Bill Clinton: First term, or second term?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 13, 2024, 04:03:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Bill Clinton: First term, or second term?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which was the better term for Bill Clinton?
#1
First Term (1993-1997)		  
#2
Second Term (1997-2001)		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 33

Author Topic: Bill Clinton: First term, or second term?  (Read 442 times)
Higgins
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,161
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 28, 2019, 08:38:28 PM »
Which do you feel was the better Bill Clinton presidential term?

First term for these purposes begins 1/20/1993 and ends 1/20/1997
Second term begins 1/21/1997 and ends 1/20/2001
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,476
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2019, 08:45:24 PM »
Second term. CHIP + no V-CHIP + no telecom deregulation + no zero tolerance school laws + no welfare reform
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,020


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2019, 09:05:54 PM »
Second term due to the fact that the first half of his first term was terrible.

His best two year period during his presidency was during his first term(Jan 1995-Jan 1997)
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,886
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2019, 04:04:29 PM »
The First Term as he actually tried to govern as a Democratic President in the first two years.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2019, 04:10:21 PM »
Second term, but both were horrible, ugh.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2019, 01:27:22 AM »
Quote from: Politician on March 01, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
Second term, but both were horrible, ugh.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,829


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2019, 01:27:46 AM »
Quote from: dw93 on March 01, 2019, 04:04:29 PM
The First Term as he actually tried to govern as a Democratic President in the first two years.
Logged
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,394
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2019, 01:30:55 AM »
Both were forgettable and nothing of substance was accomplished. Clinton's lucky the dot com boom coincided with his presidency.
Logged
SInNYC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,219


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2019, 11:38:38 AM »
Quote from: dw93 on March 01, 2019, 04:04:29 PM
The First Term as he actually tried to govern as a Democratic President in the first two years.

There were many cases where he also served as a check on Democrats in his first 2 years. For example, the scuttlebutt was that he told Congress not to send him a minimum wage increase. The DLC always argued for an EITC instead of minimum wage.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,222
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2019, 03:50:37 PM »
The second term. He worked well with Congress at getting the budget balanced.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,591
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2019, 05:09:13 PM »
Neither.
Logged
Higgins
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,161
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2019, 06:00:59 AM »
Quote from: Mondale on March 02, 2019, 01:30:55 AM
Both were forgettable and nothing of substance was accomplished. Clinton's lucky the dot com boom coincided with his presidency.

He fit the times though. I don't think Gen X, or the aging Boomers would've been into another ceremonial monarch type President like Reagan. The 90s were a generally neutral period, the age of anti-fashion, basking in the fact that we were number one after the Cold War. It was the first time in 40 years we didn't have to worry about nuclear war. So those times gave us a laid back, "hip", unevenful President who balanced the budget.
Logged
Peanut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,105
Costa Rica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2019, 08:30:56 AM »
Quote from: Chairman YE on March 02, 2019, 01:27:46 AM
Quote from: dw93 on March 01, 2019, 04:04:29 PM
The First Term as he actually tried to govern as a Democratic President in the first two years.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2019, 08:34:15 AM »
“The presidency about nothing.”
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,793


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2019, 07:48:46 AM »
First term, like is the case for most presidents
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,517
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2019, 08:00:25 PM »
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 14 queries.