Quote :

"[Bill Clinton] was expected to lose? The first bush was unpopular, the economy was in the shitter, and we had just gone through a long cycle of republican candidates. That's pretty much the recipe for a switch to another party, and those are the conditions that exist now."

Remember Ross Perot?

he got like 19% of the vote. he took more Bush supporters than Clinton.




[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 9:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/17/2008 9:07:39 PM

Quote :

"BC was expected to lose? The first bush was unpopular, the economy was in the shitter, and we had just gone through a long cycle of republican candidates. That's pretty much the recipe for a switch to another party, and those are the conditions that exist now."

Considering that people decide to whether to run in mid-1991, and that wasn't long after the Persian Gulf War, yes. It's the reason top Democrats at the time such as Mario Cuomo did not run.

6/17/2008 10:19:53 PM

shit. now we've even outsourced the Vice Presidency. >.<

6/17/2008 11:07:43 PM

out of the 19%


i'd say it was a 60-40 split, bush-clinton...i think in 92 the media was just in love with clinton and thats why people act like it was inevitable

6/18/2008 1:21:50 AM

yeah, i agree ... Perot may have shifted a few states to Clinton, but he didn't cause Bush to lose...

the truth is Bush the Elder fucked up what should have been a done deal.

he had one of the highest approval ratings *ever* coming out of Desert Storm in mid '91 heading toward '92.. but the economy hit a recession, and he just appeared clueless and/or totally unconcerned. combined with his reneg on the "Read My Lips: No New Taxes" (which is what Perot was hammering him about), he just lost all credibility within a short 6 months or so.

if he would have just acted like he was doing something about the recession, he would have held enough confidence to win 92.




[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 1:46 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2008 1:39:14 AM