voters would have only, on average, shifted to Bush by something like a 54 to 46% margin if they would have voted at all.

[Yupster]

45. It's just hard for me to believe

that there were all these Perot voters who would have voted for Clinton if Perot wasn't in the race, and then four years later after Clinton had an extraordinarily successful first term, those same people voted for Dole.

That makes sense to people?

on edit - just looked up the 96 exit poll.

Of the people who said they voted for Clinton in 92, they said they voted this way in 96 (C-85, D-9, P-4)

The ones who said they voted Bush in 92 voted (C-13, D-82, P-4) in 96

Perot voters in 92 voted (C-22, D-44, P-33) in 96.

[AP]

49. IIRC, Condorcet analysis shows Clinton would have beaten Bush by a big

big margin.

[wyldwolf]

87. Ross Perot Did Not Cost George Bush The 1992 Presidential Election

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

[Withywindle]

8. Several reasons

(in no particular order)



1. Republicans had held the White House for twelve years in 1992. People do want something "new" once in a while. Especially since the economy was tanking.
2. Perot
3. Supernatural charisma. Clinton's really off the scale in that regard, and they don't come around that often. None of the contenders in this year's race--on either side--have it to that degree.
4. Weak candidates opposing. (And no, GWB is NOT a weak candidate: his handlers have packaged that nationalism/paranoia/"faith"/feel-good know-nothing jingoism better than even Reagan's, at a time when people are even more eager to hear it. Neither Bush I nor Dole managed to attach themselves successfully to a whole mythology. Clinton rode the optimistic version of this packaging very effectively, especially in his first campaign.)

Sorry if this seems pessimistic.

[nickshepDEM]

11. Is their anyone in the Democratic party that shows that supernatural...

Chrisma you were talking about?

[XemaSab]

69. I'd say Dean

has an odd, selective supernatural charisma that only acts on some people.

But it's not the same as Bill's supernatural charisma.

Nobody has charisma like Bill's.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Obama is the only one that comes to mind

Although there are a lot of senators that I've seen making speeches on the floor but that I've never seen on the stump. Some of them may be quite charismatic, I just have yet to see them really speak.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. It's feel-good Dem mythology. Clinton got 43 % of the vote.

This, I assure you, is not a landslide.

Perot polled about 20%.... mostly from right of center voters, though some will dispute this.

The economy was a shambles. Bush Sr. was a bit of a bumbler. Puking on the Japanese Prime Minister at a state dinner did not help. (This actually happened.)

Clinton was from the south, as was Gore; they SOUNDED like they were from the south. They naturally ran strong enough down there to carry their home states plus a couple others.

1996: weak opposition candidate + 4 years of peace and prosperity + crowd-pleasing conservative positions on welfare and anti-gay marriage legislation (DOMA). Plus big bucks such as few DEM candidates had ever seen!

Still, Big Bill pulled only 49% of the popular vote.


Don't shoot me, folks. Them's the facts.

[blueknight]

13. i think as far as charisma goes,

barack obama has it

[Withywindle]

18. Yes, he does...

I wish he wasn't the only one coming immediately to mind.

But even though Obama can make the driest discussion on economic development mesmerizing, I don't think it's quite the same kind, and I don't think he could use it quite the same way...the "bubba" factor meant that Clinton could manage to at least temporarily seduce the most anti-intellectual backwoods bigot into some kind of comfort zone.

[ThorsHammer]

47. I'll second that; Edwards to a lesser extent as well (nt)

[autorank]

14. He was a fighter, that simple. People respect that. If he'll fight hard

he really cares, he really is able to keep the wolves at bay for a while. Nobody saw Clinton as a revolutionary, not his voters. I believe that people saw him as a smart guy that wouldn't let "the man" steal everything from us that wasn't nailed down.

Kerry DID NOT FIGHT. That means kicking ass with truthful, aggressive campaigning. Kick some ass and people will respect you. Campaign like Little Lord Fauntleroy and people think your not capable of doing the job.

[dolstein]

17. Bullshit . . . total bullshit

While I strongly disagree with your suggestion that Kerry simply didn't campaign hard enough for the job, the fact is that no amount of campaigning would have made Kerry, a Northeastern liberal from a wealthy background with deep roots in the antiwar movement, acceptable to a majority of voters in the South.

[autorank]

22. Hi there, didn't say he'd win the south entirely. He could have done

better and maybe carried Arkansas, Florida and had a shot at Louisiana.

I don't think you can over estimate the harm Kerry did to himself nationwide due to his delayed and tepid response to the Swift Boat lies. This was one of the dirtiest tricks ever in American politics. Many saw it as that and, I'm quite sure, wondered why Kerry didn't come back with all guns firing. I don't know myself other than to suspect that both he and his campaign staff had very bad judgment on this particular issue.

Additionally, polling looked much closer than the outcome in a number of southern states which makes me think that even with the mistake suggested above, he did much better than reported.

Finally, I'm sick and tired of this Red State-Blue State crap which I take "Kerry, a Northeastern liberal" to be just like the "Red States are stupid" threads that appear.

A good candidate who strongly advocates a fair, populist oriented position and fights really hard for it should be acceptable in every region of the country, period.

[Blue Wally]

65. Populist and liberal are not necessarily the same......

"A good candidate who strongly advocates a fair, populist oriented position and fights really hard for it should be acceptable in every region of the country, period."

Populism versus paternalism. George Wallace was a "populist" despite his anti-cvil rights rhetoric. John kerry was not.

A good populist politician must be (or appear to be) a "man of the people". The opposition has done a very good job of stereotyping the liberal as a haughty figure looking down his nose at the uneducated rabble, ready to dispense big government paternalism.

Remember the "who would you rather drink a beer with?" question.

[Geek_Girl]

68. Kerry was polling

ahead of GW before the swift boat attack, in Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, South and North Carolina.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Ahead of Bush in South Carolina? That's hard to believe...

Remember this is the state that just sent party hack and homophobe Jim DeMint to the US Senate. You have a link to this poll?

[Geek_Girl]

83. Well here a link to the Electoral Vote Website

Link

It shows on May 30 he was polling even with Bush in SC but at different points during the campaign Kerry was ahead in various southern states. But around July August the Bush campaign started hitting hard and those numbers dropped considerably.

I had several co-workers who were talking like they were going to vote for Kerry around Spring by the end of summer they were strongly in Bush's camp. I didn't realize how easily persuaded people can be by negative campaigns but they are.

[ally_sc]

114. listen we tried like heck to keep demint out

what a loser...i mean who is going to listen...we have graham, demint, and now my rep is brown who is also a repug...oh i hated to see fritz go but i guess it was time!...

[Prodemsouth]

104. With regards to Kerry - you are totally right. I think he did not want

the job. If you were serious aboutwinnig would you hire someone with Bob Shrum's record.

[dolstein]

15. Not being a northeastern liberal helped

Being a likable guy helped too. Coming from humble origins helped. And yes, Ross Perot probably helped too.

I really don't know why people are so surprised at how badly Kerry fared in the South. It pretty obvious to me that Kerry would have a very difficult time winning down there.

[Cobalt Violet]

126. I'm not surprised. Not with all that southern bigotry against Northerners.

Especially Massachusetts.

[senseandsensibility]

19. Wasn't the fairness doctrine

or whatever it was called in effect? The media had to give equal time to both sides. Yes, boys and girls, the media was once required to be fair.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. The media was a factor since it was not so consolidated yet

but the the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved under Reagan...

[rman]

43. nope, Reagan repealed the Fairness doctrine

on request of the FCC, in defiance of Congress and Senate who wanted to enter it into law. Reagan did in fact veto it.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. H. Ross Perot's presence helped him in his first run.

in his second run, the economy was so good that I think that is what
got him in that time.

[wyldwolf]

88. no

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

[AP]

24. White southern religious man ran a 50 state campaign about economic

opportunity for the middle class.

[autorank]

25. ...and calls the Iraq War a betrayal of America!

I don't want anybody that supports this kind of inhumane, wasteful, and stupid adventure now or ever.

[AP]

48. What Republicans do to middle class opportunity is just as inhumane,...

wasteful and stupid.

And if pretending you're a hard ass about terror and national security is the way to get elected so that you can undo the economic damage Republicans are doing to the economy, it's OK with me.

[autorank]

56. Isn't "betrayal" a strong enough word? Old school populism & TRUTH.

I agree with you. Our candidate(s) have to show real outrage at being attacked and threatened by outside influences. That doesn't mean they have to support insane wars that make terrorism worse. I think Clark is old school/hard core. I think Dean can channel his energy in a way that shows that attitude. If we don't frame the debate in a way that shows the Republicans/neocons endanger us, then we're not just screwed as a party, we're screwed as a nation. So I agree, no more panzy ass, analytic rhetoric. Just say it and let people see our outrage and anger (in the service of the right cause).

[AP]

58. Anger? Dems need a persuasive argument. Not an angry argument.

Leave the anger to the fascists. Democrats will win with reason.

[autorank]

59. Anger (which is real) + reason. I believe we've been betrayed, massively.

I'd like someone to enunciate that. I think Kerry was eminently reasonable and he would have been a GREAT president, no doubt in my mind. But to get elected, I believe, you need to touch people at their core. People here, the majority, don't operate on the basis of "reason" regrettably. They need our candidates to help with reason + emotion -- indicating WE CARE. In a different world, I'm with you 100% but we're not there yet. Cheers.

[AP]

118. I can't remember ever being persuaded by an angry person.

Anger is an emotion most satisfying for the person expressing it and least satisfying for everyone looking to be persuaded.

[BluegrassDem]

27. Obama is about the closest we got to Clinton

He has the background, the compelling life story, and a personality that will make even a fire breathing republican like him. Whether he has the right skin color to be president so soon, is up in the air. Don't know if the country will do it. But the very fact that he carried downstate Illinois, which is about as 'red' as Alabama, is very encouraging. Everyone who meets him, loves him. You can't say that about Kerry, Dean, or anyone else.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. His skin color might actually be a good thing

Yes, you have to consider that the bigots will do everything they can to keep him out of the white house, but also consider that African Americans and probably other minorities as well, will turn out in unprecedented numbers. If anything, he would do better in southern states than Kerry (assuming that African Americans aren't turned away from the polls).

[davepc]

28. Ross Peroit

[fujiyama]

29. 92: Shitty economy

Clinton was a good campaigner. The campaign responded to attacks rather than sit back and play some bullshit "political judo".

Plus, Clinton was from the south. He spoke their "language". He came from humble a background. Wasn't his step dad an alcoholic? His story was somewhat inspirational. And he ran as a moderate.

Also, he had a lot of charisma. He's very charming.

Of course, there was also Perot. While it's very likely he would have won even without Perot, the win would have been much narrower. It would have been a very close race without Perot.

In 96, he would have won regardless. Dole was a poor candidate. He couldn't relate to people at all. The economy was doing well and people were relatively comfortable. THat also probably explains why there was a low turnout.

[montana500]

30. because you could only own 30 radio stations

For both of Clintons elections, there was still a rule that wouldnt allow one company to own more than 32 radio stations. Clinton and the 1996 congress destroyed that.

The result was a massive buyout of thousands of radio stations across the country by uber right wing corporations who now run top down programming from central locations that is all right wing all the time.

Add to that Faux News, plus Murdoch buying Dish TV and it's all over.

Now you have mega right wing corps dictating the ENTIRE NEWS CYCLE. You have thousands of radio stations spewing nothing but immediate right wing talking points 24/7. You cant even find a liberal host i nthe city of Chicago, that's how bad it is.

[Barney Rocks]

31. Perot factor.

Clinton got 43% of the popular vote in 1992--you don't win with those numbers unless you can split the rest of the vote.

[Zynx]

39. If it went to Bush by the 54-46 margin that it looks like was likely

you get a 52-48% Clinton win.

[Barney Rocks]

61. Perot took

19% of the popular vote--and polling showed that more than 2/3's of his support came from people who would have voted for Bush if Perot had not of been in the race. Less than 1/3 of Perot voters would have supported Clinton in a two-way race.

Perot saved our asses in 1992.

[DaveinMD]

63. untrue

the exit polling showed that the Perot vote would have split almost evenly. Ohio is the only state that would have changed hands.

[Barney Rocks]

93. I am afraid you are mistaken.

You may want to go back and reexamine the data.

[DaveinMD]

101. you've bought the right win lie

Clinton wins with or without Perot.

[Barney Rocks]

95. you may want to reexamine the

data--your memory must be a little hazy.

BTW, Perot knew exactly what he was doing (my family knows him and several of them worked for his organization "United We Stand America"). The ONLY reason Perot was ever in the race was to spoil it for Bush the elder--who he hated. Perot had been a lifetime Republican--but he gave Bush the elder a campaign contribution in 1988--with the stipulation that when he got in office he must check on the status of MIA soldiers in Vietnam--Perot was worried that we had left some men behind. Bush 1 reneged on his promise and Perot was determined to defeat him.

Perot initially dropped out of the race after he figured he had fucked things up for Bush badly enough. But Clinton worried that he needed the Perot factor to win. So Clinton visited Perot in Dallas and begged on bended knee--please reenter the race and I promise that when I win I will look into the MIA in Vietnam.

So a deal was struck--and Perot agreed to finish the race in 1992 and to run in 1996 to help Clinton out--although his heart was no longer in it. He did it to get answers about the possible MIA in Vietnam. (And his hatred of Bush 1 helped). Perot kind of likes sonny Bush--he feels that son Bush would have never fucked him over the way his dad did.

It is accepted fact that in the final analysis Perot hurt Bush--he took votes from the conservative block both times he ran. Look at Gallup polling. Clinton knows this--he is quite good friends with Perot to this day--guess who he visited the day before the opening of his library?

Gore was hoping that Pat B. would repeat the vote splitting in 2000--but it turned out that Nader hurt us more than Pat B. hurt them.

[Yupster]

103. I think 52-48 looks about right to me

a good bit closer, but still a healthy win.

I just look at the numbers and can't see how Bush can get to 270 if Perot isn't there. He gets closer for sure, but Clinton wins anyway.

[latteromden]

32. The man could seriously CONNECT with the people, and he understood them.

And they could understand him.

Now, honestly, I love Kerry, but he could NOT connect with voters outside the Democratic base. That's hard for me to understand, because I certainly was part of that base that was drawn to him, but I can see, in hindsight, that a lot of Republicans and independents just didn't "get" him.

We don't need a moderate, Southern governor to win. We just need a true man (or woman) of the people, who, like Clinton, understands the voters and is understood by them.

[mvd]

33. Right on!

That says it exactly. The voters completely understood what Clinton stood for and where he was coming from. Kerry also had principles, but couldn't communicate them as effortlessly.

[ecstatic]

41. hell, he barely connected with Dems

Much less Republicans.

[Forkboy]

40. Charisma

More than any politician in my lifetime.

Which is also why I think trying to replicate his style wont work :shrug:

[rman]

42. Because many Repub voters found RW "moral values" to extreme.

..the "moral values" that the neocons & reli-fundies were trying to push into the public and political arena at the time.
So these Repubs voted for the only viable alternative: Clinton.

source:
BBC documentary "The power of nightmares: the rise of the politics of fear"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Pandering, Perot, Bob Dull and charm.

Which has led to the devotion to the DLC(R) that has destroyed the party.

[Bush was AWOL]

46. He had it all...Bill Clinton is the most popular politician in the country

at this point in time, in my opinion. I don't think there is a candidate from either party including GWB that could beat Clinton in a National Election. The Right's constant noise about him made him very popular with moderate voters, some I know of who even vote Republican.

[HamdenRice]

51. Many of you forget: "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!"

Bush I was absolutely excoriated by the RW anti-tax Taliban that dominates Shrub's policy making. Bush I basically promised he would not raise taxes. Then after the savings and loan fiasco, and a near economic meltdown due to out of control federal deficits, Bush I raised taxes in a deal with the Democratically controled Congress. This did not help the economy but lost Bush I the entire right wing, which stayed home and did not vote for either Bush I or Clinton. It also caused the RW to label him as a "flip flopper" -- at tested insult for certain demographics that has been used to good effect, if unjustifiably, against Kerry.

One of Clinton's first economic policy achievements was to raise taxes yet further, and retroactively on the wealthy, which drove the RW into mouth frothing hysterics, from which they have not recovered to this day, and which set up everything Whitewater to Monicagate.

If there is one lesson Shrub learned from Bush I, it is that it is better to let the economy collapse due to bizarrely out of control Bush family economics, than to raise taxes to save the nation's economy.

If you can understand the impact of Bush I's "Read my lips: no new taxes", then you can understand 90 percent of Shrub's behavior.

[robbedvoter]

55. "War on terra can't be won" "Oopsie - it can?" W made more gaffes

than Bush thhe Smarter. But the media was better harnessed this time - so YOU forgot his blunders - plus Diebold&comp.

[forksofbuffalo]

52. Because Clinton is a shrewd and crafty politician

He is the best I have ever seen there is no one I know of that can fill his shoes.

[w4rma]

92. I disagree. He was a short term thinker. (nt)

[Dr Fate]

53. No fear/terra-ist propaganda.

n/t

[robbedvoter]

54. Diebold, Harris, Blackwell& gang didn't help (as much)

But don't worry, they are getting better and better at it - just compare Florida 2000 to Florida 2004. I promise you, Ohio in the next mock election will be a clean landslide too.
Fraudulent elections are acceptable in this country. If it were a sports event, all would be yelling re-match. But elections - who cares? We bend a little more and hope for better luck next time.

[digno dave]

60. Cause he could talk 'bubba" and wasn't a condescending shmuck?

[Geek_Girl]

74. Bush is a condescending schmuck

I don't think Kerry is condescending. If anything Kerry was too nice.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[autorank]

70. Welcome to DU!!!

Maybe we need a cultural exchange program -- you know, southerners go up north for a few weeks and find out everyone up there isn't a commie and northerners go south and find out everyone isn't a moron. Kennedy won. Besides, with the west, and it pains me to say this, the hard core south is not essential (this does not include FL). Welcome to DU.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. Wouldn't you say that's prejudiced?

Northeasterners generally don't care where someone is from.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

85. George Bush Senior grew up in Greenwich, CT and went to Yale

I think he qualifies.

Bill Maher had an excellent piece on Southerners:

New rule: Southerners have to at least consider voting for candidates
from the North.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has a powerful argument in his bid to
be the Democratic nominee when he says, "What I give people is a
candidate who can win everywhere in America."


Translation: "We Southerners ain't gonna vote for no Yankee! You suckers
up North will take our Clintons and Carters, but we just ain't buyin'
Kerrys and Deans."

And that's a shame. Not just for Democrats but for democracy itself. And
I feel bad for the millions of intelligent people who live in a region
still dominated by so much prejudice that anyone who wants to be
president better have a twang in his voice and pronounce all four E's in
the word "shit."

Sorry, but responding only to people who look and sound like you is
small-minded, so if Southerners don't want to have an inferiority
complex, I say, "Stop doing things that make reasonable people think
you're inferior!"

Like, getting rid of slavery was a good start. But don't quit there:
Stop being the place that's always challenging the theory of evolution.
What's next, gravity? Is that just a plot by the Jews up North to get
people to drop spare change?

Southerners need to let go of the Civil War, beginning with those
reenactments. First of all, you're reenacting something you lost. It's
one thing to gloat about victory -- when you do it about losing, your
front porch is a few couches short of being decorated.

The time has come to move on. The time has come to consider voting for a
Yankee. Howard Dean's Vermont is no longer where carpetbaggers come
from. Carpet munchers -- yes.

There's no good reason that America, at this late date, still needs to
be a house divided. At bottom, we all want the same things: dignity,
security -- and someone to slap the shit out of Janet Jackson.

[Radical Activist]

99. The long list of things wrong with the south

in that post is exactly why people from the South don't want to vote for New Englanders. Comments like those are why the words arrogant and condescending come to mind whenever someone from New England comes down South to show those rednecks how to live right.

I think we can elect someone who isn't from the South but it has to be someone that shows they can relate to working class people and doesn't look down on Southerners. I don't think Kerry or Dean showed the ability to do that very well during the primary.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

102. Those are Bill Maher's words not mine

I have no issues with southerners, just their inability to vote for a northerner. I think using the snooty Yankee argument is a lame excuse.

[Radical Activist]

115. I could tell they were Maher's

I didn't think you were expressing any anti-south sentiments. Those kind of comments are pretty common though and it makes people in the South defensive. I was just providing my perspective on the whole thing.

The rural south, and even the rural midwest, is a different world from a northeastern city and I think we need someone who understands both of those worlds and can appeal to people in both worlds if we're going to win.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

116. I think that this regionalism is more a metro/retro thing

and I don't think it's as much finding an appealing candidate as people moving forward and getting over their prejudices. Of course, the media plays on these differences and basically, we're screwed.

[carolinayellowdog]

123. Almost 15 million Southerners voted for Kerry in 2004-- 42% of us

but almost 20 million voted for Bush, alas. (These totals are of the 11 states of the Confederacy.) Maher is as bigoted as any redneck, with his attribution to all Southerners of stereotypical traits and then ridiculing and disparaging the lot of us.

More than 40% of Southerners are loyal Democrats; more than 40% are loyal Republicans. Only the swing voters in the middle are swayed by superficial factors like regional origin. Please don't attribute to 100% of us the behavior of ~20%, and then complain about regional bigotry being a Southern specialty.

[Debs]

120. My company

Sent about 30 of us from different parts of the country to run trains in Louisiana. They treated me better than people from New York and the midwest because California never entered the civil war so technically I was not a Yankee. I am not kidding, they called the other guys Yankees and were hostile to them but were more accepting of me though politically I was far more liberal than any of the other guys. I have no way of knowing if the whole south is that way but I was glad to get back out west

[American Tragedy]

107. It's bigotry.

Any Southerner that refuses to vote from somebody just because of their regional origin is bigoted, pure and simple.

However, as a Southerner myself, I will say that telling them that considering voting for Northerners is the "New Rule" is decidedly not the way to encourage them to do so.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

125. Dubya is a Texan. His father lived in the Northeast until he was his 30s.

I just read Kitty Kelley's bio of the Bush family. Have you read it? It's very interesting, and I think you may find it educational. Bush I was a New England preppy. He ran as one in 1980. He lived in NYC as an ambassador. He is a NORTHERNER.

[wicket]

128. Bush didn't develop his "accent" until about 10 years ago

When he was elected Governor. If you watch older video clips of him, his voice is whiny and nasaly, but no Texas accent. He's a fraud, his "ranch" wasn't even built until after the 2000 election!

[Geek_Girl]

66. I would say it was a number of factors

In '92
The Perot factor was the main reason
He is southern
He ran a populous campaign during a time when the economy was in a slump.
Clinton is the most skilled politician of our time.

In '96
The economy was going strong
Dole was a weak candidate
He is southern
He ran a centrist campaign at a time the economy was booming and things were going good
Clinton is the most skilled politician of our time

[MAlibdem]

80. PEROT!

Clinton did not (IMO) forge a new Democratic majority, in fact, he never won more than 50%. Instead, Perot took a few Clinton votes, and a TON of Republican votes.

[wyldwolf]

89. no

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

[IStriker]

106. Yes

My husband's aunt who is now deceased (at age 94) voted for Perot, the first time in her life she had ever voted for anybody without an "R" behind his name. Clinton got 43% of the vote in a 3-way race and less than 50% the second time he ran. If it had not been for Perot, he never would have seen the inside of the White House unless some President sent him an invitation.

[wyldwolf]

108. anecdotal evidence (aunt)

VS. electoral statistics.

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%?

Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

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.

[IStriker]

110. Unless we're going to hold a re-do...

there is nobody who knows how anybody who voted would have voted had Perot not been in the race. I must admit that Clinton was also "an unusually good liar" and he got lots of votes from old Liberals like me who would NEVER vote for him again (or any other member of DLC for that matter) but I needed a wake-up call to see that the crooks had highjacked my party.

[wyldwolf]

111. well, the same could be said for any race, then

... we'll never know who won for sure unless we redo it again and again and again.

The rest of your reply was off topic and irrelevant to the point.

But, since you brought it up - I voted for Clinton, would again, and the policies of the DLC most strongly resemble that of the pre-McGovern era of the dem party. Saying that, I could easily contend that the party was hijacked during and after the McGovern run, which resulted in devestating losses in the presidential races of '80, 84, and '88.

...but to blame losses on one ideological faction is pointless.

[IStriker]

112. Whatever you care to believe.

[wyldwolf]

113. why, thank you. I do prefer facts and figures

[w4rma]

90. FOX wasn't as biased. Limbaugh was marginalized. CNN wasn't owned by AOL.

NBC hadn't yet been bought by GE (I think).

[Barney Rocks]

96. There was no FOX at all in 1992.

I think FOX has been biased from day 1

[Obviousman]

91. 1) Clinton ran an effective campaign

2)Bush was on the defensive
3) H. Ross Perot

[wormhole]

94. you forgot about Perot.

Clinton didnt even win in a majority, no democrat has since Carter. (which is why the Democratic Party is in trouble)

the South was easier to win by Clinton with Perot splitting the right-wing vote, thats your answer.

[wyldwolf]

97. Perot didn't split the rightwing vote. That is a myth

[American Tragedy]

129. Anecdotal, but I know a number of liberals who either voted for Perot

or strongly considered it. He basically ran on balancing the budget and cutting gratuitous spending, which has appeal across the political spectrum.

Incidentally, before he imploded he was extremely effective. If I were a Democratic strategist, I would have candidates watch video of Perot with his infamous charts and graphs. I've always wonderered why they've never tried to emulate his approach.

[Radical Activist]

98. Populism, and Clinton could connect like no one else can

Politicians as good Clinton don't come along very often and when they do most are smashed by the system.

First, I think people underestimate the effect turnout among African-American voters had on the two elections Clinton won. That was a big part of it.

Second, people underestimate the appeal of economic populism. Because Clinton was such a moderate president people forget that he ran as a populist in '92. He talked about universal healthcare and jobs all the time.

He was able to pull it off in a genuine way because he came from a middle class background in a poor southern state. He knew how to connect with the average working person in the south and midwest. It's much harder to make that populist appeal when you come from a wealthy new england family. And yes that applies to both Kerry and Dean.

I don't believe you have to be a conservative to win in the South. You do need a populist appeal that focuses on economic issues and the ability to connect with the average voter. Clinton was incredible at doing that.

If Edwards had been allowed to continue talking about race and class issues with a populist theme, and the Kerry campaign had made an actual effort in the South, we could have carried a couple Southern states. It is largely the Democrats fault this year for not trying.

[American Tragedy]

109. Clinton's personality and personal political skill, as well as timing

He is surely the most charismatic political figure of his generation, and that can overcome obstacles that would eliminate most people from attaining public office.

I talked to my great uncle last week, who's been a Goldwater Republican for most of his life. He's pretty much the only right-winger in my entire family, so whenever we visit him we tend to tread carefully around political issues. At dinner, he remarked that he missed Clinton and really liked him.

I almost fell out of my chair. My parents and I exchanged incredulous glances before speaking.

If there was ever a powerful testimony to Bill Clinton's appeal, that would be it.

[WI_DEM]

122. In '92 Ross Perot in '96 Clinton was the incumbent w/ strong economy

He also ran to the middle and stressed his southern roots. He is also a masterful politician.

[sampsonblk]

124. Good campaigner with real ideas, and he stuck with them

Simple. Bush I was a failure as Pres. The country wanted solutions and Bill Clinton offered them in a way that highlighted Pres Bush's failings.

In this current election cycle, we had a candidate who gave this pRes a pass on too many important issues, and offered a poor alternative himself.

[quaker bill]

131. Because George H. W. Bush was a poor candidate.

It is really just that simple.

Junior runs a much tighter campaign when it comes to southern appeal.