democrats: with hindsight do you give old man Bush free pass in 1992?

[freepcrusher]

because i think the democrats would have held on to congress throughout the 90s had Bush been re-elected in 1992.

[Nym90]

It's tempting, considering the Dems would be virtually certain of holding the Congress in 1994 and of winning the Presidency in 1996 (especially if Quayle had been the GOP nominee).

But, on balance, no.

[krazen1211]

W is probably not elected in 1994, either.

[Psychic Octopus]

If I was a Democrat I'd sure as hell do that. They'd control all three branches of government even more effectively in 1996, and would essentially be able to do whatever they want in terms of domestic policy. 1998, because of the good economy, is guaranteed not to be the slaugher 1994 was, as well.

No Bush presidency or dynasty, either.

[Nym90]

Another thing to keep in mind is who would be on the Supreme Court instead of Ginsberg and Breyer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry, but I don't vote in such a tactical way. I vote for who I think is the less worst of electable candidates, and in 1992 it was clearly Clinton. Paradoxically, I could vote for Clinton and wish Bush wins for tactical reasons, but I can't cast my ballot for someone I think is not the best for the country.

[Niemeyerite]

Sorry, but I don't vote in such a tactical way. I vote for who I think is the less worst of electable candidates, and in 1992 it was clearly Clinton. Paradoxically, I could vote for Clinton and wish Bush wins for tactical reasons, but I can't cast my ballot for someone I think is not the best for the country.

that's exactly how I think. I could vote tactically for a representative or even a senator, but not for president.

[memphis]

Not a big fan of the what-if scenarios. Too many factors to play that game. I also don't subscribe to the lose now to win later strategy. I'll take every win I can get.

[Nichlemn]

Maybe this results in a worse shellacking later. After all, 1994 was not an especially terrible economy, the underlying symptoms could have arisen later. Besides, where does it end? Are you going to give up on Presidential elections entirely in order to do better in Congress? Republicans already had three consecutive terms at that point, isn't it about time you made use of your majorities?

[freepcrusher]

the underlying symptoms could have arisen later.

what exactly were those underlying symptoms?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, hindsight makes the difference here. Our country has truly gone down a path of ruin since the 1992 election.

[Napoleon]

Yes, hindsight makes the difference here. Our country has truly gone down a path of ruin since the 1992 election.

Long before that...

[Nichlemn]

the underlying symptoms could have arisen later.

what exactly were those underlying symptoms?

Length of Democratic rule/perceived corruption/overextension on health care reform.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, hindsight makes the difference here. Our country has truly gone down a path of ruin since the 1992 election.

Long before that...

^^^^

1994 was just the final accomplishment of a process that has begun in the late 1960s.

[DS0816]

because i think the democrats would have held on to congress throughout the 90s had Bush been re-elected in 1992.

You should track the pattern. A party that loses the White House routinely comes back for gains in the party-pickup president's first midterm. A form of revenge.

Since the 17th Amendment's adoption in 1913, this applied to the following in either the House or Senate (for some, it was both; * is with party-control loss of either house of Congress): 1914 Woodrow Wilson; 1922 Warren Harding; * 1954 Dwight Eisenhower; 1962 John Kennedy; 1970 Richard Nixon; 1978 Jimmy Carter; 1982 Ronald Reagan; * 1994 Bill Clinton; and * 2010 Barack Obama. (Wilson lost both houses of Congress in 1918; George W. Bush lost the Senate in 2001 and again, with the House, in 2006.)

With exception of Jimmy Carter, in the only two-presidential elections-cycles that flipped parties in the White House (1976: R to D; 1980: D to R), all these presidents and/or their party won re-election in the next presidential.

Franklin Roosevelt is the only commander in chief, elected to more than one term, who had same-party control of both houses of Congress throughout his presidency.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

If we had let McCain beat Obama then we would have gigantic congressional majorities after 2010. Not sure if it would be worth it though.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, especially considering Bush 41 was not that bad to begin with.

[Mr.Phips]

Maybe this results in a worse shellacking later. After all, 1994 was not an especially terrible economy, the underlying symptoms could have arisen later. Besides, where does it end? Are you going to give up on Presidential elections entirely in order to do better in Congress? Republicans already had three consecutive terms at that point, isn't it about time you made use of your majorities?

I would give up on Presidential elections in a second in order to hold onto Congress.  The Presidency is a weak and useless position to have. 

[Mr.Phips]

If we had let McCain beat Obama then we would have gigantic congressional majorities after 2010. Not sure if it would be worth it though.

We should have let McCain beat Obama.  I want to find Hank Paulson and bash his brains in for interfering in that election.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No but I'd consider voting for Perot.