How much will the 2008 be a referundum on Bush Jr.?

[$DEADSEXE$]

Nobody seems to understand how elections work. Gore was a crappy canidate...who when combined with the Clinton...but more appropiatly termed...moral...backlash was beaten by a equally crappy canidate in Bush.

Anyone who thinks that there wasn't a major push by people, who might not have bothered too vote, due in large part to Clinton being a scumbag is nuts.

What would have been more interesting is if the GOP hadn't been such dumbasses and chosen to focus on Clinton's actual crimes instead of his sexcapades during the impeachment he would have been impeached, any solid impeachment historian would tell you that. Gore would have become president. and in effect the backlash to Clinton would have been resolved somewhat with the majority of people who didn't like Clinton and his actions. The right and more conservative republicans would still have hated Gore.

Now Gore as a acting president might have had a chance at beating Bush. Eventhough he still would be a crappy canidate.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton's actual crimes

[/ QUOTE ]

List these please.

[$DEADSEXE$]

perjury and obstruction of justice.

Two things going in Clinton's favor...he was one of the most skilled politicians of all time...and smartly angled for censure. The public wasn't solidly against him..again in part due to his skills.

The Republicans overplayed their hand and wouldn't shut up about all the sex etc which led to overkill.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He "won" partly because of a backlash against Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^ This is the definition of a referendum on the imcumbent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. That's why I mentioned it in my LIST of reasons why Bush won. It's called a concession.

But you left out the more important part of my sentence right after the part you quoted: "... but mostly because Gore's campaign was so poorly managed that the election became close, and because voting irregularities put Bush over the "top".

In other words, I concede that PART of the reason Bush won is because of Clinton. But the other reasons were greater factors. Hence, on balance, the 2000 election was NOT a referendum on an incumbent.

BTW, as others have pointed out, if it WAS a referendum on an incumbent, then you have to say it was a positive affirmation of Clinton, because Gore got more votes!

-ptmusic

[$DEADSEXE$]

Not really..it's just that Gore, while a lame canidate, was running against a possibly weaker canidate in GWB.
Say for instance Gore instead had to run againt a McCain, well spoken conservative like Frist, or some other more moderate and expierenced canidate etc.

Gore would have lost by a huge margin.

[Broken Glass Can]

If it were just an election between 2 weak candidates as many of you suggest, Gore should have won by a big margin based on the impression that the economy was going great in 2000 (we were still near the top of the bubble, already in decline but the election was too early for most to realize this)

The huge margin Gore would have had was offset by the strong desire of people to clean the White House out of that terrible scandalous smell. In other words, it was a referendum on Clinton.

[andyfox]

There are always multiple issues involved. But poster makes a good point: the incumbent's record is always at issue regardless of whether or not he's actually running. For example, Eisenhower was still a very popular figure in 1960. But Kennedy came across as dynamic and exciting, Nixon as stiff and nervous, especially in the debates. Nixon also wasted time keeping a promise to visit all fifty states, killing valuable time traveling to Alaska, Wyoming, etc. Plus the politicos stole votes for Kenney in Texas and Illinois. So Ike's coattails were not quite strong enough to counter all that.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every election is a referendum on the incumbent President, whether he is running or not (the sole exception may be if he just recently became President, like LBJ in 1964, who had been President for less than a year)

Look at elections where the incumbent is not running again (which will happen in 2008):

2000, 1988, 1968, 1960, 1952, 1928, 1920, 1908 - all the elections in the past century when the incumbent didn't run. Each result was largely due to the verdict of the incumbent.

___

Thumbs up -
T. Roosevelt 1904
Coolidge 1928
Reagan 1988
Clinton 2000

___


Thumbs down-
Wilson 1920
Truman 1952
Eisenhower 1960
Johnson 1968


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Or you think the veredict of the incumbent is up to the electoral college?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that no President has ever been elected by the popular vote, aren't you?

It is a meaningless statistic that usually coincides with the relevant electoral measure (the one that actually elects Presidents), the electoral college.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were just an election between 2 weak candidates as many of you suggest, Gore should have won by a big margin based on the impression that the economy was going great in 2000 (we were still near the top of the bubble, already in decline but the election was too early for most to realize this)

The huge margin Gore would have had was offset by the strong desire of people to clean the White House out of that terrible scandalous smell. In other words, it was a referendum on Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever, my guess is that neither of us have the inclination to come up with the actual number of votes that can be attributed to liking/disliking Clinton vs. liking/disliking Bush vs. liking/disliking Gore vs. voter irregularities. So maybe it was a referendum on Clinton, and maybe it wasn't.

If it wasn't a referendum on Clinton, then I'm right. If it was, then the country gave Clinton a thumbs up, because more people actually voted for Gore than Bush.

End of thread.

-ptmusic

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
liking/disliking Clinton vs. liking/disliking Bush vs. liking/disliking Gore

[/ QUOTE ]

A President is the only politician that practically lives in our house (via TV) for years on end. He is like a part of the family, even if he is the black sheep.

Despite all the campaigning, neither Bush nor Gore were known well enough by the typical apolitical person to influence them as much as that guy who wouldn't get out of my TV. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]