Had George Bush dumped Dan Quayle back in '92
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:34:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Had George Bush dumped Dan Quayle back in '92
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Had George Bush dumped Dan Quayle back in '92  (Read 7168 times)
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:28:55 AM »

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 Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2014, 10:56:08 PM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2014, 11:03:12 PM »

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
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2014, 12:00:21 AM »

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
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2014, 10:47:00 PM »

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
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2014, 08:35:46 AM »

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
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2014, 12:42:50 PM »

If Dan Quayle had been taken off the ticket, Indiana could have been in serious play.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2014, 06:36:19 PM »

In 1994 I had the opportunity to meet one of the top campaign staffers for Quayle in '92. He told some fascinating behind-the-scenes accounts. For example in the spring of '92 the Bush team had no idea how disengaged the President seemed to the public, particularly after the famous footage from NH when he didn't recognize a bar code scanner at the general store. The Quayle team felt that if the campaign was to succeed they had to energize a new base of voters. Their internal analysis showed that a rising group of "values voters" were an ideal place to start. The Pres' team didn't show any interest. In order to force their hand the crafted the Murphy Brown statement for Quayle, knowing that it would be perceived in the media as a gaffe. This was supposed to be the entree for the Pres to begin a discussion with values voters, but rather than pick up the ball that was tossed his way or repudiate that direction, Bush left Quayle to twist in the wind for a number of days. The Quayle guys were beside themselves and saw little hope for the Pres after that.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2014, 06:38:26 PM »

Not a Dan Quayle fan by any stretch of the imagination--but he had a surprisingly good performance in the 1992 VP debate against Al Gore (and James Stockdale--who didn't show at all.  Sad--because many people remember Stockdale for this even though he was a great intellectual and a bona fide war hero).
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2014, 07:12:19 AM »

That race was officially over when the young girl asked the President during the Town Hall debate, "how has the national debt affected you personally?"

Bush had no idea how to answer and again, proved he was out of touch and elitist. Clinton had the right answer (albeit it, he probably wasn't honest).  That was the official end of Campaign '92.

Quayle actually held up well in the '92 VP debate that year, far better than he did against Bentsen back in '88.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2014, 08:18:40 AM »

Bush still would have not been reelected if he had dumped Quayle.  Clinton's margin of victory was too big. 
Logged
NickCT
Rookie
**
Posts: 134
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2014, 04:59:32 PM »

Also, I think 41 was one of the most decent men to hold the office, and he valued loyalty a great deal; I don't know that he would even have been willing to dump Quayle for that reason alone.  I know that's not the question, but it's something to maybe ponder.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2014, 03:34:08 PM »

That race was officially over when the young girl asked the President during the Town Hall debate, "how has the national debt affected you personally?"

Bush had no idea how to answer and again, proved he was out of touch and elitist. Clinton had the right answer (albeit it, he probably wasn't honest).  That was the official end of Campaign '92.

Quayle actually held up well in the '92 VP debate that year, far better than he did against Bentsen back in '88.

He had a priceless retort to Gore during one of Gore's faux outraged moments when he said:  "Lighten up, Al.  Inhale."
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,148
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2014, 06:22:20 PM »

I am pretty sure it would not have made a difference and in fact the scale of the defeat could have been even worse.  I recall that Quayle actually did quite well against Gore in the 1992 Veep Prez debates.  And changing the Vice President is admitting things are going badly and merely pushed undecided away from the GOP ticket.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2014, 09:34:26 PM »

I am pretty sure it would not have made a difference and in fact the scale of the defeat could have been even worse.  I recall that Quayle actually did quite well against Gore in the 1992 Veep Prez debates.  And changing the Vice President is admitting things are going badly and merely pushed undecided away from the GOP ticket.

Absolutely true.  A VP allowing his relationship with the President to deteriorate exposes a marriage of convenience that could never have worked.  Voters just don't like that, pure and simple, and there are good reasons for voters not liking it, not the least of which is that it's a reflection on the President's judgment. 

As an aside, I think that Ford should never have dumped Rockefeller.  He probably should have picked Reagan to begin with, but having picked Rockefeller, he should have stuck with him.  He may well have carried New York, which carried for Carter by only 3 points.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2014, 12:57:47 AM »

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.

Does Panama not count for some reason?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2014, 01:11:59 AM »

Certainly not a case where it would have made a difference. You want an example of where a running mate would have mate a difference, try Al Gore / Bob Graham.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.