If there was no 22nd Amendment Bill Clinton would be President today.

On a larger subject for discussion: Should the 22nd Amendment ever be repealed?

No it should not be repealed. Its enough that should Obama be re-elected, we will have had 24 years with only 3 presidents (assuming Obama completes a second term, which would only be precluded by unforeseeable circumstances). I love Bill Clinton, didn't like Bush on domestic policy at all (I only liked his support of Israel, the Jewish State), and while I agree with many of Obama's policies more than the prevailing GOP view, I hate the thing personally. He's a pity, a man who only cares about his image in history rather than governing.

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.

we see how much that helped Bush I.

(hint: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx check the 1992 link out, the GOP convention was in August)

Unlike most, I happen to think Gingrich would perform better against Clinton that Dole. It's easy to forget that Dole only lost by 8 pts (49-41-8%), and was a completely inept campaigner (I mean, c'mon, falling off a barnstorming stage??). Gingrich, as polarizing as he was, is much more charismatic than Dole, and probably, much more willing to draw a stark contrast from Clinton than Dole.

Having said that, I Clinton still wins by healthy margin. The growing '96 economy would still be too much to overcome.

Clinton - 352 (-27)
Gingrich - 186 (+27)

Clinton wins 48-41-9%

Gotta remember that by Clinton's own admission, he went easy on Dole the last few days to try to win seats back in Congress, which I think was a mistake because getting under 50% twice, I think, severely undermined his political power (altho he was STILL more effective than Obama). But I don't think Clinton would have done the same against Newt, because Newt was more hated than Dole, even then, and Newt would have made it more personal against Clinton than Dole did, so Clinton would have gone for the slam dunks ahead by 30 in the last 2 minutes

this ain't 1996 where a Clinton landslide was assured the entire year. Its somewhere between 2004 and 1992, rather. Like 2004 in the candidates strength's and weaknesses, but like 1992 and 1980 in the terrible economic sentiment. Tho you're right, that Obama is in a MUCH better position than Bush Sr. in 1992, who was dead http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush%20%28G.H.W.%29#.UAh0T6NmMud for most of 1992.

Its kinda like 2012.

because he's not Romney or a Republican? Identity politics.

I could see Romney put Rubio on the ticket not because he thinks he's gonna win the Hispanic vote, but because it'll help him hedge Obama's Latino edge, shave off enough points to make it closer.

[Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.]

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

But all those cases there was a legit alternative to the incumbent.

This logic is faulty IMO. "The economy sucks, so lets vote for Mitt." it doesn't work like that, Romney has to make case for people to vote for him. If 2004 is a lesson, people just won't vote for crap.

The economy was not the focus of the 2004 race: national security was. The economy was seen as "alright," or "good," whereas in the election years I mentioned and this one, its seen as "bad," or "poor." No one thought we were in recession in 2004 although many did not see it as great compared to the Clinton/Reagan years, now they call the economy part of "The Great Recession." Bush II's term is, and is seen, as largely responsible, but now that a vulnerable incumbent is in office, this is why 2012 is a toss up.

Republicans have not won New Jersey since Dukakis was the Dem nominee. I don't think that any states which last voted Republican in 1988 are going to Romney.

http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm the fact that despite the attacks, as many, or more Americans think Romney would do a better job on the economy, is bad news for Obama. If Mitt takes comfort, he'll lose, but he seems to have learned from Kerry's mistakes to not take anything for granted. The GOP went after Clinton with Whitewater, Flowers, etc. after the 1992 conventions and look where it got them (and Perot was out of that race from July-October while Bush trailed Clinton by double digits for that time period). I think as Clinton brought his favorables up in 1992, Romney will do the same, this time by introducing his family. Chances are Romney has a war room ready like Clinton did, especially given what Obama's "government built it" gaffe.

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

Kerry was up 2 points at this time in 2004.

yes, thats MoE, but Romney has hit back harder and more effectively against the attacks than Kerry did, and goes after Obama, where Kerry tried to not go negative. Americans, knowning that Romney is rich as hell and helped rich people get richer, a flip-flop, and a one term Mormon governor, still often say he would do as good a job or better on the economy http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm,

Remember the 1932, 1980, 1992, and 2008 elections: when a bad economy is the focus, the incumbent party gets the boot.

Clinton wins Montana again as he did in 1992, carries VA as suburban soccer moms vote in greater numbers for Clinton against Gingrich, Gingrich lacks strength in non-Mormon western states too. Both Gingrich's and Clinton's perceived lack of ethics and fidelity are a wash: Clinton goes head-on against the guy who shut down the government, was reviled by his own GOP colleagues, etc.

Pop vote (no Perot): Clinton/Gore: 58
Gingrich/whoever: 41

Pop vote (with Perot): Clinton/Gore 55
Gingrich: 37
Perot: 7

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

The Obama team is trying hard. But I think Romney has done a far better job countering it than John Kerry; plus he expected it, and everyone saw it coming. No one saw the Swift Boat guys coming, I mean Clinton didn't do that to Bob Dole. Consider this: neither convention is underway for more than a month; yet with all the attacks, Romney is still in the MoE against an incumbent wartime President, and Obama is picking up no new states in any polls.

I'm normally a Democrat, I voted for Obama in 2008, and I agree with the Dems far more than the GOP on most things, except foreign policy, on which I'm almost a "neo-con," so to speak. But I think Obama is likely gonna lose. Here's why: despite all the attacks which should have ended Romney, he's still within the MoE in almost every poll against Obama nationally, and 94% of the time, the pop vote winner wins the election. This against an incumbent president. Obama is also not picking up any new states.

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

The fact that this ultrarich Mormon flip-flop is still in the race at this point shows the trouble Obama is having. not to mention that Obama is probably gonna get the smallest Jewish vote for a Dem since Carter in 1980, which matters up north, in FL, and CA.

Colorado was a fairly safe Republican state at that time. Clinton wouldn't have won it in '92 if not for Perot.

False. Perot, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-NAFTA only helped Bush stay in the race when he re-entered. Clinton was winning by a landslide nationally from June-October 1992, when Perot wasn't in the race. Perot also ran best in states which either favored one candidate lopsidedly or had few electoral votes anyway. Bush I's approvals were in the tank for most of 1992, much lower than Obama's current numbers, closer to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

Answer for Clinton not winning a bigger landslide in 1996: Ross Perot took votes from people who in general weren't satisfied with the system at all. Also, Clinton, knowing he could go to big media markets to break 50%, decided to try to win Dems more seats in the House and Senate. Even he admits this in his autobio. Dumb move on his part: not getting 50%, I'm convinced, severely hampered his ability to govern BOTH terms, yet he was far more effective than Barack Hussein Obama.

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.

[in 1992]

As for my maps, the Spoiler in 1992 was Ross Perot, barring Ross Perot running, Clinton had an even chance with Bush the father.  As for my 1972 map concerning HHH and Richard M. Nixon, George McGovern was a poor choice and wasn't an enthusiastic candidate and had zero percent chance of winning, but someone else with an ongoing war in Vietnam might of had a chance.  As for Republicans winning NH all the time on my maps, it was mostly a republican state until 1996, and West Virginia was a Democratic stronghold. We can certainly disagree.

Ross Perot was NOT A SPOILER. Exit polls, the same polls which showed that Reagan would win in 1980 and 1984, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, showed that pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Ross Perot took equally http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A964958260 . Also, when Perot was out of the race, the race looked like http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DC1F3EF936A2575AC0A964958260 where Clinton was in the mid 50's, and Bush in the same upper 30's he ended up in election day, and looked like this from when Perot left the race, July, until he returned, which was in October. Look at this graph http://media.gallup.com/ELECTION2004/electionHistory_1992_2.gif which shows that as Perot rose, Clinton fell a lot more, while Bush barely moved. Moreover, Bush's approvals in 1992 were in the http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush%20(G.H.W.) 40's and 30's, where no party has ever been re-elected to the White House. Ross Perot was absolutely no spoiler. Clinton was gonna win nationally by at least 6, which guarantees the White House, being that 3.1 is the largest margin by which a popular vote loser has won, and that election is thought to be stolen anyway with Florida. if perot hadn't returned, and Clinton and Bush stayed where they were from July-October, Clinton probably woulda won by 10, a landslide against the unpopular 1992 Bush. New Hampshire's going Dem in 1992, and the fact it has gone Dem 3 out of 4 times after means that Clinton probably signified a partisan shift in that state.

you forgot Arkansas, in which Clinton got an absolute majority in 1992. I also don't see why not give him Missouri, as he won it by a big margin in 1992.

I actually do think the site should switch eventually, if only because the parties have now moved towards making the colors official (whereas as recently as 2006 they were unofficial media terms at best). But I suppose we should wait for one party or the other (probably the Democrats, as they as an organization seem more enthusiastic about blue than the Republicans about red) to declare their color their official color.

actually, even the Republican party is embracing red now, go to the Republican party website http://www.gop.com/ and red is their banner and prominently featured on their website.  same with the Democratic Party, as their website http://dnc.org/ has blue in the banner and features it prominently in their website.

to all saying that "leftism" has a color, maybe in other places it does, but the color of the Democratic Party in the United States of America is blue, and the Republican Party is red. period. This is America, and using American colors for American political parties is the proper way.

I really dont' think Powell would have been a good nominee. He just did well in pre-nomination hypothetical polls. Just like John McCain. But when Powell would have gotten to the nominating procress, the conservative base would have ran for cover, because Powell was a social liberal. Powell would not have appealed to blacks due to his party, and not appealed to conservatives over his issues. Whites would flock to Clinton over Powell, and it would have been same electoral college result and gotten virginia and georgia because of Powell's color.

[most of them used blue to register Democratic votes and red for Republican votes]

I'm sure if there was a link to this in the thread already, but Kevin Drum for the Washington Monthly did a nice look at the "red state, blue state" issue after the 2004 election. He did a detailed Nexis search and had the following conclusion:

Although there was never any kind of consensus on this, prior to 2000 it was more common to associate red with Democrats and blue with Republicans.

Drum also links to a Washington Post story on the same topic, written on election day 2004. The Post also looked back at references running back to 1980, and they concluded that it was invented in the 2000 election in part by Tim Russert, and in part by David Letterman reinforcing it during the long recount mess.

The first reference to "red states" and "blue states," according to a database search of newspapers, magazines and TV news transcripts since 1980, occurred on NBC's "Today" show about a week before the 2000 election. Matt Lauer and Tim Russert discussed the projected alignment of the states, using a map and a color scheme that had first shown up a few days earlier on NBC's sister cable network, MSNBC. "So how does [Bush] get those remaining 61 electoral red states, if you will?" Russert asked at one point.

...

As the 2000 election became a 36-day recount debacle, the commentariat magically reached consensus on the proper colors. Newspapers began discussing the race in the larger, abstract context of red vs. blue. The deal may have been sealed when Letterman suggested a week after the vote that a compromise would "make George W. Bush president of the red states and Al Gore head of the blue ones."

One theory for pre-2000 colors was referenced by Drum in a follow-up posting. The reply he received I have read in print previously in the 1990s, though I have other link than this one.

Since the advent of color TV, there has been a formula to avoid charges of giving any party an advantage by painting it a "better" color. Here is the formula: the color of the incumbent party alternates every 4 years.

As a historical record it makes little sense for the Atlas to flip colors for different elections. I find Dave's color scheme perfectly acceptable.

thats just talk, with conservatives who don't like the fact that red is Republican. You can see the actual footage: 1984 CBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e4t1qKGFao with red as Republican, ABC with the same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHkKaeWUHM& , 1988 from CBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr1IyeuMlu8 , 1992 CBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y93IOIC44Rc and CBS stayed red as Republican too. In 1980, yes more were blue as Republican, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKm7TGd0m8 and ABC was red for Reagan that year, but notice how it became more widespread after 1980 to have red as Republican amongst other networks. From after the 1996 election a NYT article said about the election: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1D61038F935A35752C1A960958260 "most of them used blue to register Democratic votes and red for Republican votes on their charts, but otherwise the competition in graphics was dramatic." It has stayed that way and always will.

I agree with you, but it doesn't seem like very many people on this site are enthusiastic about switching the color scheme.

I don't get this whole "cool to be different" thing myself. This is America, the center right party will never have blue as its color, the GOP will forever be red, the Democrats blue. I'd bet this site would get more traffic if it jumped on the color bandwagon.

I'd say she'd get West Virginia 50-49, make Kentucky a hot battleground by touring Appalchia like Lyndon Johnson and come within 4 points of winning it, McCain would get Colorado, she'd win Iowa, Wisconsin, and make missouri a contest. She'd win Oregon too.

I don't see why he loses Maine or New Jersey. Maine clearly had a huge partisan shift in 1992, considering that not only did Clinton win by 9, but it has voted Democratic every other time, giving Clinton an absolute majority in 1996, but still being Perot's strongest state. Jersey has also been Dem since 1992 in every election. Gore won a landslide there too in 2000, 56-40. Also, I don't see Jack Kemp helping Bush at all. Bush struggled in 1992 because of his weakness with social conservatives. Remember Buchanan's run? Quayle was needed on the ticket. Bush's socially conservative base woulda fallen out if Kemp had been on. Clinton woulda thus done better in the south because of that. Less social conservatives come out to vote. Thus, I'd say the 1992 map the same as before, tho maybe he'd keep new hampshire, or hell Clinton wins there 50-49, or 49.7-49.5. We saw how much Kemp helped Bob Dole in 1996. Also, Bush's popularity would not be helped either. Bush had 40 and 30 percent approval ratings. Dumping Quayle woulda hurt him, making him look weak.