DVD Talk
Flashback to the 1992 election [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Flashback to the 1992 election


Yeti4623
06-25-08, 10:36 AM
I remember the '92 Election, but I was way, way too young to know what I know now.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though, unless the first term is a complete disaster, a republican will always get reelected.

The first Bush wasn't a total disaster. Clinton came from nowhere, and they had dirt on him.

Does anyone have any opinions on this election, and how Clinton was able to win?

Red Dog
06-25-08, 10:38 AM
1. Bush broke his tax pledge.
2. The economy, while rebounding in the few months before the election, was on a downturn.
3. Many Christian conservatives (not caring for Bush much) stayed home.
4. Ross Perot

wendersfan
06-25-08, 10:44 AM
Unemployment was above 6%, GDP growth was flat/negative, and after 12 years of a Republican in the White House, people wanted change. Bush appeared disconnected with the problems of ordinary Americans, and Perot took away some of his support.

JasonF
06-25-08, 10:55 AM
It was the economy, stupid.

NCMojo
06-25-08, 10:55 AM
Unemployment was above 6%, GDP growth was flat/negative, and after 12 years of a Republican in the White House, people wanted change. Bush appeared disconnected with the problems of ordinary Americans, and Perot took away some of his support.
The town hall debate, where Bush looked bored and confused, was especially telling. And let's not discount the campaign run by Bill Clinton, who may be the greatest politician of the 20th century.

Red Dog
06-25-08, 10:57 AM
Bill Clinton, who may be the greatest politician of the 20th century.


....and we're off..... -popcorn-

wendersfan
06-25-08, 10:57 AM
:lol:

kvrdave
06-25-08, 11:22 AM
It was the economy, stupid.

It was Ross Perot. What was Clinton elected with? 43%? Republicans hated the third party in 1992, and for good reason. The Democrats praised democracy.....and then Ralph Nade ran in 2000 and we all changed sides on the issue. :lol:

kvrdave
06-25-08, 11:23 AM
The town hall debate, where Bush looked bored and confused, was especially telling. And let's not discount the campaign run by Bill Clinton, who may be the greatest politician of the 20th century.

Agreed. He sold me a bridge to the 21st Century. :lol:

Shannon Nutt
06-25-08, 11:30 AM
Does anyone have any opinions on this election, and how Clinton was able to win?

Bush looked at his watch during a debate, called Clinton and Gore "bozos" and spend most of his first term overseas (when the economy was in a recession at home).

JasonF
06-25-08, 11:37 AM
It was Ross Perot. What was Clinton elected with? 43%? Republicans hated the third party in 1992, and for good reason. The Democrats praised democracy.....and then Ralph Nade ran in 2000 and we all changed sides on the issue. :lol:

My understanding is that the general consensus among people who have studied this is that Mr. Perot drew support equally from President Bush and President Clinton. So without Mr. Perot in the race, instead of beating President Bush 43-37, President Clinton would have beaten him 53-47.

Here's what Grundlepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_Presidential_Election) says:

The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives did vote for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes equally among Clinton, Bush, and those staying home if Perot had not been a candidate, but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton. [21]. He also appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues.[22][23]

NCMojo
06-25-08, 11:41 AM
....and we're off..... -popcorn-
Hey, I didn't say he was the greatest President... ;)

Groucho
06-25-08, 11:43 AM
The election was lost back in 1988 when Bush gave his infamous "read my lips" line.

kvrdave
06-25-08, 11:58 AM
My understanding is that the general consensus among people who have studied this is that Mr. Perot drew support equally from President Bush and President Clinton. So without Mr. Perot in the race, instead of beating President Bush 43-37, President Clinton would have beaten him 53-47.

Here's what Grundlepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_Presidential_Election) says:

Undoubtedly Nader did the same. -wink-

wendersfan
06-25-08, 12:00 PM
Undoubtedly Nader did the same. -wink-Dave, I can assemble a substantial amount of evidence that Perot took more votes from Clinton than from Bush. I personally believe that he took roughly equal amounts from both, but to say that Perot cost Bush the election is nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

wishbone
06-25-08, 12:01 PM
http://i30.tinypic.com/2gv7c50.jpg http://i25.tinypic.com/dmfrwx.jpg
As much as the nation thoroughly enjoyed Dana Carvey's impression
of Pres Bush on SNL they opted for a new approach with the late
Phil Hartman as Pres Clinton.

al_bundy
06-25-08, 12:06 PM
"it's the economy, stupid"

Bush 41 went to the mall to show americans it was OK to shop and was amazed by a register with an automated UPC scanner and the automated credit card authorization. Man of the people.

kvrdave
06-25-08, 12:14 PM
Dave, I can assemble a substantial amount of evidence that Perot took more votes from Clinton than from Bush. I personally believe that he took roughly equal amounts from both, but to say that Perot cost Bush the election is nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

You may be able to, but will you agree that it isn't what the Democrats thought at the time?

classicman2
06-25-08, 12:27 PM
1. People perceived we were still in a recession.

2. Bush 'read my lips' remark

3. People had grown a little tired of 12 years of Reagan-Bush.

4. Even though the exit polls say no - I have come more & more to believe that Perot's was the determining factor in the election.

What other evidence is there that Perot took more votes from Clinton or drew equally from Bush & Clinton is there except the exit polls?

I think we have seen that exit polls are not all that reliable.

BKenn01
06-29-08, 11:01 AM
Most Republicans I know still feel it was 4 things.

1. Ross Perot - You can show all kinds of evidence to the contrary, but most of them (myself included) will find it very hard to believe. Most of the time the "evidence" is just like the belief, its speculation and it seems to be put out by Democrats who what people to believe it was their party that did it. Problem is Perot didnt have a lot of positions that were attractive to Democrats. Or at least I dont remember any.

2. Exaggeration of the economys condition - While we were in a downturn, it was coming back and from my memory didnt seem anywhere near as bad as it is now or when the tech bubble burst under Clintons watch. I really dont think Clinton was responsible, but neither was Bush 1. Presidents just get blamed right or wrong.

3. Bush 1 just looked like a man who could care less. He broke the "Read my lips" pledge

4. Clinton was the perfect kind of Democrat for that race. A Southern Democrat who could soft ball the social issues so as to not scare the church goers. But wants to expand govt. without raising taxes (or so they claim). That marketing scheme usually fits well in the general election. And he is the master politician, after all, they dont call him "Slick Willie" for nothing. If that type of Democrat was running today, it would probably be a slaughter in the general election.

classicman2
06-29-08, 12:03 PM
Remember the Clinton promise - a middle class tax cut?

What happened?

It didn't take him long to abandon that idea.

wendersfan
06-29-08, 12:49 PM
Problem is Perot didnt have a lot of positions that were attractive to Democrats. Or at least I dont remember any.Protectionism.

wendersfan
06-29-08, 12:51 PM
Remember the Clinton promise - a middle class tax cut?

What happened?

It didn't take him long to abandon that idea.He was basically forced to by Greenspan, who blackmailed him into cutting the deficit or else he;s hike up the prime rate and guarantee a one-term Clinton presidency.

Shannon Nutt
06-29-08, 03:57 PM
"it's the economy, stupid"

Bush 41 went to the mall to show americans it was OK to shop and was amazed by a register with an automated UPC scanner and the automated credit card authorization. Man of the people.

I believe he also had no clue what a gallon of milk cost.

classicman2
06-29-08, 07:57 PM
He was basically forced to by Greenspan, who blackmailed him into cutting the deficit or else he;s hike up the prime rate and guarantee a one-term Clinton presidency.

That excuse is about as lame as some of those given by our Obamists. :lol:

He made the promise because it was politically expedient to do so.

He raised taxes on a bunch of people - including me. I thought it was a good idea.

What kind of pissed me off was when he apologized for it later before a Houston businessmen's meeting.

Josh-da-man
06-30-08, 12:48 AM
Clinton would've taken out George Bush (the greater) without Perot in the race.

Bush's last few years in office were kind of a mess. He was getting hit with his backtrack/flip-flop on "no new taxes," puking on Japanese people, and pretty much coasting on fumes. It would have taken a miracle for him to beat Clinton.

And I'd also say that if there was that much antipathy against Clinton, then he wouldn't have handily defeated Dole in '96. He would have gone done as a one-termer like the guy before him.

printerati
06-30-08, 07:50 AM
I believe he also had no clue what a gallon of milk cost.

Did he have any clue about how much arugula costs at Whole Foods in Iowa? ;)

spainlinx0
06-30-08, 08:05 AM
I have no clue what a gallon of milk costs unless I'm standing in front of that section in the supermarket.

NCMojo
06-30-08, 09:17 AM
I have no clue what a gallon of milk costs unless I'm standing in front of that section in the supermarket.
And of course no one expects the President of the United States to do his own shopping.

Still, it was a defining moment, a perfect example of a Presidency out-of-touch with middle America. Sort of like when Bush Jr. said that he hadn't heard that gas "might" hit $4 a gallon this summer...

2EKZOKxdxj4

classicman2
06-30-08, 02:17 PM
If that's an example of a president being out of touch - every president in my memory has been out of touch.

Doughboy
06-30-08, 04:12 PM
I thought it was Rudy Guiliani who didn't know what milk cost.

As far as the "read my lips" flip-flop, what pisses me off is that he worked with Democrats on the tax hike in order to deal with the deficit. The Dems praised him at the time for his bipartisanship and doing what was in the best interest of the country. And then once 1992 rolled around, they all turned on him and accused him of breaking his campaign pledge.

And people wonder why there's so much bitterness in D.C.

Groucho
06-30-08, 04:14 PM
I thought it was Rudy Guiliani who didn't know what milk cost.$9.11

Red Dog
06-30-08, 04:26 PM
I have no idea what a gallon of milk costs. Now a liter of whiskey, that's a different story.

NCMojo
06-30-08, 07:10 PM
If that's an example of a president being out of touch - every president in my memory has been out of touch.
What??? You're kidding me. You honestly think that every President...

Ah, I see. In your memory.

wendersfan
06-30-08, 08:17 PM
$9.11:lol:rotfl:lol:

Post of the millennium.

classicman2
06-30-08, 10:03 PM
What??? You're kidding me. You honestly think that every President...

Ah, I see. In your memory.

My memory covers time a hell of a lot longer period of time than yours does.

I guess you could argue that Truman was an exception.

B5Erik
06-30-08, 11:21 PM
For all the, "Bush was out of touch," stuff we've heard, a lot of people on the left seem to ignore the fact that Bill Clinton never had a real job in his life. He never worked in the private sector like the rest of us, and yet told us that he felt our pain.

Really? How? You've NEVER had a job like mine, pal! How can you even imagine what it's like? Because you read it in a text book?

He was just a better communicator than Bush 1, and the recovery was just slow enough in the 3rd and 4th quarters to get him in. The first and 2nd quarters of '93 were Bush's economy, and it was really moving forward then.

As for Clinton beating Dole - I have NEVER seen Presidential candidate run a campaign like he DIDN'T want to win as much as I did with Dole's campaign. The guy actually had personality and a sense of humor, but only showed it before and after the campaign. During it he was a block of wood that seemed a little cranky at times. The Dole ads were pathetically generic and uninspired. Clinton would have had to work hard to LOSE that election.

Red Dog
07-01-08, 08:06 AM
That's one reason why I liked Dole and voted for Dole. He genuinely seemed humble about the Presidency and the power it carries. I'd far prefer someone like that than someone who desperately wants the office. It's the latter who are more likely to be corrupt and seek to expand the power of the office.

nemein
07-01-08, 08:13 AM
That's one reason why I liked Dole and voted for Dole. He genuinely seemed humble about the Presidency and the power it carries. I'd far prefer someone like that than someone who desperately wants the office. It's the latter who are more likely to be corrupt and seek to expand the power of the office.


That's one of the prime reasons I hope/pray Hillary never gets elected. She wants it too much, thinks it's part of her destiny -ohbfrank-

Red Dog
07-01-08, 08:15 AM
That's one of the prime reasons I hope/pray Hillary never gets elected. She wants it too much, thinks it's part of her destiny -ohbfrank-


While I wouldn't use the word destiny, I think the same for McCain and Obama.

classicman2
07-01-08, 08:49 AM
While I wouldn't use the word destiny, I think the same for McCain and Obama.

So do I.

They both have a burning in their gut to be president - just like Hillary - no difference.

JasonF
07-01-08, 09:42 AM
Is there anybody who runs for President with any degree of success unless they have that burning in their gut?

Groucho
07-01-08, 09:43 AM
Is there anybody who runs for President with any degree of success unless they have that burning in their gut?matta seems to be doing alright. ;)

wendersfan
07-01-08, 09:44 AM
Is there anybody who runs for President with any degree of success unless they have that burning in their gut?Not anymore. probably the last president who wasn't obsessed about getting the job was Eisenhower.

Well, okay, Ford, but that was a unique situation.

Red Dog
07-01-08, 09:47 AM
Is there anybody who runs for President with any degree of success unless they have that burning in their gut?


No, which is exactly the problem. Sadly, Americans have fallen in the love with the concept of a do-everything powerful President. Frankly, I think one has to be bordering on insane to really want to be President.

Red Dog
07-01-08, 09:49 AM
Not anymore. probably the last president who wasn't obsessed about getting the job was Eisenhower.

Well, okay, Ford, but that was a unique situation.


I agree 100%. Coincidentally ;), he was a better President than everyone who has succeeded him.

classicman2
07-01-08, 12:53 PM
I don't believe Richard M. Nixon was obsessed about getting the job. ;) ;)

The 'burning in the gut syndrome' was the reason I thought Al Gore might try it again in 2008. Maybe Tipper quenched that burning. :)

Mordred
07-01-08, 01:16 PM
The 'burning in the gut syndrome' was the reason I thought Al Gore might try it again in 2008. Maybe Tipper quenched that burning. :)She sure puts out my fire. :sad:


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0