Bill Clinton vs. George Bush Jr. 2000

[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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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."

[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.

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

[Jerseyrules]

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?

[Jerseyrules]

What about Jeb wins in 94, and W. stands aside in 00?  IMO Jeb is a much better candidate and much more charismatic.  Or Whitman?  What Republican could take Slick Willy down?