Clinton/Gore vs. Bush/Cheney in 2000

[True Democrat]

Let's say a President could run for a third term.  I think Clinton would have won by a strong 8-9 point margin.  Post maps for 2000 and this scenario in 2004.  For a 2004 map, I think that Clinton would have won by only 2 or 3 points.

[Democratic Hawk]

Clinton would have won - but not to the extent he did in 1992 or 1996. He'd have lost support in the South; though he would have won his native Arkansas, Florida and possibly Louisiana

I'll come back with a map

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

It's a guess (Clinton would have still won fairly comfortably)



Dave

[True Democrat]

373-165

[Democratic Hawk]

Yeah, the more I think about it, Clinton would have held Louisiana because he won fairly comfortably there in 1996

Dave

[A18]

Bush landslide, of course.

[Moooooo]

Clinton wins.  Can you imagine the debates?  Good lord.

[A18]

We have some really delusional people on this board.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000127.html

If Clinton could run for a third term in November, and he were matched against George W. Bush, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination, 42 percent of Americans say they’d vote for Clinton — 51 percent for Bush.

[Moooooo]

We have some really delusional people on this board.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000127.html

If Clinton could run for a third term in November, and he were matched against George W. Bush, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination, 42 percent of Americans say they’d vote for Clinton — 51 percent for Bush.

People aren't used to the idea of presidents runnign for a third term.  If it was common Clinton and Reagan would have both cruised to a 3rd term.

More polling info from the article...

Views of Clinton

In his job

Approve-  58%
Disapprove-  38

Positive Ratings:

Clinton, 1/00    Reagan, 11/88

Accomplishments  58% - 60
Communication  72 - 74
Judgment  42 - 45
Leadership  53 - 66

-----------Handling of issues:-----------

The economy 68% - 49
The federal deficit 55 - 16
Ethics in government 37 - 37

Approval
In another gauge, Clinton’s career job rating now stands at 56 percent approval — identical to Reagan’s, and right in the mid-range for postwar presidents.

Career Job Approval Ratings:

Kennedy 70%
Eisen. 65
Bush 62
Johnson 56
Reagan 56
Clinton 56
Nixon 49
Ford 48
Carter 46

[A18]

None of that polling data is relevant. The question was who would have won if Clinton ran for a third term, and the obvious answer is Bush.

[A18]

To the voters in this poll: someone explain to me how Clinton could have won while losing the popular vote in that big of a landslide?

[skybridge]

Bush landslide, of course.

That's ridiculous.

[nini2287]

That poll may be the 1-in-20 outliers, and we can't see the Gore vs. Bush numbers at the time, which may have been worse.  Anyway, I'd say:

PV Clinton 53% Bush 46%
EV Clinton 351, Bush 187

[PBrunsel]

This is the best bet in my estimation.

[Keystone Phil]

This is the best bet in my estimation.

I think Bush would take Louisiana from him.

[A18]

Why are Clinton's other numbers so good if it's an outlier?

The Bush-Gore numbers included tons of Nader voters who switched to Gore at the end of the election cycle. That's not an issue here. Even if Clinton won all the undecided, he still would only be on par with Gore.

No, skybridge, you're a partisan hack. It's every Democratic map in this thread that is ridiculous, and shows how delusional the average poster on this board is.

[MaC]

Bill Clinton v. George Bush in 2000: Bush wins
Bill Clinton v. George Bush in 2004: Clinton wins

reason: 2000, Clinton had that stigma of being sexy going for him, Bush wins because of the Christian right.
2004, because people blame Bush for the economy and poor handling of terrorism, Clinton comes back into power.

[skybridge]

Why are Clinton's other numbers so good if it's an outlier?

The Bush-Gore numbers included tons of Nader voters who switched to Gore at the end of the election cycle. That's not an issue here. Even if Clinton won all the undecided, he still would only be on par with Gore.

No, skybridge, you're a partisan hack. It's every Democratic map in this thread that is ridiculous, and shows how delusional the average poster on this board is.

Clinton had higher approval ratings when he left office than Reagan. So why would the voters have decided for change even more overwhelmingly than they actually did in 2000 for someone considered one of the least experienced candidates ever?

[Democratic Hawk]

If in the unlikely even of Bush winning in 2000, 2004 will have seen Clinton defeat him handidly. It would be a straight battle between a competent former president and an incompetent incumbent. Simple

Dave

[A18]

So you're willing to look at polls for approval ratings but not polls for the actual subject we're talking about, which is who would win  in an election between GWB and Clinton?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000127.html
As he enters the last year of his presidency, most Americans say Bill Clinton’s done a fine job in office — and they’ll be glad to see him go.

A year from now:
Sorry to see him go: 39%
Glad to see him go: 54%

Approval ratings don't win elections. If 54% of the population wants to see you go, that doesn't speak to well for your re-election chances.

As for why the American people would elect Bush over Clinton, well, that's irrelevant to the simple fact that the poll shows they would.

Whatever his legacy, enough looks to be enough. If Clinton could run for a third term in November, and he were matched against George W. Bush, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination, 42 percent of Americans say they’d vote for Clinton — 51 percent for Bush.

Bush would probably get 54% of the vote or more.

[Moooooo]

No, skybridge, you're a partisan hack. It's every Democratic map in this thread that is ridiculous, and shows how delusional the average poster on this board is.

Bush wins Maryland and California?  You're on drugs.

[A18]

If in the unlikely even of Bush winning in 2000, 2004 will have seen Clinton defeat him handidly. It would be a straight battle between a competent former president and an incompetent incumbent. Simple

Unlikely event? A 10 point lead for Bush makes his election an unlikely event? A poll that says 54% of Americans will be happy to see Clinton go makes Bush's election an unlikely event? Uh, no.

Clinton would have been drilled on terrorism, and his integrity would immediately become an issue. He would have lost worse than Kerry, though perhaps not as bad as in 2000.

[A18]

No, skybridge, you're a partisan hack. It's every Democratic map in this thread that is ridiculous, and shows how delusional the average poster on this board is.

Bush wins Maryland and California?  You're on drugs.

Undecideds would likely break against the attempted three term incumbent, which gives Bush a greater than 10 point margin of victory.

[skybridge]

Partisan-hack...

[A18]

Hey pal, in case you didn't notice, I'm the one posting the relevant polling data. If 54% of the country wants to see Clinton go, that gives Bush an excellent shot at 54% of the vote or more (since only 39% will be sad). And I posted the actual head to head numbers as well, which give Bush an absolute majority and 9 point lead.