Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Clinton vs. Bush in 2000


Henry

Recommended Posts

This poll surprises me.

The fact of the matter is while we'll never know the outcome of such a hypothetical, it does remain true that Clinton never received the votes either Bush or Gore received this last election. That does matter here. Clinton was, absolutely, a charismatic figure. But, he had such huge negative numbers, and Bush proved he could move his constituency in greater numbers than Clinton. I don't think it would have been very close either.

For that matter, Gore would have beaten Clinton had he not been the VP. Clinton's time was at an end. Even had he had the option of running again, the people would not have supported him sufficiently for him to win again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit...

I could be wrong here on 3rd party voting...but there was a strong 3rd party candidate during Clinton's 2 elections. Stronger than the 2000 election I believe.

That alone would account for more votes for DEMS this year (not as strong 3rd party candidate) since the majority of 3rd party voters are closer to DEM than GOP (I think).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the data I was looking for regarding 3rd party candidates...

1992 William J. Clinton, Democrat 44,908,233

George H. W. Bush, Republican 39,102,282

H. Ross Perot, Independent . . . 19,741,048

1996 William J. Clinton, Democrat 47,401,185

Robert Dole, Republican 39,197,469

H. Ross Perot, Reform . . . 8,085,294

2000 George W. Bush, Republican 50,456,169

Al Gore, Democrat 50,996,116

Ralph Nader, Green . . . 2,695,696

Link to post
Share on other sites

TEG,

Perot was largely a Republican. A very conservative person who took more from the right than the left in that election. Not that it matters. Nader probably pulled more from Gore than Bush too and maybe even enough to swing the election. Perot didn't swing the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people were pretty sick and tired of Bill. Remember the whole "Clinton Fatigue" factor, for both Bill and Hillary?

Gore tried like hell to distance himself, even as Clinton practically begged Gore to let him campaign (which, really, is what Clinton loved to do). Gore barely won some large states, as I recall, and the anti-Clinton vote may have been enough to put those states in Bush's column. I don't know if you could say the same about Clinton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by The Evil Genius

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.

They didn't gain enough though, LOL. They need Jeffers to switch to give them the senate in 01, but they did gain 5 seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I was not a fan of Bill Clinton I think if he and Bush ran against each other that Clinton would win.

Why, because Clinton is the best pure politician I have seen since LBJ.

Even though every man in America knew he was cheating on Hillary we still almost belived that he was not, almost.

Bill would have beaten Bush simply because he is smarter and has more charisma.

To be honest with the Iraq crisis gogin on right now I woudl rather have Bill handling things. He just seemed to have a way to smooth things over and get folks to talk.

Bush reminds me of the little kid in the neighborhood who's parents bought him the best bike in the world and he wanted to show everyone how cool and tough he was for owning it.

While I do not lean to GOP or Dem's with any favoritsm, I do think Bill woudl be the better man for the nation at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hard to say...Americans seem more concerned these days about national security. the Clintonite record was abysmal in this arena. military morale was at its nadir during the Clinton years and the exodus of quality folks was pronounced.

does anyone seriously believe that Clinton had a firm grip on national security? that his national security team had a vision and the moral courage to see it through? that he had the moral and leadership skills to command the effort and sacrifice from the volunteer armed forces that any leader must have in times of crisis? (beyond the constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, the big kahuna still has to be a leader and be trusted by the troops or they will unvolunteer in a hurry).

puleeeez............we should be thankful he isn't the commander-in-chief today...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how he would of reacted in these times. People seem to think that we would of been doomed if he had still been in office or if Gore had been elected.

Who's to say that this still doesn't blow up in our faces? Then what?

Talk of Morals, Ethics and what's "Right" should be taken with a grain of salt these days. Its all about Oil, its all about Greed and its all about hate. The current Prez has a lot of really smart war tested guys telling him what to do. That makes me feel alittle better with them calling the shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel Clinton would have won.

His scandal was about sex. He lied about a BJ.

He was not my favorite Pres, but it seems like he was more well thought of by other nations. Bush is bringing on a hatred of the US overseas. MSN.com just ran a story today about how hated we are as a nation. I don't know everything, but I get the impression that Bush wants to go to war more than he wants to avoid it. I understand that war is inevitable at times, but at least look like you are trying to avoid it rather than looking like a war monger.

Bush is screwed anyway, if he waits to attack Iraq, then terrorist attacks will follow and he will take the blame, if he waits till a terrorist attack takes place, he will take the blame for that as well.

He can't win in the current situation that he's in, but he brought it on himself by playing mr. toughguy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by codeorama

Bush is screwed anyway, if he waits to attack Iraq, then terrorist attacks will follow and he will take the blame, if he waits till a terrorist attack takes place, he will take the blame for that as well.

He can't win in the current situation that he's in, but he brought it on himself by playing mr. toughguy.

Interesting perspective. What happens if we win the war in Iraq, and STILL get hit with a WMD, while we're running huge deficits and paying for occupation/reconstruction?

Regarding the economy, I think the more specific economic issue in 2004 will be growth in well-paying white-collar jobs. The economy can grow without gaining jobs -- Indeed, economists polled in the WP yesterday expect the economy to grow 3.5% this year while adding relatively few jobs.

If Joe Breadwinner is still unemployed or significantly underemployed come election time, there's a good chance he's going to want the government to spend money to directly benefit him. Direct social outlays have never been the strong point of conservative administrations -- think Hoover.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by RiggoDrill

Interesting perspective. What happens if we win the war in Iraq, and STILL get hit with a WMD, while we're running huge deficits and paying for occupation/reconstruction?

Regarding the economy, I think the more specific economic issue in 2004 will be growth in well-paying white-collar jobs. The economy can grow without gaining jobs -- Indeed, economists polled in the WP yesterday expect the economy to grow 3.5% this year while adding relatively few jobs.

If Joe Breadwinner is still unemployed or significantly underemployed come election time, there's a good chance he's going to want the government to spend money to directly benefit him. Direct social outlays have never been the strong point of conservative administrations -- think Hoover.

Excellent points.....

Just in my opinion, I don't know if we can win in Iraq. How will we know if Saddam is dead or not? Last reports I saw claim there are at least 19 Saddam lookalikes. The US has been really lucky in that terrorism hasn't hit here like it has over seas... but that could change. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but if and when we attack, that is going to make martyrs of many and push many into lives of terrorism. If we don't attack, they feel like they can get away with it... I just don't see a clear victory no matter how you look at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fansince62

RiggoDrill...welcome back!

the prez and most prognosticators assert that the war against terrorism is going to last a long time. suppose, as you postulate, that there is a mild recovery or that recession continues........what should the priorities be?

Well, if, as assumed, the war on terror is prolonged (8-10 years or more), then the war will, by definition, outlast the present administration. This would seem to make some base expenditure a constant, irrespective of partisan ideology.

Past that, I'd say that the economy should become the immediate priority.

Specifically, though:

--If the war on terror is prolonged, any presumed boon to the economy from the elimination of present danger will be delayed. It will take a while for people to feel relatively safe, therefore there has to be some point past which increased war expenditures effect decreasing marginal returns, at least in the near-term.

--Related to the previous, any presumed payoff from a better world through a friendlier Middle East will be delayed.

--The present administration has a vested interest in being re-elected, as all administrations do. If the war on terror is successful or at least a "given", Joe Breadwinner may well look at the next item on his list: The economy.

--The relative security of waging war on terror abroad is diminished when people are facing high insecurity domestically. One doesn't think much about the statistically small risk of dying in a terror attack when you lost your decently-paying job 6-9 months ago, unemployment is about to run out, the bills are piling up, and you're probably going to have to sell your house because renting it won't cover the mortgage. Here in Seattle, this is becoming all too common. It's happening to my friends.

In essence, enough should be spent on the war on terror as is rational, then economic should become the priority: we can't stop everything and everybody forever. 9-11 was achieved with box cutters and relatively little money. Pakistan could get nasty in a hurry. Ricin is a bioweapon that's relatively easy to make. Guns are relatively easy for a terrorist to obtain, etc. etc.

I will now turn to you to postulate how much is rational to devote to the war on terror. Then it's you're serve again. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think Clinton would have won easily. Clinton may not have been the best president in the 20th Century (far from it probably) but in my opinion he was the best politician. I mean this in the most basest, insulting way possible.

Which of the possible democrat candidates has the best chance to beat Bush in 2004?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Romo sits to pee

I personally think Clinton would have won easily. Clinton may not have been the best president in the 20th Century (far from it probably) but in my opinion he was the best politician. I mean this in the most basest, insulting way possible.

Which of the possible democrat candidates has the best chance to beat Bush in 2004?

Good quesiton.

NOBODY

However, I think people were saying that back in 91 about the other bush. Actually, they had an SNL Skit on all the Dem people running about how none of them actually wanted to take on Bush. That's how much people thought the Dems didn't have a chance. Insane now that we look back. Dana Carvey was so funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush being re elected is far from a given. How this crisis plays out is going to be a key. I personally feel that Bush has backed himself in a corner at this point. Regardless of if you feel we should or should not go to war with Iraq, to the average person, it looks like Bush wants to go to war with them at all costs and does not want to listen to any other opinions. You would hope that your leader would try to avoid war at all costs, but Bush is portraiting the image that he wants war at all costs. Being of neither party, I obviously havent decided which way I will vote, mainly because I don't know who is running against him.

My main questions about if we should go to war are these....

-We know the french don't want to go to war because they have under the table "oil deals" with Iraq, Why are Russia and Germany against it?

-I don't think the recent Bin Laden tape proves a connection to Iraq, if anything, to me it shows that there is not a connection, the tape has Bin Laden begging for the Iraqi's to stand up to the US and basically asking for a link. Republicans are already saying the tape is not proof.

If Bush waits for a terrorist attack, he's screwed, if he attacks first and then there are terrorist attacks, he's screwed. I believe if he hadn't put himself in the position he's in (being for war regardless of whatever...) the situation could possibly be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bush has given Saddam PLENTY of oportunities to avoid war. What more should he do?

MOre UN resolutions? There are 17 of them

Congressional approval? Got it last fall.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you dont set a boundry for what IS enough. Whether it's links to terror groups, possessing banned weapons, refusing to adhere to UN resolutions, your view that we need more can be applied ad nauseum.

Bush called out Iraq over a year ago, he's hardly rushing to war.

Germany has the same oil deals that the French have and Russia wants us to give them more money. Thats their interests.

Bush is unbeatable unless the economy completely tanks (total recession/depression) or we somehow lose the war with Iraq. Neither is going to happen.

None of the current Dem candidates is polling over 32 percent when questioned against BUsh. Bush consistantly gets over 50 percent. Even at his highs in 91, Bush SR never got that high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Nobody is unbeatable today. Ask Bush Sr. At this point in his career I think most were saying the same about him.

You're right though, nobody looks like they can beat him. Who knows what's next though?

Stranger Things have happened.

p.s.- I was wondering why this thread came back and just realized all that happened was somebody voted.

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...