Sure, moving from Michael Dukakis' 46% of the vote in 1988 to Bill Clinton's 43% of the vote in 1992 is a sign of a once-in-a-lifetime political genius. Simply not losing ground when the other party's candidate collapses due to a party schism is a political feat worthy of a mastermind.
EDIT: Seriously, though, all sarcasm aside, it is healthy to remember that a larger share of Americans voted for Michael Dukakis to be their president in 1988 than voted for Bill Clinton to be their president in 1992 when considering the degree to which the Democratic Party was in peril in the late 1980s, and I think there's a very strong case indeed to be made that the cure (the Clintons) was far worse than the disease (especially since the Democratic Party was clearly already on a rebound from 1986 onwards).
Are you seriously peddling the myth that Bush would've been re-elected if Perot wasn't in the race?
Mikado didn't mention that. However, when he says that going from 46% to 43% isn't exactly a major achievement or realignment, he's right. Michael Dukakis was the wrong candidate at the wrong time and this whole "move to the center in order to win" argument that Clinton put forward didn't help the party that much (see 2000/2004, 1994). Michael Dukakis might even have won if he had run in 1992. Clinton's strengths and achievements are overrated.
Poll
