Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008

[Württemberger]

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.

1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).

[Württemberger]

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.

1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).

Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).

[Württemberger]

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.

1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).

Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).

The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).

[Württemberger]

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.

1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).

Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).

The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).

I could see her winning MO, coming very close in WV/KY, and losing NC.

That would be fewer EV than Obama got (even though not that many fewer). What about IN? I feel that it is a state that flipped because of Obama and his excellent campaign. IMO, Hillary would have lost it narrowly, too. Nevertheless, her argument was that she would have had a better chance of defeating McCain which certainly wasn't true.