Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Flashback to the 1992 election

Old 06-25-08, 10:36 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,077
Flashback to the 1992 election

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?
Yeti4623 is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:38 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
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
Red Dog is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:44 AM
  #3  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
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.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:55 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,079
It was the economy, stupid.
JasonF is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:55 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by wendersfan
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.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:57 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Bill Clinton, who may be the greatest politician of the 20th century.

....and we're off.....
Red Dog is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 10:57 AM
  #7  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
wendersfan is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:22 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by JasonF
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.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:23 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by NCMojo
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.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:30 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 15,884
Originally Posted by Yeti4623
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).
Shannon Nutt is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:37 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,079
Originally Posted by kvrdave
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.
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 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]
JasonF is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:41 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by Red Dog
....and we're off.....
Hey, I didn't say he was the greatest President...
NCMojo is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:43 AM
  #13  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
The election was lost back in 1988 when Bush gave his infamous "read my lips" line.
Groucho is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 11:58 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by JasonF
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 says:
Undoubtedly Nader did the same.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 12:00 PM
  #15  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Undoubtedly Nader did the same.
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.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 12:01 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,515

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.
wishbone is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 12:06 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
"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.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 12:14 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by wendersfan
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?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 06-25-08, 12:27 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
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.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 11:01 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
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.
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 12:03 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Remember the Clinton promise - a middle class tax cut?

What happened?

It didn't take him long to abandon that idea.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 12:49 PM
  #22  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by BKenn01
Problem is Perot didnt have a lot of positions that were attractive to Democrats. Or at least I dont remember any.
Protectionism.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 12:51 PM
  #23  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,279
Originally Posted by classicman2
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.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 03:57 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 15,884
Originally Posted by al_bundy
"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.
Shannon Nutt is offline  
Old 06-29-08, 07:57 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by wendersfan
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.

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.
classicman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.