Which candidate was perceived as having a better foreign policy in 1996?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 06:28:29 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)
  Which candidate was perceived as having a better foreign policy in 1996?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which candidate was perceived as having a better foreign policy in 1996?
#1
Clinton		  
#2
Dole		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 8

Author Topic: Which candidate was perceived as having a better foreign policy in 1996?  (Read 1096 times)
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,415
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 11, 2019, 07:46:55 PM »
How was each candidate's foreign policy perceived?
Logged
UWS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,240


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2019, 06:31:04 PM »
Bill Clinton did nothing about Rwanda (where the Hutu led a mass slaughter against the Tutsi) and it was under his watch in 1996 that the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and made it a refuge for terrorism. And also, Clinton almost got to a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994, but failed.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2019, 06:48:49 PM »
Quote from: UWS on January 12, 2019, 06:31:04 PM
Bill Clinton did nothing about Rwanda (where the Hutu led a mass slaughter against the Tutsi) and it was under his watch in 1996 that the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and made it a refuge for terrorism. And also, Clinton almost got to a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994, but failed.

Bill Clinton was a terrible president overall but he won in a landslide as he was falsely credited with the  booming 90s economy. So Bill Clinton was perceived as a great president. So this comment isn't on point.
Logged
UWS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,240


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2019, 07:16:49 PM »
Quote from: Swing State Ohio on January 12, 2019, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: UWS on January 12, 2019, 06:31:04 PM
Bill Clinton did nothing about Rwanda (where the Hutu led a mass slaughter against the Tutsi) and it was under his watch in 1996 that the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and made it a refuge for terrorism. And also, Clinton almost got to a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994, but failed.

Bill Clinton was a terrible president overall but he won in a landslide as he was falsely credited with the  booming 90s economy. So Bill Clinton was perceived as a great president. So this comment isn't on point.

Yep. The economic growth in the 90s is the main reason why Clinton won.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,415
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2019, 07:23:08 PM »
Did people at the time think that HW or Dole would have handled Rwanda, Afghanistan, or North Korea differently?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2019, 12:24:20 AM »
It's difficult to forget how much foreign policy just didn't matter in the 1996 and 2000 elections.

The Cold War had ended, the USSR was gone, the Chinese were still riding bicycles, and the elite consensus had gathered around the Fukuyama End of History hypothesis.

The Washington insiders and other "plugged-in" types argued about Rwanda and Somalia and Bosnia and Iraq, but voters on the ground just weren't all that interested.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,756


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2019, 10:37:26 AM »
Quote from: Indy Texas on January 13, 2019, 12:24:20 AM
It's difficult to forget how much foreign policy just didn't matter in the 1996 and 2000 elections.

The Cold War had ended, the USSR was gone, the Chinese were still riding bicycles, and the elite consensus had gathered around the Fukuyama End of History hypothesis.

The Washington insiders and other "plugged-in" types argued about Rwanda and Somalia and Bosnia and Iraq, but voters on the ground just weren't all that interested.

This
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2019, 03:27:55 PM »
Under Bush Sr we had also got into Somalia in the early 90's, which the US had to leave in humiliation after there was too much violence. There was little appreciation for another Somalia in the 1990's.
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,033
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2019, 08:15:58 PM »
(Off topic, but there was a joke during the 1992 election that Clinton got his foreign-policy experience from the International House of Pancakes.)
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 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.