Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:25:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?  (Read 24556 times)
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: June 19, 2010, 03:29:36 AM »


No, you don't get it.  Outside of the Deep South, Wallace got his support from Labor, blue collar workers, immigrants, etc.  These groups were always strong backers of Hubert Humphrey.  They would have gone in large numbers to Humphrey, swinging multiple states.  In the South, these voters would have gone slightly to Nixon, maybe 40/30, with the remaining 30% or so just staying home.  You're attempting to relate anything in 1968 with 2008 is foolish, and makes little sense.  The states have changed drastically over the last 40 years, and saying that a state voted someway in 1968 because it is liberal/conservative now is just pointless.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

They would have Han Wallace was a populist and the mid-west and the rust belt states were gonna break for Wallace.  No way they were gonna vote for Humphrey. Wallace struck a cord and these people were loyal to him, there are several books that say his candidacy in 1968 and 1972 led to Reagans election by the "Reagan Democrats" in 1980.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: June 19, 2010, 03:32:20 AM »

No it was not. Part of the reason Republicans have done so poorly since 1992 in Presidential elections is because in 1996 Clinton was basically a shoo in without Powell running, in 2000 they nominated the wrong candidate whereas McCain, E. Dole, or getting one of the 1994ers elected to run/ be nominated would have resulted in a better win, and in 2004 and 2008 same situation, Wrong candidates were elected/nominated and came across as too partisan either due to their VP choice or policies. I could easily see a Republican win that is larger than Bush's 04 margin in 2012 if a stronger national ticket is nominated than usually.

This post is about 1992 not 96, 2000, 04, or 08, and yes by definition it was a realigning year. I mean how do you say its not when argument is based on future elections, makes no sense at all, you have to look at past elections to define a realigning election.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: June 21, 2010, 02:24:49 AM »

A realigning election is 1964 where the south went from being the base of the dems to being GOP. 1980 the same can be said for because the south hasn't voted for the dems much since then. Meaning MS, AL, SC, GA, etc. For the most part.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2010, 11:44:38 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2010, 11:49:01 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2010, 11:53:52 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2010, 12:40:31 AM »
« Edited: July 12, 2010, 12:42:56 AM by Fuzzybigfoot »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

I was talking about how it could technically as conservative position, if you look at it as "less taxes=less government", although I agree with you, the current day conservatives give the biggest breaks to the wealthy.  The wealthy pay a higher percentage in tax brackets, but can afford higher brackets compared to the average worker.  I don't mind the idea of tax breaks for the middle class.  Middle class tax cuts don't drag the deficit down as much, considering the wealth have the most money and can have their taxes raised enough to compensate for it (in usual circumstances).  On top of that, the middle class has much, much lesss wealth and are a smaller base of tax revenue.  I think something better would be to expand the middle class earning base, thus they make more money, thus it means bigger wages to tax=more tax revenue.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: July 12, 2010, 03:33:09 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.

lol. That's not the way I learned it. And if that was the case, then Reagan would be considered a liberal since he raised taxes much more times than he cut them. Also, Bush Sr. would be a liberal because he raised taxes and never cut them. Finally, JFK and LBJ would be conservatives because they cut or wanted to cut taxes.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: July 12, 2010, 04:17:01 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.

lol. That's not the way I learned it. And if that was the case, then Reagan would be considered a liberal since he raised taxes much more times than he cut them. Also, Bush Sr. would be a liberal because he raised taxes and never cut them. Finally, JFK and LBJ would be conservatives because they cut or wanted to cut taxes.
Yup Reagan raised taxes 13 times, and if I am not mistaken the tax increase in 1982 was the largest in history.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: July 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.

lol. That's not the way I learned it. And if that was the case, then Reagan would be considered a liberal since he raised taxes much more times than he cut them. Also, Bush Sr. would be a liberal because he raised taxes and never cut them. Finally, JFK and LBJ would be conservatives because they cut or wanted to cut taxes.
Yup Reagan raised taxes 13 times, and if I am not mistaken the tax increase in 1982 was the largest in history.

So that pretty much means all the ideologies of the past presidents are shams and they really were the opposite?
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: July 12, 2010, 07:27:42 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

Well, he was still more left wing pre-1994 than post-1994.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: July 12, 2010, 08:20:23 PM »

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.

lol. That's not the way I learned it. And if that was the case, then Reagan would be considered a liberal since he raised taxes much more times than he cut them. Also, Bush Sr. would be a liberal because he raised taxes and never cut them. Finally, JFK and LBJ would be conservatives because they cut or wanted to cut taxes.

JFK was a conservative on taxes and I've never heard of LBJ doing anything but growing the government. Bush Sr. was a liberal on taxes as most mid 20th century New England Republicans were. Just look at Rockefeller, Ford, and Romney. Reagan cut taxes as president. When did Reagan raise taxes? What are you talking about?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: July 12, 2010, 09:07:26 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2010, 11:02:11 PM by cpeeks »

LOL OMG, are u serious? OK Here ya go his tax increase and in dollars:
Tax Increases Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 1990

LOL YEA DUDE REAGAN RAISED TAXES ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT, HE RAISED TAXES ALMOST 133 BILLION A YEAR, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS YOU TALK ABOUT HOW INFORMED YOU ARE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT YOUR BELOVED HEROES REAGAN AND BUSH HAD THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN U.S. HISTORY, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: July 12, 2010, 11:02:43 PM »

LOL OMG, are u serious? OK Here ya go his tax increase and in dollars:
Tax Increases Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 1990

LOL YEA DUDE REAGAN RAISED TAXES ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT, HE RAISED TAXES ALMOST 133 BILLION A YEAR, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS YOU TALK ABOUT HOW INFORMED YOU ARE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT YOUR BELOVED HEROES REAGAN AND BUSH HAD THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN U.S. HISTORY, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

All that really matters is the income, estate, and marriage taxes though because those are immoral.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: July 12, 2010, 11:08:41 PM »

LOL OMG WHY DO YOU SAY THIS CRAP? YEA ITS FINE TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE, AS LONG AS IT DOESNT EFFECT THE RICH, OH BUT WAIT LET A DEMOCRAT PROPOSE A TAX INCREASE AND THERE EVIL. YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE, LOL, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: July 12, 2010, 11:50:35 PM »

LOL OMG WHY DO YOU SAY THIS CRAP? YEA ITS FINE TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE, AS LONG AS IT DOESNT EFFECT THE RICH, OH BUT WAIT LET A DEMOCRAT PROPOSE A TAX INCREASE AND THERE EVIL. YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE, LOL, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you disagree with that then?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: July 13, 2010, 12:02:08 AM »

It was said in jest, good night every have to wake up early and go vote we have a run-off tomorrow in the great state of Alabama, and then I have to go look for work.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: July 13, 2010, 12:22:07 AM »

It was said in jest, good night every have to wake up early and go vote we have a run-off tomorrow in the great state of Alabama, and then I have to go look for work.

Good night and good luck in your voting for the Republicans.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: July 13, 2010, 01:07:36 AM »

LOL OMG, are u serious? OK Here ya go his tax increase and in dollars:
Tax Increases Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 1990

LOL YEA DUDE REAGAN RAISED TAXES ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT, HE RAISED TAXES ALMOST 133 BILLION A YEAR, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS YOU TALK ABOUT HOW INFORMED YOU ARE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT YOUR BELOVED HEROES REAGAN AND BUSH HAD THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN U.S. HISTORY, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

All that really matters is the income, estate, and marriage taxes though because those are immoral.

That still means Reagan is a liberal though because he raised a lot of taxes and raising taxes is a liberal position according to you. If you call Bush Sr. an economic liberal then Reagan is also an economic liberal because Bush Sr. and Reagan had the same economic policies. And LBJ cut taxes for everybody in 1964 (JFK proposed the tax cuts, but was assassinated before they could be passed). Thus LBJ is an economic conservative. Also, Clinton cut the capital gains tax and Obama's stimulus package cut some taxes as well. That means that they are both economic conservatives as well, according to you.
Logged
#CriminalizeSobriety
Dallasfan65
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,859


Political Matrix
E: 5.48, S: -9.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: July 13, 2010, 01:09:40 AM »

LOL OMG, are u serious? OK Here ya go his tax increase and in dollars:
Tax Increases Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 1990

LOL YEA DUDE REAGAN RAISED TAXES ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT, HE RAISED TAXES ALMOST 133 BILLION A YEAR, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS YOU TALK ABOUT HOW INFORMED YOU ARE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT YOUR BELOVED HEROES REAGAN AND BUSH HAD THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN U.S. HISTORY, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: July 13, 2010, 01:24:28 AM »

You don't seem to understand the difference between numbers and sizes.  If you raise my taxes .01% 100 Times, and then lower them by 1% once, that has no net effect on tax rates.  Reagan produced a net tax rate reduction, despite the fact that he supported tax increases during his presidency.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: July 13, 2010, 01:28:48 AM »

You don't seem to understand the difference between numbers and sizes.  If you raise my taxes .01% 100 Times, and then lower them by 1% once, that has no net effect on tax rates.  Reagan produced a net tax rate reduction, despite the fact that he supported tax increases during his presidency.

That's irrelevant. According to Derek, raising taxes at anytime means you're a liberal, and since Reagan raised taxes lots of times, he must be a liberal according to Derek.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« 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 0.058 seconds with 11 queries.