Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 13, 2024, 07:32:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Worse Campaign
#1
Hillary Clinton
#2
Michael Dukesis
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis  (Read 6188 times)
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,714
United States


« on: July 18, 2018, 11:46:56 PM »
« edited: July 18, 2018, 11:51:56 PM by PR »

In 2016, an historically unpopular and polarizing Democratic Party presidential nominee won a plurality in the popular vote by 2 points against an historically unpopular and polarizing - albeit for different reasons - Republican presidential nominee, with 6 percent of the presidential vote going  to third-party candidates or write-ind and with a likely record or near-record percentage of voters leaving their presidential ballots blank; yet Donald Trump ultimately won the Electoral College 304-227 (with 7 EC votes going to write-ins) - and hence, the Presidency - because of very narrow wins in several key states.

In 1988, by contrast, after eight years of Ronald Reagan Americans everywhere were begging for the bold ideas and charisma of George H.W. Bush even more than they were begging for the bold ideas and charisma of Hillary Clinton after eight years of Barack Obama, as you can see from his more than 7-point win in the popular vote and 426-111 win in the Electoral College.

But seriously: at least Hillary Clinton had the "break the Glass Ceiling" thing going for her. What did George H.W. Bush have that would be genuinely exciting or appealing to anyone outside of some country clubs and a bunch of old hands from the State Department, CIA, and other concentrations of Skull and Bones alumni? "Oh, I loved Senator Prescott Bush back in the 1950s!" Huh

Guess how I voted.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,714
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2018, 11:24:16 AM »
« Edited: July 26, 2018, 11:36:40 AM by PR »

Again: after two terms of the vastly overrated and polarizing Ronald Reagan (1984 landslide notwithstanding - that was irrelevant by 1988) and Democrats retaking the Senate in 1986, the burden was on George "Wimpy Lapdog for Reagan/Ford/Nixon" Bush to win the Presidency in his own right without distancing himself from Reagan too much while at the same time, providing his own version of the "vision thing."

George H.W. Bush was, needless to say, not a very smooth campaigner, certainly not a natural (as 1992 painfully revealed for him). And again: Iran-Contra was still very real and very fresh, and he was directly caught up in it, despite his protests to being "out of the loop"*

*(Yeah HW Bush, everyone certainly believed that you - a Vice President whose resume included CIA director, Ambassador to the UN, Presidential Envoy to China, member of Congress - not to mention, being a multi-generation Skull and Bones alum and the son of a US Senator/confidant of Allen Dulles - were "out of the loop" of all of that skullduggery in the 1980s that included the highest levels of the National Security Council and the CIA in the administration of a senile B-movie actor who had no pre-presidential foreign policy experience. Uh huh. Roll Eyes )

At the very least, Dukakis or any other Democratic candidate should have given "Poppy" a run for his money. Pretty embarrassing result in 1988.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.025 seconds with 16 queries.