Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 10:16:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Had George Bush dumped Dan Quayle back in '92
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Had George Bush dumped Dan Quayle back in '92  (Read 234 times)
sg0508
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1173
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 1.91

View Profile
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:28:55 am »
Ignore

Does it make any difference whatsoever? Yes, it would have highly depended on the replacement VP candidate, but everyone knew Quayle was a disaster for the GOP ticket, even back in '88.  Then again, and perhaps confirmed back in '88, people don't vote for VP.  They vote for President. 

Watching former speeches, debates, etc. by Quayle makes one's brain hurt to say the least.  You're just awaiting for the next gaffe to roll out of his mouth.

Opinions?
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2014, 10:56:08 pm »
Ignore

Does it make any difference whatsoever? Yes, it would have highly depended on the replacement VP candidate, but everyone knew Quayle was a disaster for the GOP ticket, even back in '88.  Then again, and perhaps confirmed back in '88, people don't vote for VP.  They vote for President. 

Watching former speeches, debates, etc. by Quayle makes one's brain hurt to say the least.  You're just awaiting for the next gaffe to roll out of his mouth.

Opinions?

I couldn't disagree with you more.  Quayle was an asset to Bush; he was smart and saavy, and his "gaffe" was spelling potato with a silent e on the end.  His Murphy Brown comments drew criticism, but only from folks not likely to vote GOP anyway, and they cemented the support of social conservatives who viewed Bush 41 as a bit suspect.

Bush's problem was that his globalist policies represented a departure from Reagan, and the fruits of those policies, in the form of a recession resulting from jobs lost to foreign countries, came home to roost in the second half of his term.  Bush compounded that problem by projecting disinterest in domestic policy.  It never registered on him that it was the socially conservative factory worker who was a Nixon/Reagan Democrat that was getting laid off and seeing their jobs go to far off lands.  His policies cost him, and his party, the folks that gave the GOP their landslides.  To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1247


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2014, 11:03:12 pm »
Ignore

Perhaps it would have helped Bush a little bit in the popular vote, but I don't think any states would have flipped. Well, maybe Georgia would have, but Clinton was strong in the South to begin with, so I have my doubts that Quayle not being on the GOP ticket would have changed the ultimate result.
Logged

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. - Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

"Beware the politically obsessed. They are often bright and interesting, but they have something missing in their natures; there is a hole, an empty place, and they use politics to fill it up. It leaves them somehow misshapen." - Peggy Noonan
Bushie Likes to Throw Money Around
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4437
Virgin Islands, U.S.


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2014, 12:00:21 am »
Ignore

Does it make any difference whatsoever? Yes, it would have highly depended on the replacement VP candidate, but everyone knew Quayle was a disaster for the GOP ticket, even back in '88.  Then again, and perhaps confirmed back in '88, people don't vote for VP.  They vote for President. 

Watching former speeches, debates, etc. by Quayle makes one's brain hurt to say the least.  You're just awaiting for the next gaffe to roll out of his mouth.

Opinions?

I couldn't disagree with you more.  Quayle was an asset to Bush; he was smart and saavy, and his "gaffe" was spelling potato with a silent e on the end.  His Murphy Brown comments drew criticism, but only from folks not likely to vote GOP anyway, and they cemented the support of social conservatives who viewed Bush 41 as a bit suspect.

Bush's problem was that his globalist policies represented a departure from Reagan, and the fruits of those policies, in the form of a recession resulting from jobs lost to foreign countries, came home to roost in the second half of his term.  Bush compounded that problem by projecting disinterest in domestic policy.  It never registered on him that it was the socially conservative factory worker who was a Nixon/Reagan Democrat that was getting laid off and seeing their jobs go to far off lands.  His policies cost him, and his party, the folks that gave the GOP their landslides.  To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".

I don't agree with you, but I do think Bush 41 was the last of his kind in the sense that he was very much a mid-20th century style internationalist Republican who believed in multilateralism and the idea that the United States could be a leader in the global community but still had to be a part of the global community. His handling of the Gulf War was emblematic of that belief - simply going into Iraq by ourselves without international support would have been inconceivable to someone of his school of thought. And his support for things like NAFTA, an international approach to environmental protection and the UN-inspired Americans with Disabilities Act are all things that get the "drooler" faction of the Republican Party riled up with talk of the Trilateral Commission and the Rothschilds and the NWO and all that.
Logged

This may come as a surprise, but I do have a strong head on my shoulders and I am very cognizant of what's going on around me.

It wouldn't come as a surprise. It would come as an M. Night Shyamalan-in-his-prime plot twist.
Fuzzy Bear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2014, 10:47:00 pm »
Ignore

Does it make any difference whatsoever? Yes, it would have highly depended on the replacement VP candidate, but everyone knew Quayle was a disaster for the GOP ticket, even back in '88.  Then again, and perhaps confirmed back in '88, people don't vote for VP.  They vote for President. 

Watching former speeches, debates, etc. by Quayle makes one's brain hurt to say the least.  You're just awaiting for the next gaffe to roll out of his mouth.

Opinions?

I couldn't disagree with you more.  Quayle was an asset to Bush; he was smart and saavy, and his "gaffe" was spelling potato with a silent e on the end.  His Murphy Brown comments drew criticism, but only from folks not likely to vote GOP anyway, and they cemented the support of social conservatives who viewed Bush 41 as a bit suspect.

Bush's problem was that his globalist policies represented a departure from Reagan, and the fruits of those policies, in the form of a recession resulting from jobs lost to foreign countries, came home to roost in the second half of his term.  Bush compounded that problem by projecting disinterest in domestic policy.  It never registered on him that it was the socially conservative factory worker who was a Nixon/Reagan Democrat that was getting laid off and seeing their jobs go to far off lands.  His policies cost him, and his party, the folks that gave the GOP their landslides.  To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".

I don't agree with you, but I do think Bush 41 was the last of his kind in the sense that he was very much a mid-20th century style internationalist Republican who believed in multilateralism and the idea that the United States could be a leader in the global community but still had to be a part of the global community. His handling of the Gulf War was emblematic of that belief - simply going into Iraq by ourselves without international support would have been inconceivable to someone of his school of thought. And his support for things like NAFTA, an international approach to environmental protection and the UN-inspired Americans with Disabilities Act are all things that get the "drooler" faction of the Republican Party riled up with talk of the Trilateral Commission and the Rothschilds and the NWO and all that.

I'm not one of those folks who get riled up about the Bilderbergers, etc.  But Bush's internationalist policies sped up the flow of manufacturing jobs out of the US.  And he was rightly blamed for that, IMO.  All the internationalist platitudes sound great to elites because they can personally afford manufacturing jobs being eliminated and exported.  Working class towns and working class people are a different matter.
Logged
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1010
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Today at 01:00:29 am »
Ignore

To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".
Actually, Reagan had a lot to do with this as well.

 It didn't just begin in 1989-1993, but rather as early as the 1950s when electronics moved overseas to Japan. The shifting manufacturing landscape didn't become a problem until the early 1980s, which was when more manufacturing jobs were being outsourced than jobs in other sectors (steel, autos, consumer appliances, furniture, textiles, etc.) were being created, and then those latter sectors started going abroad. Reagan's massive deficits cause investors to borrow against the dollar, increasing its value, and helping make foreign imports even cheaper. There was some manufacturing employment growth 1983-1989, but it was all wiped out by the 1990 recession (which also had to deal with a real estate bubble that raged from 1984-1989, hence the S&L Crisis peaking in 1989 and requiring bailouts). NAFTA also originated in 1986 under Reagan, Bush and Clinton then re-signed it in 1992 and 1993 as the treaty required after an election.

I don't mean to detract from the rest of your post (which was on point), but under Reagan the manufacturing sector was not at all healthy.

Back to OP: It doesn't really matter all that much, as the crap economy would've sunk the GOP either way in 1992. It would be like Obama dumping Biden in 2012: viewed as an act of desperation (the difference in these elections is that the 1990 recession originated under Reagan & HW Bush, while the 2008 recession originated entirely under Bush II, not Obama). Quayle wasn't even that controversial (like Palin), he was more like Biden in that he said some dumb stuff that could be chalked up to his awkward personality rather than sheer stupidity or outright lying.

In the end, those superficial details did not and would not matter, as the election was still about George Bush vs. Bill Clinton vs. Ross Perot and the economy.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:04:28 am by Clarko95 »Logged

dmmidmi
dmwestmi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 516
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Today at 08:35:46 am »
Ignore

To this day, it's not Reagan's policies that folks have problems with.  It's Bush 41 and Bush 43's policies that have cost them their jobs to the "global economy".
Actually, Reagan had a lot to do with this as well.

 It didn't just begin in 1989-1993, but rather as early as the 1950s when electronics moved overseas to Japan. The shifting manufacturing landscape didn't become a problem until the early 1980s, which was when more manufacturing jobs were being outsourced than jobs in other sectors (steel, autos, consumer appliances, furniture, textiles, etc.) were being created, and then those latter sectors started going abroad. Reagan's massive deficits cause investors to borrow against the dollar, increasing its value, and helping make foreign imports even cheaper. There was some manufacturing employment growth 1983-1989, but it was all wiped out by the 1990 recession (which also had to deal with a real estate bubble that raged from 1984-1989, hence the S&L Crisis peaking in 1989 and requiring bailouts). NAFTA also originated in 1986 under Reagan, Bush and Clinton then re-signed it in 1992 and 1993 as the treaty required after an election.

I don't mean to detract from the rest of your post (which was on point), but under Reagan the manufacturing sector was not at all healthy.

Back to OP: It doesn't really matter all that much, as the crap economy would've sunk the GOP either way in 1992. It would be like Obama dumping Biden in 2012: viewed as an act of desperation (the difference in these elections is that the 1990 recession originated under Reagan & HW Bush, while the 2008 recession originated entirely under Bush II, not Obama). Quayle wasn't even that controversial (like Palin), he was more like Biden in that he said some dumb stuff that could be chalked up to his awkward personality rather than sheer stupidity or outright lying.

In the end, those superficial details did not and would not matter, as the election was still about George Bush vs. Bill Clinton vs. Ross Perot and the economy.

This. There are plenty of reasons why George Bush lost--Dan Quayle may have been on the list, but he definitely wasn't very high up.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines