Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:04:52 PM
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)
  Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008  (Read 6095 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 23, 2015, 12:30:26 AM »
« edited: July 30, 2015, 04:21:53 PM by Computer09 »

I think it is Bill Clinton because he won his election decisively despite Republicans being more popular than Democrats in 1992 .  Unlike Reagan or Obama who basically were all but guaranteed their victories in their election , Clinton had to fight to the very end to beat Bush and if it was anybody else Republicans might have won again in 1992 while in 1980 any republican would have won and same in 2008 when any democrat would have won.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2015, 12:32:08 AM »

Clinton 92'
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2015, 12:40:21 AM »

Obama 2008 imo. His campaign revolutionized campaigning (even though his own party doesn't understand how to run the Obama turnout machine, while Republicans seem to have capitalized on it). Reagan didn't really change campaigning, and Clinton ran a terrible campaign (although that must be because Dick Morris was his campaign manager).
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2015, 01:17:13 AM »

Obama 2008 imo. His campaign revolutionized campaigning (even though his own party doesn't understand how to run the Obama turnout machine, while Republicans seem to have capitalized on it). Reagan didn't really change campaigning, and Clinton ran a terrible campaign (although that must be because Dick Morris was his campaign manager).

Dick Morris ran Clinton's 96 campaign. 92 was James Carville.
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2015, 01:18:48 AM »

Obama 2008 imo. His campaign revolutionized campaigning (even though his own party doesn't understand how to run the Obama turnout machine, while Republicans seem to have capitalized on it). Reagan didn't really change campaigning, and Clinton ran a terrible campaign (although that must be because Dick Morris was his campaign manager).

Dick Morris ran Clinton's 96 campaign. 92 was James Carville.

Ah, I read this as '96.

Still Obama.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2015, 07:05:26 AM »

Obama's primary campaign was probably the greatest in history.

If we mean GE, you'd have to admit Reagan's was extremely skillfully staged and run. He achieved what most politicians don't dare to ever try: making non-mainstream ideas mainstream.
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2015, 08:20:09 AM »

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.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2015, 10:48:30 AM »

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.
Logged
Württemberger
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Germany
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2015, 12:38:40 PM »

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.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2015, 01:17:58 PM »

I also believe it was 1988. I mean, I can accept the 1992 argument... but I do really get pissed when people try to say that 2008 was some kind of revolutionary realignment that turned things upside down. It just built on previous trends. Sure, Obama sent the Appalachians packing to the other side, but whatever... there's room for some local variation.
Logged
Württemberger
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Germany
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2015, 01:44:30 PM »
« Edited: January 23, 2015, 01:47:23 PM by Württemberger »

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.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).
Logged
Württemberger
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Germany
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2015, 02:31:59 PM »

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.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).
The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).
Logged
Württemberger
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Germany
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2015, 02:48:16 PM »

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.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).
The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).
I could see her winning MO, coming very close in WV/KY, and losing NC.

That would be fewer EV than Obama got (even though not that many fewer). What about IN? I feel that it is a state that flipped because of Obama and his excellent campaign. IMO, Hillary would have lost it narrowly, too. Nevertheless, her argument was that she would have had a better chance of defeating McCain which certainly wasn't true.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2015, 02:53:45 PM »

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.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).
The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).
I could see her winning MO, coming very close in WV/KY, and losing NC.

That would be fewer EV than Obama got (even though not that many fewer). What about IN? I feel that it is a state that flipped because of Obama and his excellent campaign. IMO, Hillary would have lost it narrowly, too. Nevertheless, her argument was that she would have had a better chance of defeating McCain which certainly wasn't true.

Huh, I pretty much disagree 180 degrees with everything said above.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2015, 03:26:14 PM »

Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Yeah, Clinton won LA, but it is pretty much a Catholic state and it is one of the last Bible belt states that shifted fully G O P in 2014.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2015, 03:29:56 PM »

Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Except Clinton won all 4 of those states, and won 3 of those states twice. Obama hasn't really gained the Democrats anything, except Virginia which was already turning blue in 2004.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,786
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2015, 03:32:04 PM »

Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Except Clinton won all 4 of those states, and won 3 of those states twice. Obama hasn't really gained the Democrats anything, except Virginia which was already turning blue in 2004.

Gore and Kerry lost a very close races in NV and OH and cost them the election, clearly NV 4 or OH 20 would have put either of them in the W.H., since 2000, not 1992, Obama did give Democrats something.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2015, 03:35:41 PM »

Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Except Clinton won all 4 of those states, and won 3 of those states twice. Obama hasn't really gained the Democrats anything, except Virginia which was already turning blue in 2004.

Gore and Kerry lost a very close races in NV and OH and cost them the election, clearly NV 4 or OH 20 would have put either of them in the W.H., since 2000, not 1992, Obama did give Democrats something.

Well Democrats won both states in 1992 and lost them both in 2000 so I don't see why one would argue 2000 gave them to the Democrats. "Took" would be a better word.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2015, 06:09:50 PM »

1992 was realigning. It marked a movement from the GOP to the DEMs in big city suburbs. Like suburban Cook. Bucks, Delaware and Montgomery counties in PA, McComb, Monroe and Oakland in MI and Suffolk and Nassau in NY.

People here are underestimating the impact of the 1990-91 recession. While it was the second mildest recession upto that point from 1945 (1969-70 was milder), it was the first time large numbers of white collar employees lost their jobs. Companies that had  never laid off anyone, did so. Delta, IBM. Plus there was the first downsizing of the aerospace and defense industires. Many GOP voters from 1968-88, moved away from the GOP (to Perot and Clinton) because of it.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2015, 07:35:36 PM »

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
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2015, 08:54:37 PM »

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
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2015, 09:44:51 PM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2015, 10:33:46 AM »

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
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2015, 07:19:59 PM »

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
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2015, 08:32:28 PM »

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
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.075 seconds with 12 queries.