s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
August 17th, 2011 at 3:02:56 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob


Vacuous!
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
August 17th, 2011 at 3:08:42 PM permalink


Make-up
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 17th, 2011 at 4:25:29 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

The current candidates are campaigning for their party's nomination. They are not running for president.

It is not a mishmash of stats. I carefully checked them with the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representative to make sure that they were correct.

I did not forget about Abraham Lincoln. Which is why I specified very clearly that these three cases were "sitting" members of the House of Representatives. That was a special time in our history. Seven states withdrew from the Union upon his election. They did not wait for him to begin his term. The other four states waited until military conflict began shortly after his inauguration day.

I may have erred somewhat in putting Gingrich in the same group with the other three as he is no longer "sitting", but historically all other presidential candidates have left the House and done something that brought them national attention before running for president. Most often it was at least one senate term, but sometimes it was a term as governor or as vice president. Gingrich has not done anything of national acclaim since he left as Speaker of the House.

All three cases in themselves had some mitigating circumstances that made them unusual.
(1) Clay’s candidacy predated the rise of the modern two-party system.
(2) Anderson (the only candidate in the 20th century) ran as an independent challenger. He was not even close to winning any electoral college votes. He used his run as a pulpit for ideas, and a way to retire from congress.
(3) In Garfield’s case, the only successful instance of a sitting Representative becoming President, he also ran for Senator of Ohio, and had been elected to that position at the same time he was elected president.



Then I wasn't sure what you are arguing. By your tone, I figured you were saying "Look at all of these Congressman running this year, when there've only been 3 that have run in the past." The mish mash came with you saying the odds are bad for a sitting Congressman, and then you added Gingrich, who wasn't a sitting Congressman. But neither was Lincoln, who also did very little between his term and his election as President. Lots of former Congresscritters run in some way or another. Even Ron Paul, who was the Libertarian nominee for President between his stints in the House, but was not sitting when he ran. Or Bob Barr who ran in '08 in the General. If the point is that they have very little success, I wholeheartedly agree. But my reading of it was that you felt that it was rare for Congresspeople (current or former) to even try, and this year was strange because 3 Current and 1 Former were vying.

Oh, also you mentioned Garfield "ran" for Senate, but until the early 1900s, Senators were elected by the state legislatures, so there was really no "running" for Senate. The campaign would only be as complex as talking to State Legislators. I'd hesitate to use the words "ran" and "elected" anymore that I would for, say, a Supreme Court Nominee "elected" by the US Senate. (Not exactly the same to be sure...)
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
August 18th, 2011 at 7:13:47 PM permalink
Quote: Michele Bachmann Word Salad

I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't [sic] forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that.

I'm actually not concerned about the rise of the Soviet Union anymore.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 18th, 2011 at 8:29:00 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

Then I wasn't sure what you are arguing.



Only Henry Clay (1824), James A. Garfield (1880), and John Anderson (1980) ran for President in the general election as sitting House Members.
- direct quote from Clerk of the House of Representatives

My point is these people are a waste of time. They are not getting the nomination,
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
August 18th, 2011 at 8:32:04 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: Michele Bachmann Word Salad

I would say it's a unified message. It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't [sic] forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that.

I'm actually not concerned about the rise of the Soviet Union anymore.



LOL! But don't worry. She'll bring back that $2/gal gas...and the giant recession that was required to depress the price that far.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 1:53:11 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

My point is these people are a waste of time. They are not getting the nomination,



Not getting the nomination doesn't make a run a waste of time. Think about it. What did Reagan gain by challenging his own party's sitting president in the 70s?

Anyway, what are the stats on senators running for the presidency? I seem to recall some early dismissals of Clinton, McCain, Obama and Biden based on their then-current jobs. We know how that turned out.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 4:12:11 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Not getting the nomination doesn't make a run a waste of time. Think about it. What did Reagan gain by challenging his own party's sitting president in the 70s?

Anyway, what are the stats on senators running for the presidency? I seem to recall some early dismissals of Clinton, McCain, Obama and Biden based on their then-current jobs. We know how that turned out.



Only 3 sitting Senators have won the election:
(1) John F. Kennedy, who ran against then Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1960, and
(2) Warren G. Harding, an Ohio Republican who beat the Democratic governor from his home state to win the 1920 election.
(3) Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois

I would have to go through the elections to see how many have run in the general election. I know there are more, but these are the only three sitting Senators that I can think that have run for President in the general election and lost,
2008 John S. McCain III, Senator from Arizona (1987-present)
1996 Robert J. “Bob” Dole, Senator from Kansas (1969-1996) "sitting, but also retiring Senator"
1972 George McGovern, Senator from South Dakota (1963-1981)

Three presidents other than George Washington have been elected where it was their first election:
(1) Grant
(2) Eisenhower
(3) Hoover ( he had been appointed as Secretary of Commerce
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 4:41:15 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Only 3 sitting Senators have won the election:



Right. So not only should Obama not have won, he shouldn't have even run and won against two toehr senators, all sitting at the time.

We know the dice have no memory. But we don't consider that the voting public can't have a long term memory.

Just the same, I'd be willing to bet if one political profession lends itself to winning a presidential election it's governor. I can think of four former governors off the top of my head who've won such elections, all within the last 40 years.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 4:52:36 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Right. So not only should Obama not have won, he shouldn't have even run and won against two toehr senators, all sitting at the time.



Right. I've been involved with and witnessed a lot of political races where candidates have been dismissed as "Never gonna happen, waste of time..."

Just in the last 5 years: President Obama (Senator/minority candidate/facing HILLARY!?), Scott Brown (The Ted Kennedy "seat" going Republican?!), Bill Owens (NO Democrat in 140 years!!!), Chris Coons (losing to Castle by 20 points!), Marco Rubio (Poll: Crist 72% Rubio 3%). We are paying for all of them to all have offices in DC now. In politics, you can say "it never happens..." until it does. The sample size of recent Presidential elections (the only ones that matter) is way too small to make any meaningful statistical inferences...you can try, but good luck...
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 5:13:12 AM permalink
Quote: cclub79

Right. I've been involved with and witnessed a lot of political races where candidates have been dismissed as "Never gonna happen, waste of time..."



Odds sometimes apply to poeple, sometimes not.

In a political race, the candidate's character, ideology, charisma nd other factors, including the media's view on the candidate, have a lot more to do with his success than other factors such as previous elected office.

But take me. What are the odds that the one Mexican poster on this board (there may be other members for al I know), would be a fluent English speaker, an aspiring writer, a transsexual and have a Jewish upbringing?

We could guesstimate. The vast majority of Mexicans don't speak English, though that may not be so of an important number with frequent internet access. (at my office I'd four out of 12 people, myself included, could even read this board). Next, out of a population of close to 100 million, less than 300,000 are Jews; that's damn slim odds. Writers, aspiring or otherwise, are a small part of the population, and transsexuals even a smaller part.

So what are the odds? I'd say microscopic, yet here I am :)

It must be 7:10 am and I must still be at the office....
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 5:48:14 AM permalink
Quote: cclub79

The sample size of recent Presidential elections (the only ones that matter) is way too small to make any meaningful
statistical inferences...you can try, but good luck...



There's a whole lot of things assumed in politics that's probably not justified by sample size.

In fact, I'd hazard to guess that's the main problem with politics.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 5:49:17 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

What are the odds that the one Mexican poster on this board (there may be other members for al I know), would be a fluent English speaker, an aspiring writer, a transsexual and have a Jewish upbringing?



I don't imagine you guys have a very big clubhouse. My neighbor was an African American Lesbian in San Diego. I used to kid her that she chose one of the smallest minorities I've ever heard about.

Nareed, are you completely European, or do you have any indigenous ancestry?
matilda
matilda
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 317
Joined: Feb 4, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 9:13:21 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin


I would have to go through the elections to see how many have run in the general election. I know there are more, but these are the only three sitting Senators that I can think that have run for President in the general election and lost,
2008 John S. McCain III, Senator from Arizona (1987-present)
1996 Robert J. “Bob” Dole, Senator from Kansas (1969-1996) "sitting, but also retiring Senator"
1972 George McGovern, Senator from South Dakota (1963-1981)



2004 Kerry
1964 Goldwater
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 10:12:08 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Only Henry Clay (1824), James A. Garfield (1880), and John Anderson (1980) ran for President in the general election as sitting House Members.
- direct quote from Clerk of the House of Representatives

My point is these people are a waste of time. They are not getting the nomination,



Before 2008 one would have said of an African-American candidate 'These people are a waste of time". One could say that now about a woman. One could have said that about an inexperienced governor from a small southern state (Arkansas). If a moderate enough, young enough, well respected, good looking Republican congressman existed who could get the nomination, that person would have an excellent chance against our failed President. If in 2005 I told you the Democrats were going to nominate a Black man, what would you have said?
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 10:44:29 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

If in 2005 I told you the Democrats were going to nominate a Black man, what would you have said?




I think I would have assumed that General Powell switched parties. Or maybe that a well-spoken celebrity had decided to make a splash. Denzel Washington or Will Smith or something.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
August 19th, 2011 at 12:34:34 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I think I would have assumed that General Powell switched parties. Or maybe that a well-spoken celebrity had decided to make a splash. Denzel Washington or Will Smith or something.



As a very casual observer, I always expected Condoleeza and Colin to run for office somehow after Bush...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 2:57:31 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

If in 2005 I told you the Democrats were going to nominate a Black man, what would you have said?



I would have said Hillary must have been indicted over something, or had something horrible happen to her. But if you asked which black man would it be, in 2005, I would have said Obama in a heartbeat. If you asked in 2003, then I wouldn't have known him. But remember, he got A LOT of buzz after his 2004 Convention Speech. He stole the show. I remember, IN 2005, having a discussion with a friend who said Obama would be the nominee in 2008. I said BS, there's no way it's not Hillary unless she doesn't want it. Obama's young, inexperienced, and not ready. He has plenty of time so he has no reason to rush into that kind of campaign. We were both right.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
August 19th, 2011 at 4:16:16 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Nareed, are you completely European, or do you have any indigenous ancestry?



All four of my grandparents hailed from Lithuania and Poland. So no.

Mexican Jews are an insular bunch. I'm surprised nasty recessives are not more common.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
August 20th, 2011 at 8:54:36 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I would have to go through the elections to see how many have run in the general election. I know there are more, but these are the only three sitting Senators that I can think that have run for President in the general election and lost,
2008 John S. McCain III, Senator from Arizona (1987-present)
1996 Robert J. “Bob” Dole, Senator from Kansas (1969-1996) "sitting, but also retiring Senator"
1972 George McGovern, Senator from South Dakota (1963-1981)


Quote: matilda

2004 Kerry
1964 Goldwater


1968 Kennedy
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 20th, 2011 at 9:14:54 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

1968 Kennedy



Good point. We had been including only candidates that ran in the general election, but RFK was assasinated 10 weeks after LBJ pulled out of the race, and 12 weeks before the convention. He may have been nominated had he lived.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
August 20th, 2011 at 9:43:46 AM permalink
We don't want to get too far off topic :)
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
August 20th, 2011 at 9:47:19 PM permalink
1984 Mondale
1972 McGovern

Before 2008, where a sitting senator was going to win, the last previous senator to win was Kennedy. Senators don't appear to make good presidential candidates. Off the top of my head ...

2008 Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain (1-1)
2004 Pr. Bush over Sen. Kerry (1-2)
2000 Gov. Bush over VPr. Gore
1996 Pr. Clinton over Sen. Dole (1-3)
1992 Gov. Clinton over Pr. Bush
1988 VPr. Bush over Gov. Dukakis
1984 Pr. Reagan over Sen. Mondale (1-4)
1980 Gov. Reagan over Pr. Carter
1976 Gov. Carter over Pr. Ford (kind of, you could make a case for this being another senator that lost)
1972 Pr. Nixon over Sen. McGovern
1968 ??? Nixon over VPr. Humphrey
1964 Pr. Johnson over Sen. Goldwater (1-5)
1960 Sen. Kennedy over VPr. Nixon (2-5)

Interesting trivia question ... Kennedy won in 1960 without the majority of the popular vote. It has happened four times since then. Can you name the times (no wiki-peeking allowed!)?
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 21st, 2011 at 1:19:30 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Senators don't appear to make good presidential candidates. Off the top of my head ...



Historically no one is disputing that statement. Only 3 sitting Senators and 1 sitting Representative have won the election. The majority of our presidents have been governors or vice presidents.

SENATORS
(1) Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois
(2) John F. Kennedy, who ran against then Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1960, and
(3) Warren G. Harding, an Ohio Republican who beat the Democratic governor from his home state to win the 1920 election.

REPRESENTATIVE
Andrew Garfield

However, Senators have run in the general election a significant percentage of the time. They cannot be dismissed as candidates.

No representative has been nominated by a major party in well over a century. I reject the idea that media exposure can make a representative into a viable presidential candidate.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
August 21st, 2011 at 1:19:32 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Senators don't appear to make good presidential candidates. Off the top of my head ...



Historically no one is disputing that statement. Only 3 sitting Senators and 1 sitting Representative have won the election. The majority of our presidents have been governors or vice presidents.

SENATORS
(1) Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois
(2) John F. Kennedy, who ran against then Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1960, and
(3) Warren G. Harding, an Ohio Republican who beat the Democratic governor from his home state to win the 1920 election.

REPRESENTATIVE
Andrew Garfield

However, Senators have run in the general election a significant percentage of the time. They cannot be dismissed as candidates.

No representative has been nominated by a major party in well over a century. I reject the idea that media exposure can make a representative into a viable presidential candidate.
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 21st, 2011 at 6:03:30 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

1984 Mondale
1972 McGovern

Before 2008, where a sitting senator was going to win, the last previous senator to win was Kennedy. Senators don't appear to make good presidential candidates. Off the top of my head ...

2008 Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain (1-1)
2004 Pr. Bush over Sen. Kerry (1-2)
2000 Gov. Bush over VPr. Gore
1996 Pr. Clinton over Sen. Dole (1-3)
1992 Gov. Clinton over Pr. Bush
1988 VPr. Bush over Gov. Dukakis
1984 Pr. Reagan over Sen. Mondale (1-4)
1980 Gov. Reagan over Pr. Carter
1976 Gov. Carter over Pr. Ford (kind of, you could make a case for this being another senator that lost)
1972 Pr. Nixon over Sen. McGovern
1968 ??? Nixon over VPr. Humphrey
1964 Pr. Johnson over Sen. Goldwater (1-5)
1960 Sen. Kennedy over VPr. Nixon (2-5)

Interesting trivia question ... Kennedy won in 1960 without the majority of the popular vote. It has happened four times since then. Can you name the times (no wiki-peeking allowed!)?



As for your trivia, it would be Carter, Clinton both times and Bush 2000.

As for the above data, I still don't think there's enough evidence to say that Senators specifically underperform. In 4 of the 5 losses above, I could easily put a non-Senator who was vying for the nomination in the election in place of the loser and he would still have lost, because of the strength of the winner. (Let's just say, Huckabee in '08, Forbes in '96, Jessie Jackson in '84, and Rockefeller in '64) Plus other times where a Senator might have actually won. So I think we're trying to analyze the validity of an office when we have as much data as someone sitting through one shoe of blackjack trying to analyze basic strategy.

Also, Ford would be in the House of Representatives list if you were to not grant him elected VP status, not the Senate list. He was the Minority Leader in the House when chosen by Nixon to replace Agnew.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
August 21st, 2011 at 12:59:47 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

As for your trivia, it would be Carter, Clinton both times and Bush 2000.



Almost. Nixon 68 instead of Carter, but good guess.

Quote: cclub79

As for the above data, I still don't think there's enough evidence to say that Senators specifically underperform. In 4 of the 5 losses above, I could easily put a non-Senator who was vying for the nomination in the election in place of the loser and he would still have lost, because of the strength of the winner. (Let's just say, Huckabee in '08, Forbes in '96, Jessie Jackson in '84, and Rockefeller in '64) Plus other times where a Senator might have actually won. So I think we're trying to analyze the validity of an office when we have as much data as someone sitting through one shoe of blackjack trying to analyze basic strategy.



FWIW, I didn't tally McGovern, so it's 2-6, 1-5 if you don't count 08 where it was always going to be 1-1. But as to your point ...

I wonder if Kennedy would've won in 60 if not for the televised debate. He only beat Nixon by something like 100k votes (not sure how that translates to the electors). For perspective, Gore "beat" Bush by about 500k, IIRC. The TV debate could have definitely changed that few number of minds. That would be a clean sweep of losses in the post-WWII era, an "underperform" by any measure.

Not debating an incumbent loss was unlikely in 84 and 64 (kind of). But an 08 D win was likely no matter who the D was, so I don't put 08 in that same category. Same for R in 68, D in 76, and R in 80. 12 is shaping up similarly to 80, so if I had to guess now, I would guess "same category" as well, only the D candidate won't be a sitting senator. Also, 96 was not certain ... there is a case to be made that Clinton would never have won but for Perot, both times. So ... I don't assign incumbent strength in 96.

Besides, it's not like parties say, "hey, the incumbent is strong, let's nominate a senator just to keep the senators-never-win streak alive."

In other words, while what you say is true, I don't think it's remove-able from the dynamic whether or not a senator is up, and shouldn't be considered as a marginal factor.

Quote: cclub79

Also, Ford would be in the House of Representatives list if you were to not grant him elected VP status, not the Senate list. He was the Minority Leader in the House when chosen by Nixon to replace Agnew.



Right you are. Don't know why I always fixate that he was a senator ...
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 21st, 2011 at 1:12:06 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Almost. Nixon 68 instead of Carter, but good guess.



That's my bad for listening to some pundit who said Obama was the first Dem to get more than 50% since LBJ. I guess when they said "More than 50%", they meant 51% and not 50.08%, which is what Carter got...

My only dispute with your analysis is:

Quote:

Also, 96 was not certain ... there is a case to be made that Clinton would never have won but for Perot, both times. So ... I don't assign incumbent strength in 96.



I agree with Clinton needed Perot in '92, but I just don't see a Republican path to victory in '96. Clinton was 54/36 in the last Gallup approval in October 1996 (and 60/31 in September!). Except for someone like Colin Powell, I don't think any Republican could have overcome Clinton's popularity. There's no way Dole would have won a two-way.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
August 21st, 2011 at 1:29:31 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

That's my bad for listening to some pundit who said Obama was the first Dem to get more than 50% since LBJ. I guess when they said "More than 50%", they meant 51% and not 50.08%, which is what Carter got...



I think the problem lies with the pundit, not with you. There appears to be this weird desire/effort/whatever to raise Obama to some weird level. Saying he's the first in 44 years sounds more lofty than the first in 32 years, I guess. My guess is, he was talking out of his ass.

Quote: cclub79

My only dispute with your analysis is:

I agree with Clinton needed Perot in '92, but I just don't see a Republican path to victory in '96. Clinton was 54/36 in the last Gallup approval in October 1996 (and 60/31 in September!). Except for someone like Colin Powell, I don't think any Republican could have overcome Clinton's popularity. There's no way Dole would have won a two-way.



Fair enough. I see your point, but I lean towards the other side for two main reasons:

First, 96 doesn't happen without 92. Momentum, baby! Of course, I can't positively say that an R would've won in 96 had Bush won in 92, but I can pretty safely say that Clinton doesn't get elected in 96 without winning in 92, and we agree that Clinton needed Perot in 92.

Second, I think that in 96, Clinton = Dole + Perot. Not to say that all Perot voters would've voted for Dole, but like in 92, Perot took votes away from the R by something like 2.5:1. Put those votes in certain states and then who-knows-what happens in the electoral college.

The first point is the stronger one.

Note that the 2.5:1 ratio is disputed. Some reports say that Perot drew about equally from both candidates in both elections. I'm inclined to think that it was closer to 1:1 in 96 than in 92, but it was never 1:1. If it was truly 1:1 in 92, then Clinton didn't need Perot, which we know is not true. Not sure why the reports say 1:1, except to maybe bolster Clinton's legitimacy. But I don't really think his wins needed any "bolstering," so it's all a little weird.
imperialpalace
imperialpalace
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 28
Joined: Feb 5, 2011
August 21st, 2011 at 10:27:45 PM permalink
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:13:20 AM permalink
Quote: imperialpalace

That's good but I think Batboy is a little better :)
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:44:50 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Note that the 2.5:1 ratio is disputed. Some reports say that Perot drew about equally from both candidates in both elections. I'm inclined to think that it was closer to 1:1 in 96 than in 92, but it was never 1:1. If it was truly 1:1 in 92, then Clinton didn't need Perot, which we know is not true. Not sure why the reports say 1:1, except to maybe bolster Clinton's legitimacy. But I don't really think his wins needed any "bolstering," so it's all a little weird.



I'm have always been inclined to believe what you are saying. One fact to remember, however, is that HW's Gallup number in October 1992 was 34/58. So even in a two-way race, that's a pretty bad starting position. I think a lot of those Perot voters would have stayed home rather than be allocated to Bush. Some Perot voters were Buchanan primary voters who were not coming back to the President. And Clinton wasn't "terrifying" to a lot of Conservatives at first, being a "New" Democrat from the South. So while they may not have voted for him, they didn't see it as urgent to support a President of which they didn't really approve. They were "eh" on both sides. They were mad about the "no new taxes" pledge, so they sat on their hands.
  • Jump to: