Skip to main content

View Diary: 1980 Redux (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True enough... (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan - Obama is a comparison that I think has legs.

    Of course, Bush - Obama also has some legs.

    We forget that Bill Clinton was a pretty unpopular president (not like Bush or Carter) by the end of his second term, that the economy was heading downward after the dot.com bubble burst, etc.

    George W. Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative, a uniter not a divider, etc.

    Bush had pretty light leadership credentials, but did have a good record of reaching across the aisle in Texas.  Of course, Democrats in Texas are generally more like Republicans up north, but still...

    You get the idea.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you mean "popular"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quaderni

      Bill Clinton was unquestionably damaged from the Lewinsky mess, and that got transferred to Al Gore (who did win, remember). BUT, Clinton's approval ratings the last year of his term and going out were higher than Reagan's. Even the MSM pointed this out at the time.

      And, you will also note that even if the .com bubble burst in 2000 (it did), the effects were not felt until after Clinton was gone, if they were felt at all.

      Obama '08. Good for the Party, Good for the Country.

      by SouthernFried on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  actually (0+ / 0-)

      We forget that Bill Clinton was a pretty unpopular president (not like Bush or Carter) by the end of his second term

      That's wrong. In Sep 2000, Clinton's job approval was 60-35 in the WSJ/NBC poll and his low for the year was June and Aug at 58. Bush would die for those numbers. So, you meant popular.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I meant unpopular. (0+ / 0-)

        Let's put it this way:

        Al Gore ran away from him.

        Whatever the WSJ/NBC poll may have said, and whatever "job approval" really means to the people who hear it, Al Gore, based on what his advisors and internal pollsters were telling him, ran as far and as fast from Clinton has he could.

        It's possible, I suppose, that Gore was and is dumb as a stone, but I don't believe that.

        Not brilliant, to be sure, but not that stupid.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:01:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  heh (0+ / 0-)

          Let's put it this way:

          If Al Gore had a do-over...

          but no way was Clinton unpopular regardless of Gore's flawed strategy.

          People didn't understand what unpopular meant until the last two Bushes were in office.

          http://pollkatz.homestead.com/...

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, DFCT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac

            We need to get you up to steam on just how bad the Clinton fatigue's impact on Gore's run was :)

            For starters, please see my comment below on WJC's personal unfavorables.

            Second, can you name one senate or house candidate that had WJC campaign for him in states that weren't put in Gore's column in 2000 (or for that matter, I doubt he was asked to campaign anywhere except deep blue state like NY and CA+AR.)

            Third, there were ton's of poll and other data (many of which I've compiled here which show that Clinton was radio-active in 1999 and 2000). Here are two for starters:

            1. Pew Center poll, Released: September 14, 2000

                 Introduction and Summary

               Clinton fatigue, which first surfaced more than a year ago, has not diminished. In fact, more voters today completely agree with the statement "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration," than did a year ago (48% vs. 36% in August 1999).

                 Clinton fatigue is prevalent among all major demographic groups. Even 56% of Democrats say they have grown weary of Clinton, and fully 78% of independents agree. The percent of voters who wish Clinton could run for a third term has remained steady since last year. Just one-quarter wish Clinton could run again, while seven-in-ten disagree.

                 -------------

                 I wish Bill Clinton could run for a third term
                                                 
                 Sep'00: Agree (27%), Disagree (71%)
                 Aug'99: Agree (28%), Disagree (71%)
                 Mar'99: Agree (28%), Disagree (71%)

            1. Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests, CNN, From staff and wire reports, October 24, 2000

               Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.

            Fourth, Gore was forced to start with these sustained double digit deficits (by 18% in 3/99 and by 15% the day he announced his bid on 6/10/99). Here is a plot of Bush vs Gore beginning with one poll before the Lewinsky scandal surfaced and ending with 6/10/99. That (15-18% deficit) was the starting handicap for Gore mainly due to Clinton scandal. W/o the scandal/impeachment circus, Gore would've started no worse than even in polls. So, there's little doubt that Gore and disadvantaged at the starting line by 15% due to Clinton's reckless conduct.

            Compare that to last July when Obama and Edwards led McCain by about 8-10%, most of which wa due to Bush/Republican/war fatigue. Add the two together, and we get the difference between the two cycles to be about 25% against Gore, which is whopping, night and day kind of dichotomy.

            No analysis of the 2000 election that doesn't consider Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and impeachment's impact properly can be considered objective.

      •  60-67% disliked Clinton 'as a person' in '99-2000 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac

        Opinion of Clinton as a Person

        		   Fav	 Unfav
        
        Exit poll:	      36%   60% 
        
        10/22/00  LV	   33	 60
        10/21/00  LV	   33	 62
        10/20/00  LV	   32	 63
        10/1/00   RV	   37	 58
        9/6/00	  RV	   35	 62
        8/20/00   RV	   35	 61
        8/10/00   RV	   34	 62
        1/26/00 	   34	 61
        12/15/99  RV	   32	 65
        12/15/99	   36	 62
        9/2/99		   38	 59
        3/14/99	   30	 67
        3/4/99		   40	 54
        12/15/98	   41	 56
        11/1/98   LV	   37	 60
        11/1/98 	   42	 54
        

        Links:

        1. 2000 Exit Poll
        1. Wash. Post Poll Archive
        •  notice little difference between '98 and '00 n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lewinsky scandal broke on 1/17/98 (0+ / 0-)

            Starr investigation was through the summer, Clinton was impeached in 12/98, and the senate trial concluded in 2/99. After that, the fatigue seems to have kicked for whatever set of reasons.

            People basically disapproved of Republicans' witch hunt, but they apparently also factored in the fact that Clinton's recklessness gave Republicans the ammunition to harass and impeach him with. The fact that Clinton lied, wagging his finger (yes, the 'that woman' bit) when the affair first surfaced (the Clinton camp later tried to demonize Monica as a "stalker" too), and the tapes of him parsing the meaining of "is" probably didn't help.

        •  That's interesting stuff... (0+ / 0-)

          for a couple of reasons.

          Most people (myself included) are not policy wonks and want to think well of the President as a person.

          The "like as a person" stuff is interesting because I think you can dislike somebody as a person and still believe them to be competent in their job.

          But... what does it take to win your vote?  Can it be either/or or do you need some minimum measure of both?

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site