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

[partygirluk]

And how much was the 2000 election simply asking the question "What do you think of the 8 years of Clinton's presidency"?

[bills217]

It will depend on who runs. If it's a social conservative in the mold of GWB a la Jeb, Frist, Allen, then it may very well be a referendum.

But if it's someone like McCain, Guiliani, Romney, etc., I can't see it having nearly as much of an effect.

[Broken Glass Can]

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

Thumbs down-
Wilson 1920
Truman 1952
Eisenhower 1960
Johnson 1968
Clinton 2000

[lehighguy]

The candidate with the better hair will win, though being tall helps too.

[ptmusic]

About the 2000 election being a referendum on Clinton's Presidency: I agree with you in the sense that Bush did not "win" because he was such an outstanding candidate!

He "won" partly because of a backlash against Clinton, but mostly because Gore's campaign was so poorly managed that the election became close, and because voting irregularities put Bush over the "top".

-ptmusic

[Broken Glass Can]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

It is common to say "X ran a bad campaign" whenever someone loses. The truth is that Gore had to cut out Clinton from helping his campaign for the most part, and his credibility was very low because of his Clinton connections (like his defending Clinton as a great President during the Monica scandal, and his Clintonesque Asian fundraising in 1996).

[$DEADSEXE$]

The D.P. is so weak right now,t he election will just come down to who the Republicans nominate. If they go conservative the Dems have a chance, if they go more moderate...which I can't see happening...the Dems do not have a chance in hell.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated then just like with Kerry the election is over before it's even begun. I'm a Dem, who grugingly voted for the dumbass Kerry, but even I'm not gonna vote for H. Clinton.

Evan B. probably is the Dems best bet.

[adios]

Dubya will lose a presidential election eventually [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Next presidential election the Democrats win it will be a backlash against Dubya so just be patient.

[tolbiny]

I don't see how you can claim that the 2000 election wsas a referundum on Clinton's presidency- seeing as he enjoyed approval ratings in the 50's as he left office- and that Gore actually gained more votes than Bush did.
The 2000 election was more about Gore's poor choices during the campaign and his total lack of charisma and approachability as a candidate.

[sirio11]

[ 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?