pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
Posts: 520
|
 |
« on: July 26, 2009, 09:40:48 PM » |
|
Both 1992 and 1988 were characterized by what people felt were weak Democratic primary fields.
I understand why none of the party's big names ran in '92 - Bush was widely seen as unbeatable, really to a shocking extent (if you read newspaper articles from the time, they simply flat out state that Bush would almost certainly win a wide reelection), most figured it'd be easier to wait till '96 when the pendulum would point towards the Dems.
But why didn't anyone prominent run in '88? Gary Hart was a national figure and he, of course, withdrew because of a sex scandal. But Cuomo didn't run. Sam Nunn didn't run. Ted Kennedy didn't run. Chuck Robb (considered a leading Southern rising star at the time) didn't run, instead opting for the Senate (ala Mark Warner).
Why? You'd think that a presidential election without an incumbent, following the '87 market crash, the savings-and-loan debacle, and economic problems in the industrial midwest would attract ambitious Democrats. And George Bush's numbers weren't that stunning at that point. So what happened?
|
