1992: Bill Clinton vs. George H.W. Bush

[DevotedDemocrat]

I pick Bush, only because history has proven that Bush was more Liberal than Clinton and also the right wing might not have gone nuts if Bush had won in 1992. The GOP might not have retaken Congress in 1994 if we had a Republican President in office at that time. We wouldn't av had gridlock or needless, bitterly partisan things like Whitewater and the impeachment.

The GOP might not have continued it's course of going ever further to the right if a moderate, centrist Republican was re-elected. It might've been seen as a mandate for moderation. Republicans have argued that only a "true Conservative" can win an election, so the definition of a "Conservative" moves further and further to the right in response. See how rabid and radically McCain played it in '08 or how Romney catered to the fringe far right last year.

If a true moderate Republican--like HW Bush--would've won in '92, perhaps some of the damage Reagan caused could've been undone and the Republican Party would've veered back toward being the more sensible, pre Reagan GOP.

[TNF]

Perot.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, since I voted in that election, why would I change my vote now?  Clinton.

[Sopranos Republican]

At the time I'd probably vote for Bush, but knowing what I know I'd vote for Clinton. But that was then so I voted Bush.

[Maxwell]

Clinton.

[RogueBeaver]

GHWB out of party loyalty. If it was close, Bubba.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Clinton/Gore

[Goldwater]

Probably Bush, although I do also like Clinton.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Where's Perot?  (Or should I say, where's Ross?)

Anyway, Bush.  Probably the one presidential election whose outcome I'd most like to change--no Clinton realignment and the moderates stay with the GOP.

[Indy Texas]

Bush.

[Mechaman]

Such cute revisionist fantasies.

The most "moderate" thing HW did was raise a gasoline tax.  Yeah, much further left wing than the oh I don't know, multiple tax raises undertaken by Mr. Conservative Hero Ronald Reagan.

HW's presidential re-election bid, where he addressed most everything with "targeted tax cuts", was hardly the definition of "moderate".  Neither was his bending over and having Pat Buchanan deliver his infamous "culture wars" speech at the RNC.

Give me a break.

For the election, I guess Perot.  Because both of the other choices SUCK.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Such cute revisionist fantasies.

The most "moderate" thing HW did was raise a gasoline tax.  Yeah, much further left wing than the oh I don't know, multiple tax raises undertaken by Mr. Conservative Hero Ronald Reagan.

HW's presidential re-election bid, where he addressed most everything with "targeted tax cuts", was hardly the definition of "moderate".  Neither was his bending over and having Pat Buchanan deliver his infamous "culture wars" speech at the RNC.

Give me a break.

For the election, I guess Perot.  Because both of the other choices SUCK.

Yeah, "Moderate Bush 41" is a complete fraud. The guy sure wasn't a crazy like Cheney or like his son, but he sure was as right-wing as you could get at the time.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

In 92? Clinton.

[anvi]

Voted for Clinton in '92 and would vote that way today.  I remember that race quite well--I was in my early 20's at the time.  In many respects, I liked Bush '41, and the first vote in a presidential election I ever cast was for him in '88.  I was fairly happy with his handling of foreign policy in his first term too, I was very happy that he signed the ADA, and his extensive experience was reassuring to me in many ways.  But his approach to the economic difficulties the country was facing seemed quite aimless.  I was aware in the last few months of the general that the economy was experiencing a slow but upward turn, but Bush didn't appear to have a plan.  What was most appealing to me about Clinton, once he was nominated, was that he presented himself as a guy who knew what he wanted to do, who had studied problems empirically and crafted solutions to them.  He got up during the debates and responded to almost every question with the routine: "here are the three reasons why we're having trouble and here are the three things that should be done about it."  For my own tastes in argument, I never saw a campaigner who was that effective before, and I doubt I'll ever see one as effective ever again.  I went into the voting booth surer than I have been for any election before or since, and I don't really see any compelling reason why I'd change my mind if I could "relive" it.

[Donerail]