Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2017, 07:32:05 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008  (Read 2843 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5269


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2015, 07:35:36 pm »
Ignore

Following the 1976 GOP convention, it was pretty clear that Reagan would be the party's nominee in 1980. Coupled with the fact that the incumbent was a notoriously weak politician, having barely beat the Republican the previous election following several years' worth of controversy, and the country's economy/foreign policy was in shambles--it's easy to see why Reagan curb-stomped Carter in 1980. He ran a good campaign, but no huge surprises here.

Clinton ran an excellent campaign in 1992, and successfully built momentum as the primary went along, and had to do so partially because the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire were certainties going into the primary. It's hard to give him an enormous amount of credit for the general election victory, considering there were so many external factors affecting the outcome (economy, third party candidacy, running against a fourth term of Republican Presidents, etc.).

Considering the state of the country at the time, Obama's general election performance wasn't too impressive. However, he ran an incredibly skilled campaign against a skilled politician who had the party's full support, and most people--going into the 2008 election--simply assumed would be the party's nominee.

Have to go with Obama's 2008 campaign, specifically the primary. He achieved a seemingly impossible task.

The economy in 2008 was far worse then it was in 1992. In 1992 the economy was in recovery stage while 2008 was the peak of its recession
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12505
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2015, 08:54:37 pm »
Ignore

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.
1992 was a realignment because most of the Northeast and Upper Midwest have been voting D ever since.  2000 was only a regional realignment because the Outer South began shifting to the GOP nationally, but the rest of the country stayed the same.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3539


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2015, 09:44:51 pm »
Ignore

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.
1992 was a realignment because most of the Northeast and Upper Midwest have been voting D ever since.  2000 was only a regional realignment because the Outer South began shifting to the GOP nationally, but the rest of the country stayed the same.

By that criteria, if 1992 was a realignment then was so 2008 because of states like VA, NC, and CO switching partisan allegiances.  Certainly there aren't political realignments every 16 years.

In fact, looking trying to define political realignments based on how certain areas with certain characteristics vote is quite silly for the simple reason that the characteristics of any particular place are unlikely to stay constant for any considerable period of time.  It makes no sense to compare the voting habits of Forsyth County, GA in 1980 with Forsyth County, GA in 2008 because, between 1980 and 2008, Forsyth County might as well not even be the same place anymore.  Rather, it makes sense to define realignments based on changes in the party's respective coalitions or the rise/fall of wedge issues.       
Logged

TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 338


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2015, 10:33:46 am »
Ignore

Following the 1976 GOP convention, it was pretty clear that Reagan would be the party's nominee in 1980. Coupled with the fact that the incumbent was a notoriously weak politician, having barely beat the Republican the previous election following several years' worth of controversy, and the country's economy/foreign policy was in shambles--it's easy to see why Reagan curb-stomped Carter in 1980. He ran a good campaign, but no huge surprises here.

Clinton ran an excellent campaign in 1992, and successfully built momentum as the primary went along, and had to do so partially because the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire were certainties going into the primary. It's hard to give him an enormous amount of credit for the general election victory, considering there were so many external factors affecting the outcome (economy, third party candidacy, running against a fourth term of Republican Presidents, etc.).

Considering the state of the country at the time, Obama's general election performance wasn't too impressive. However, he ran an incredibly skilled campaign against a skilled politician who had the party's full support, and most people--going into the 2008 election--simply assumed would be the party's nominee.

Have to go with Obama's 2008 campaign, specifically the primary. He achieved a seemingly impossible task.

The economy in 2008 was far worse then it was in 1992. In 1992 the economy was in recovery stage while 2008 was the peak of its recession

The unemployment rate was lower in 2008 than in 1992. Just sayin'....

But I understand your point. We were in a full-blown recession in 2008 as opposed to a weak recovery from a recession in 1992. Still, I'm not sure which one is actually more hurtful to the incumbent party. It seems like most voters don't start feeling the pain of a recession until right after it's over. That's partially why Dems got clobbered in 2010...while the economy may have technically been in recovery, the unemployment rate was way higher than it had been for most of the recession.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5269


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2015, 07:19:59 pm »
Ignore

Without the Crash in 2008 Obama wouldnt have won North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia,Florida, Nebraska 2nd District. and the margin would have been. Iraq instead of the economy gets used against Mccain though

Mccain 239
Obama 299

Anyways Hilary would have won similarly  taking West Virgina, Missouri, but losing Indiana, North Carolina making the electoral margin winning 355-183

Hillary

Without Bill Clinton 1992 the candiate would have been Jerry Brown who wouldnt have campaignedd as a moderate, New Democrat who doesnt support defict spending and wants welfare reformed. He would have campaigned as the Same Old Liberal Democrats in the past which then would make half of Perot voters vote for Bush in fear of the same democrat as the old and would have lost every state Bill Clinton won by less then 6% plus all the Southern states he won.

Brown still would have pulled it out winning with this map



Brown would still win 276-262 despite losing the popular vote by more then 2% but only because he wins in a razor thin margin in Wisconsin.

Like in 2008 when Hillary would have won big in 1980 Bush would have won Big as well
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12505
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2015, 08:32:28 pm »
Ignore

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.
1992 was a realignment because most of the Northeast and Upper Midwest have been voting D ever since.  2000 was only a regional realignment because the Outer South began shifting to the GOP nationally, but the rest of the country stayed the same.

By that criteria, if 1992 was a realignment then was so 2008 because of states like VA, NC, and CO switching partisan allegiances.  Certainly there aren't political realignments every 16 years.

That's only two elections.  North Carolina flipped back to the GOP in 2012.  If Virginia and Colorado keep voting D in presidential contests, then we probably could call 2008 a realignment, but it's still too early to tell.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5269


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Today at 05:13:59 pm »
Ignore

Where do u think trump 2016 ranks in these
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines