Which election would you have been more likely to vote for HW Bush in?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:46:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Which election would you have been more likely to vote for HW Bush in?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which election would you have been more likely to vote for HW Bush in?
#1
1988 (D)
 
#2
1988 (R)
 
#3
1988 (O/I)
 
#4
1992 (D)
 
#5
1992 (R)
 
#6
1992 (O/I)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 44

Author Topic: Which election would you have been more likely to vote for HW Bush in?  (Read 894 times)
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 15, 2020, 09:31:26 AM »

?
Logged
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,512
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2020, 10:26:03 AM »

Without hindsight, 1988. With it, 1992.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2020, 12:46:17 PM »

1988
Logged
HisGrace
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,496
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2020, 01:47:22 PM »

Surprised so many dems are saying 92. I guess they prefer Dukakis to Clinton?

I'd have voted for him both times but would have been more decisive in my choice in 88. Might have wanted to vote Perot in 92.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2020, 05:10:12 PM »

Voted for him in 1988 and for Clinton in 1992.  Haven't voted Republican since.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2020, 06:09:38 PM »

I voted for Dukakis in 1988 -- the first year I voted -- and for Bush in 1992.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2020, 11:57:15 PM »

1992 because Dukakis is more liberal.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2020, 12:00:14 AM »
« Edited: July 17, 2020, 12:04:49 AM by Alben Barkley »

1988 and it's not even remotely close.

Clinton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dukakis

Hell I might have even for a moment considered actually voting for HW in 1988. Not a chance in 1992.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2020, 12:02:06 AM »
« Edited: July 17, 2020, 12:05:50 AM by Alben Barkley »

Without hindsight, 1988. With it, 1992.

Makes no sense. What are you seeing in hindsight that makes you want to give up one of the most successful administrations in history exactly? And give the GOP at least four terms in a row?

1992 because Dukakis is more liberal.

So you'd vote for Bush, who was certainly less liberal than Clinton as well as Dukakis?

That doesn't make sense.

Surprised so many dems are saying 92. I guess they prefer Dukakis to Clinton?

I'm thinking those votes are mostly coming from edgy young "progressives" who voted for Sanders and have an irrational hatred for the Clintons. I've noticed a lot of that on this board.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,256
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2020, 12:08:13 AM »

1988, given that I like Dukakis much less than Clinton, but I could possibly vote for him in both, though I'd probably be a swing voter in 1992 (one of few elections where I'd be a swing voter)
Logged
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,512
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2020, 12:12:59 AM »

Without hindsight, 1988. With it, 1992.

Makes no sense. What are you seeing in hindsight that makes you want to give up one of the most successful administrations in history exactly? And give the GOP at least four terms in a row?
Just a lot of Bill's shadiness that hadn't come out at the time.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2020, 12:34:49 AM »
« Edited: July 17, 2020, 06:27:03 AM by darklordoftech »

1992 because Dukakis is more liberal.

So you'd vote for Bush, who was certainly less liberal than Clinton as well as Dukakis?

That doesn't make sense.
I interpreted that as, “I’d vote for both Dukakis and Clinton, but I’d be more enthusiastic for Dukakis.”
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2020, 08:28:10 AM »

1992, tho would vote for Ross perot
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2020, 09:37:04 AM »

1992 since Atwater isn't around to bail him out, and the difference between Dukakis and Clinton is negligible at best, and frankly HW wasn't that bad when considering what he was coming off the heels of.
Logged
😥
andjey
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,510
Ukraine
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2020, 01:57:59 PM »

1988, easily
Logged
HisGrace
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,496
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2020, 05:57:09 PM »

1988 and it's not even remotely close.

Clinton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dukakis

Hell I might have even for a moment considered actually voting for HW in 1988. Not a chance in 1992.

Even aside from ideology Dukakis just sucks. A total lightweight who would have made an incredibly weak president. The idea of him facing down someone like Saddam or dealing with the collapse of the USSR is not a pretty picture. Even if I agreed with him most the time I wouldn't want to vote for someone like him.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2020, 06:49:04 PM »

1988. Dukakis proved to be a terrible nominee and even with Atwater in the picture that year, Bush still looked more moderate than Reagan.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2020, 10:31:06 PM »

In my humble opinion, Dukakis > Clinton > HW Bush > W Bush.
Logged
foolcase
boringindy
Rookie
**
Posts: 144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2020, 11:37:39 PM »

Would have probably voted for him both times, but more so in 1992. I actually would have seriously considered Dukakis.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2020, 07:00:31 PM »

'88 because Perot wasn't running, though, I would probably vote Bush both times since he (Perot) dropped out and his poll numbers suffered as a result (in '92).

Perot > H.W. Bush but H.W. Bush was the best chance to beat Clinton since Perot dropped out.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2020, 11:03:06 PM »

Without hindsight, 1988. With it, 1992.

Makes no sense. What are you seeing in hindsight that makes you want to give up one of the most successful administrations in history exactly? And give the GOP at least four terms in a row?

Perhaps the fact that most of Clinton's policies were actually very bad for people and that his sainted dot-com bubble was actually an unmitigated disaster?
Logged
UlmerFudd
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,594
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2020, 11:01:11 AM »

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.043 seconds with 13 queries.