Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Clinton vs. Bush in 2000


Henry

Recommended Posts

I would have voted for Bush of course, but Clinton would have won based upon being a known quantity to the American people who was a likeable personality and who seemed relatively harmless. There's of course another side to all of those things, but the point is that most people found him palatable enough to vote for him if they didn't see a better alternative somewhere.

Bush at the time was viewed as unintelligent, inexperienced, and an figure who rode the coattails of his family's wealth and success and big business connections into the Republican nomination. His credentials have been earned on the job during a national crisis. This means that as a political matter, Gore had no business losing to him (I'm not referring to vote tabulation which was ultimately fair, just sheer campaigning and politics here) and this in turn shows the depth of Gore's failure during that election.

The more interesting question to me would be Bush 2004 versus Clinton 2000. However, I don't know how you can analyze that objectively given the paradigm shift that the country has gone through in light of 9/11, which falls between those two dates. It's now a different country with different priorities and a different view and respect for Bush's leadership.

Clinton was a peacetime president (we thought . . .) during a period when our country was getting tremendously fat and happy off of an amazing string of years of economic growth.

Bush is a war time leader presiding over a country that was already experiencing an economic slowdown when he took office, and that went into full-fledged recession after 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good answer redman. I wasn't looking for Clinton 2000 vs Bush 2004, but that would be an interesting debate as well. I think after a year and a half of post-9/11 leadership from Bush, we forget he was thought of as a simple-minded frat-boy riding daddy's coattails. That Gore couldn't beat such a then-weak candidate speaks volumes about his campaigning abilities.

Navy, I doubt a full-fledged character debate in 2000 would have helped the alcoholic, with a history of drunk driving. Unless, of course, you felt alcoholism is a desease. :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Redman, too, namely that ...

Clinton would have won mostly from familiarity and charisma. I wasn't Clinton's biggest fan, but he was a very talented and personable speaker, along with his association the economic good times.

I also agree that Gore beat himself. He was uninspiring enough that I only voted for him at the last second -- I had considered a Nader protest vote. But, as always, I voted for my lesser of two evils. Winner-take-all elections suck.

If only we had some form of run-off elections ... that would make things interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore distanced himself from clinton because of all the scandals the Elian fiasco and the pardons among others.

There is a reason for PT Barnums famous quote about a sucker being born every minute but the democrats can only fool them for so long.

A gop congress that would ve cut spending with Reagans tax cuts would ve been huge and we still benefit from those initial taxcuts well those of us who invested back then.

Now Bush 2004 vs Clinton 2000 would be a Bush landslide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Bandit

what if Bush loses in 04 like his Dad did after a war?

Tough analogy to make.

First of all, the assumption would be that Bush would lose in 2004 because of the economy, because he continues to have strong support for how he's handling foreign policy and the war on terror.

With Bush 1, the Gulf War was a totally separate issue from the economy, which is what defeated him in the election. However, our entire foreign policy paradigm has shifted now after 9/11 to pre-emptively eliminate threats to us before they can harm us. And the public knows that 9/11 is still the cause of a lot of our economic problems; at the very least it deepened the recession we were in.

Also, Bush 1 made a terrible mistake when he ignored his "no new taxes" pledge and signed off on the largest tax increast (at the time) in history. He alienated a lot of his own political base.

On a personal level, "W" is a lot more politically saavy and runs a more disciplined and better organized White House. Bush 1 was a foreign policy/military/intelligence guru, but neglected virtually all other issues. Bush 2 is doing a better job of staying well-rounded on the issues, and is leading us during a politically more forgiving time in history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After Bush undresses France and Germany and the Iraqi people show us love (Oil Deal) for freeing them as well as his policies showing promise it will be no contest.

All of the so called Democratic front runners are so scared they use liberal attack dogs (Kennedy, Conyers and pelosi) with no chance of becoming the commander in chief to mudsling while they remain silent.

What will they run on?

We need you people to give your fair share (tax increase)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2004 will be won or loss on the economy.

I think Clinton would've won a close election over Bush in 2000. Clinton sure would've won his home state- Arkansas. :laugh:

76 Election- Post Watergate. People were looking for something new, though Ford lost a close election in the end.

80 Election- Bad economy. Carter was done.

84 Election- Good economy. Noone had a chance against Reagan.

88 Election- Good economy. Do you want to make a change to a liberal person? Nah. Though I think if the Democrats put up someone else; they could've pulled out an upset.

92 election- Bad economy. That's why Clinton won.

96 Election- good economy. While Clinton wasn't unbeatable; it would've taken an extraordinary candidate to have given people to make a change.

00 Election- Ecomony starting to decline, though it really didn't become evident until the fall of 2000. Gore blew it. This was election where the incumbant party normally wins but he was such a lousy candidate.

In 2004, if the economy isn't recovering; Bush will lose a close election. Doesn't matter what happens in Iraq unless it turns into a disaster- meaning the aftermath of this spring's war leads to new terror attacks in the U.S. The economy has to be humming along to real growth, or else Bush will be back at his ranch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

R2000-

Good chronology. However I still think that it ignores the dramatic effect that 9/11 has had upon our country's way of thinking. That's something that will make 2004 unique, as it will be the first presidential election after 9/11. Look at how surprising the mid-term election results were, with the "party in power" gaining seats in both houses for the first time in 50-60 years.

Again, I'm not predicting a win yet. For example, another devastating 9/11-style attack may actually (and ironically) hurt Bush and convince peopel that he's not in fact dealing well with the war on terror.

However I just don't see the economy carrying as much weight this time around with people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting hairs here, but the DEMS gained in both the House and Senate, I believe, in 2000.

While Bush was elected in 2000 also - he didnt take power until 2001.

In 1998, the DEMS gained in the House (5 seats I think), and no change in the Senate.

Perhaps the same message was being sent then that was sent last year - dont change the status quo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...