Golgo-13 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by riggo-toni Bush 43 may not be as intellectual as his father, but he has much better political instincts. Better by a mile. Bush 41 was a career bureaucrat (albeit a very accomplished one) who lost every election he'd been in until '88 when he could ride in on Reagan's coat-tails. W won twice in TX (where his father had lost to Bentsen). Now GW Bush is trying to use his popularity to forward his domestic programs, and is campaigning for his agenda in enemy districts, something his waffling father never would've attempted. Clearly he needs the economy to rebound to win re-election, but he stands a reasonable chance of that happening, since the downturn began at the very beginning of his administration (a la Reagan). Very astute analysis of 41 and 43. It will be very interesting to see how things go in the next 18 months. Funny how the economy will, as always, be the central issue when in reality the president has very little to do with the cycle of the economy. Most presidential policy affecting the economy is not felt for many years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Perot did cost Bush the election. But Bush didnt do some things that he could have done to overcome Perot. Also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma I said a combination of Perrot and the stupid tax quote cost him the election. However it is very well known that almost 80 to 90 percent of the people who voted for Perrot were republicans, and if they voted for Bush instead it would be quite different. There were many states where Bush and Clinton were seperated by less than 1000 votes. Here is the overall numbers, William Clinton Democrat 44,909,806 43.01% 370 68.8% George Bush J. Republican 39,104,550 37.45% 168 31.2% H. Ross Perot Independent 19,742,240 18.91% 0 0% As you can see all Bush needed was about 6k votes, and that is only 30% of perrots votes. If you compare Nader from the 2000, he only had 3 million, so 19 million is a big difference, and don't see how you can not see that hurt Bush in the election. Simple - Because the majority of Perot voters in exit polls said if not for Perot, they would've voted for Clinton. In an incumbent election, people generally vote either for or against the incumbent, so Perot's biggest contribution was preventing Clinton from winning an outright majority. It wasn't so much that people elected Clinton as it was they wanted to FIRE Bush. No way would Bush have gotten the majority in a 2 way race. What good would it have done him to get 30% or even 40% of the Perot voters, if the other 60% had voted Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Jack I hate to break it to you. The reason why Bush Sr. got beat was because of Ross Perot, his vote killed Bush. Had Perot not run for president Clinton wouldn't have won. Last I saw there are now major 3rd candidates our there to hurt Bush this year. Lets stop beating up poor old Bush Sr, and give him some respect. The man was brilliant and held almost every post possible. I just wish Bush Jr was as smart as his dad. Bush Jr is smart since he is surrounded by others that make him smarter though. And I guess you know the only reason(besides stealing) Dubya won right? Nadar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Because the majority of Perot voters in exit polls said if not for Perot, they would've voted for Clinton. Sorry to do this, but can you provide proof of this? When I studied this election, the numbers were opposite of that. In fact, Perots campaign stole a bunch of Bush campaign people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 I was not a fan of Bush Sr. The one thing that I did like about him was he did not cave in to the religious right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Kerry killed himself when he compared our government to Iraqi's regime. The democrats don't care about this election, I feel Duhkakis all over again. (i know i spelled his name wrong) There are no good candidates out there right now. Hillary isn't going to run till 2008, but she will get killed by the Rice and Powell ticket Rice and Powell? Only if they run as democrats. I'm sorry but I don't see a black person capturing the republican nomination. I could possiblely see a conservative hispanic in the future though. The people who vote in the republican primaries will not bring themselves to vote for a black person-even if that guy was Clarence Thomas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Jack I hate to break it to you. The reason why Bush Sr. got beat was because of Ross Perot, his vote killed Bush. Had Perot not run for president Clinton wouldn't have won. Last I saw there are now major 3rd candidates our there to hurt Bush this year. Lets stop beating up poor old Bush Sr, and give him some respect. The man was brilliant and held almost every post possible. I just wish Bush Jr was as smart as his dad. Bush Jr is smart since he is surrounded by others that make him smarter though. I'm not so sure. There's no doubt Perot took many votes away from Bush but I'm not so sure those voters would've voted for Bush. They probably would've sat out the election. Also remember, BUSH ENRAGED conservatives when he raised taxes-going back on his pledge. It his convention speech that made me vote for Pappy, instead of Dukakis. I was so enraged, I wasn't going to vote for him again. I should've voted for Perot but something Clinton said in one of the debates, convinced me to pick him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi I was not a fan of Bush Sr. The one thing that I did like about him was he did not cave in to the religious right. Uh, dude, did you see the '92 campaign? I've NEVER seen a major candidate suck up to the religious right as much as Bush 41 did. Don't you remember him crossing the country picking up all endorsements from televangelists. Did you not see the GOP convention? And all this from a guy who ran as a pro choice candidate in '80.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.