|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 11:14:02 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Dalla Piccola, Apocrypha)
  Bill Clinton vs. George Bush Jr. 2000
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Bill Clinton vs. George Bush Jr. 2000  (Read 10570 times)
HuckReagan
Rookie
**
Posts: 34
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 25, 2011, 03:48:41 pm »

Bill Clinton vs. George Bush Jr. 2000

Same VP's as in Real Time

Economy in same shape
Logged
NHI
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,825



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2011, 03:56:33 pm »

Clinton still wins, probably a little narrower b/c of the impeachment.


Clinton 288
Bush 250

Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2012, 01:34:23 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2012, 11:04:18 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 09:00:29 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

Then how come Clinton seemed to remain so popular after the impeachment?  The 1998 election wasn't really a great year for either party, and Dems actually gained seats in the House.  What makes you so sure that Clinton would have lost in a landslide if he could have r un for a third term?
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2012, 12:35:31 am »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

Then how come Clinton seemed to remain so popular after the impeachment?  The 1998 election wasn't really a great year for either party, and Dems actually gained seats in the House.  What makes you so sure that Clinton would have lost in a landslide if he could have r un for a third term?

Clinton remained popular after impeachment because the country felt he had been bullied by a GOP Congress, and a moral issue had become a political one.  98 was a great year for Dems, because they gained seats in the house in a midterm (mid-2nd term) year, even after the Democratic incumbent president lied about banging his secretary in the oval office.
Logged
mondale84
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2012, 02:37:52 am »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2012, 06:35:45 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.
Logged
mondale84
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2012, 08:39:32 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.

Social conservatives didn't decide that election, they decided the Republican primary. The election was close because Gore was an awful campaigner and was terrified of having Clinton campaign for him which was a mistake. Let's remember that on election day 2000, Clinton had positive approval in all 50 states.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2012, 05:22:36 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.

Social conservatives didn't decide that election, they decided the Republican primary. The election was close because Gore was an awful campaigner and was terrified of having Clinton campaign for him which was a mistake. Let's remember that on election day 2000, Clinton had positive approval in all 50 states.

Because the public thought the GOP went way too far in making it a political issue.  If they had been more careful (no impeachment proceedings etc) it at least makes it much closer than many Dems would like to believe.  At minimum, he'd still have to deal with backlash from the left in his own party in the form of a primary battle; if Wellstone lives, he'd have a chance at making a difference to say the least.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,408
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2012, 12:10:32 pm »

Logged
technical support
thrillr1111
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 309
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2012, 07:46:50 pm »

clinton would have beat bush. I don't think gw bush would have ran against him
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2012, 12:26:38 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.

I don't know if the Lewinsky scandal was what really hurt Gore. It was definitely more. Voters are naturally hesitant to keep a party in the WH for more than 2 terms, even if the incumbent is very very popular. Just look at Nixon in 1960.

If anything Gore ran a surprisingly good campaign. He was trailing badly in the polls for a while but caught up in the fall.
Logged
Jay20
Rookie
**
Posts: 62
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2012, 12:13:21 am »

I don't think the GOP would have nominated W if Clinton were the opponent, because not only was the country not thrilled with impeaching him, but any attach W could have thrown at Clinton would have been repelled by labeling W as similar to the first Bush, who was very unpopular during most of 1992, and his policies (tho not personality) were discredited to the public.

I think if Clinton had been able to run in 2000, the GOP may have gone with McCain to get those centrist votes Clinton got, and went off McCain's appeal to moderates at the time. Or they may have gone with an outsider not associated with Gingrich, Dole, or the Bushes.
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 779
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2012, 06:23:48 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.

Social conservatives didn't decide that election, they decided the Republican primary. The election was close because Gore was an awful campaigner and was terrified of having Clinton campaign for him which was a mistake. Let's remember that on election day 2000, Clinton had positive approval in all 50 states.

I think Jerseyrules could be on to something. You actually could make a pretty decent argument that had Clinton been able to run for a third term, and had the GOP not pursued impeachment over Lewinsky, Clinton would have had a tough road ahead of him. True, Clinton did have good job approval ratings post-impeachment, but job ratings are different from favorability ratings. Clinton's JOB rating remained high because of the roaring economy. But look at Gallup's measure of Clinton's favorables post impeachment (post Jan-1999). http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx#2 From then til the end of his presidency, they are noticeably lower than pre - impeachment.

So given that Clinton's favorability ratings took a hit despite the perceived GOP overreach involving impeachment, why WOULDN'T Clinton's favorables have taken a bigger hit without the overreach? Combine that with the audacity of running for a third term, and you have a recipe for electoral trouble for Clinton. Anyone remember the phrase "Clinton fatigue?" http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/05/opinion/a-clear-case-of-clinton-fatigue.html Well maybe some of you are too young to remember, but it was real, and it's reflected in Clinton's 42/54% favorable rating in August of 2000. His favorables remained very mediocre until 2004.

Having said that, I still guess Clinton wins, though by smaller margins than his 1992 and 1996 wins.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2012, 08:34:48 pm »
« Edited: July 25, 2012, 08:36:38 pm by Jerseyrules »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.

Social conservatives didn't decide that election, they decided the Republican primary. The election was close because Gore was an awful campaigner and was terrified of having Clinton campaign for him which was a mistake. Let's remember that on election day 2000, Clinton had positive approval in all 50 states.

I think Jerseyrules could be on to something. You actually could make a pretty decent argument that had Clinton been able to run for a third term, and had the GOP not pursued impeachment over Lewinsky, Clinton would have had a tough road ahead of him. True, Clinton did have good job approval ratings post-impeachment, but job ratings are different from favorability ratings. Clinton's JOB rating remained high because of the roaring economy. But look at Gallup's measure of Clinton's favorables post impeachment (post Jan-1999). http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx#2 From then til the end of his presidency, they are noticeably lower than pre - impeachment.

So given that Clinton's favorability ratings took a hit despite the perceived GOP overreach involving impeachment, why WOULDN'T Clinton's favorables have taken a bigger hit without the overreach? Combine that with the audacity of running for a third term, and you have a recipe for electoral trouble for Clinton. Anyone remember the phrase "Clinton fatigue?" http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/05/opinion/a-clear-case-of-clinton-fatigue.html Well maybe some of you are too young to remember, but it was real, and it's reflected in Clinton's 42/54% favorable rating in August of 2000. His favorables remained very mediocre until 2004.

Having said that, I still guess Clinton wins, though by smaller margins than his 1992 and 1996 wins.

Furthermore, look at Anthony Weiner.  They were talking about censures and impeachments for him, but didn't pursue it.  Had the Congressional GOP done so, the public would've rallied behind Weiner due to perception of his being "bullied".  He might've then had a chance in the mayoral election next year.  Plus look at how FDR's results took a hit in 40 in comparison to 36 and 32.  Combine that with Clinton's health problems, and he might not have even lived to his third inauguration, or even see the returns in November.  Combine that with this from the link you supplied:

"Fully 74 percent of Americans say they are tired of all of the problems of this Administration, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in April."
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 779
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2012, 09:48:31 pm »

Assuming the GOP congress does not pursue impeachment in 1998, assuming Bush is still the GOP nominee, and assuming Nader still runs, I say the map looks something like this.

Clinton wins 297 EVs, Bush wins 241 EVs
Clinton wins 49.4% of the popular vote, Bush wins 47.3%

And I think I'm being generous to Clinton, especially considering that in real life, George W. Bush's favorability rating on the eve of election, as measured by Gallup, was a strong 55/39%. President Clinton's was 54/44%. I think Bubba's numbers would have been worse absent the GOPs impeachment overreach, and in light of Clinton fatigue/3rd term audacity.

Logged
mondale84
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2012, 10:18:42 pm »

Assuming the GOP congress does not pursue impeachment in 1998, assuming Bush is still the GOP nominee, and assuming Nader still runs, I say the map looks something like this.

Clinton wins 297 EVs, Bush wins 241 EVs
Clinton wins 49.4% of the popular vote, Bush wins 47.3%

And I think I'm being generous to Clinton, especially considering that in real life, George W. Bush's favorability rating on the eve of election, as measured by Gallup, was a strong 55/39%. President Clinton's was 54/44%. I think Bubba's numbers would have been worse absent the GOPs impeachment overreach, and in light of Clinton fatigue/3rd term audacity.



Favorability doesn't matter when you are the incumbent and GDP is growing by 5% a year. Bush could have personally stopped an alien invasion and Clinton would have still won.

Also, LOL at you giving West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and New Mexico to Bush. And Arkansas at 40% shade...HA...obvious troll is still obvious.
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 779
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2012, 10:29:06 pm »
« Edited: July 25, 2012, 10:34:14 pm by MorningInAmerica »

Assuming the GOP congress does not pursue impeachment in 1998, assuming Bush is still the GOP nominee, and assuming Nader still runs, I say the map looks something like this.

Clinton wins 297 EVs, Bush wins 241 EVs
Clinton wins 49.4% of the popular vote, Bush wins 47.3%

And I think I'm being generous to Clinton, especially considering that in real life, George W. Bush's favorability rating on the eve of election, as measured by Gallup, was a strong 55/39%. President Clinton's was 54/44%. I think Bubba's numbers would have been worse absent the GOPs impeachment overreach, and in light of Clinton fatigue/3rd term audacity.



Favorability doesn't matter when you are the incumbent and GDP is growing by 5% a year. Bush could have personally stopped an alien invasion and Clinton would have still won.

Also, LOL at you giving West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and New Mexico to Bush. And Arkansas at 40% shade...HA...obvious troll is still obvious.

Troll? LOL at you getting your panties all in a wad over playful political speculation. I explained in detail how I reached this result.

Edited to ask:
What in the hell does this even mean? Redundant much?
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2012, 09:31:25 am »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.
Yeah, but the strong economy and budget surpluses were largely because Clinton compromised with Congressional Republicans to cut taxes and spending.  The reason the 90s were largely peaceful was because of the fall of the Soviet Union, which was largely because of Reagan's policies, and it occurred during the presidency of Bush Sr.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2012, 07:28:01 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.
Yeah, but the strong economy and budget surpluses were largely because Clinton compromised with Congressional Republicans to cut taxes and spending.  The reason the 90s were largely peaceful was because of the fall of the Soviet Union, which was largely because of Reagan's policies, and it occurred during the presidency of Bush Sr.

The thing with Clinton is that he pulled back Reagan democrats (social conservatives, economic moderates-to-conservative).  He also pulled in moderate, young (then) economically moderate-to-center-right Republicans who didn't give a damn about social issues.  One of these was my dad.  White-collar businessman, voted for Bush in 92, then for Clinton in 96.  He told me there was no way in hell he would've voted for Clinton had he run in 2000, and not because he got a hummer from some intern, but because of what that did to the country.  It divided the nation.  So I don't see the southern states breaking for him at all, including Florida because many democrats would've stayed home.  There was also a lack of contrast between bush and Clinton in 2000; Bush was a "compassionate conservative"; basically, I'll give you everything he did but with a tax cut to boot.  Clinton would've campaigned on the same thing but without the breaks for the upper class.  Bush would've said a little less foreign intervention.  Clinton would've defended his record and touted his foreign policy credentials.  At least Gore contradicted Bush on education, entitlements, and healthcare.  Democrats wouldn't've showed up, especially the older ones (FLORIDA!).  If Clinton wins its because he stakes his entire campaign on winning Ohio, and it would be almost as narrow as otl florida in 2000
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2012, 08:28:04 pm »

If Clinton wasn't term-limited he would have won a third term easily against anybody.

Bullsh**t.  He wouldn't have won at all.  The GOP would've proceeded with caution in impeachment, and let it run it's course.  No impeachment, Clinton loses in a landslide and 98 is a disaster for the Dems.  Bush mobilizes social conservatives and wins in a landslide

LOL

Why?  Think about it: why did Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000?  Because social conservatives weren't satisfied with McCain.  Why?  Backlash against the Clinton administration.  Why was it a close GE despite a massive budget surplus, an incumbent dem with sky-high approvals, and a kick-ass economy?  Social conservatives were mobilized by the family values candidate.
Yeah, but the strong economy and budget surpluses were largely because Clinton compromised with Congressional Republicans to cut taxes and spending.  The reason the 90s were largely peaceful was because of the fall of the Soviet Union, which was largely because of Reagan's policies, and it occurred during the presidency of Bush Sr.

The thing with Clinton is that he pulled back Reagan democrats (social conservatives, economic moderates-to-conservative).  He also pulled in moderate, young (then) economically moderate-to-center-right Republicans who didn't give a damn about social issues.  One of these was my dad.  White-collar businessman, voted for Bush in 92, then for Clinton in 96.  He told me there was no way in hell he would've voted for Clinton had he run in 2000, and not because he got a hummer from some intern, but because of what that did to the country.  It divided the nation.  So I don't see the southern states breaking for him at all, including Florida because many democrats would've stayed home.  There was also a lack of contrast between bush and Clinton in 2000; Bush was a "compassionate conservative"; basically, I'll give you everything he did but with a tax cut to boot.  Clinton would've campaigned on the same thing but without the breaks for the upper class.  Bush would've said a little less foreign intervention.  Clinton would've defended his record and touted his foreign policy credentials.  At least Gore contradicted Bush on education, entitlements, and healthcare.  Democrats wouldn't've showed up, especially the older ones (FLORIDA!).  If Clinton wins its because he stakes his entire campaign on winning Ohio, and it would be almost as narrow as otl florida in 2000
You're right.  Clinton got the Reagan Democrats and moderates to vote Democrat and they've voted Democratic ever since.  But I would argue that it was largely BECAUSE of social issues, although I think they mostly care about economic issues.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2012, 01:36:32 pm »

Romneys going to have to court these voters this election as well.  Well maybe there's a realignment waiting for us this year; who knows?
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2012, 07:17:45 pm »

Romneys going to have to court these voters this election as well.  Well maybe there's a realignment waiting for us this year; who knows?
I see another realignment as unlikely until one party begins to educate the base of the other (preferably Republicans to the Democratic base) about what they really believe and start to make inroads with those voters.
Logged
Jay20
Rookie
**
Posts: 62
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2012, 01:37:40 am »

I think you have the same map as 1996, but with Bush getting NV and KY, maybe, but def not WV or TN. Maybe Bush woulda brought Florida close, but that's about it. Remember, Clinton beat the first Bush, and only would have to liken his son's economic policy to his father and game over. Plus Clinton vs. another Bush woulda exposed W's fake southern thing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines