2012 Presidential Campaign

[DaddyTorgo]

"Arithmetic" - I fucking love this man.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Bill Clinton: "I've still got it"

SI

Shocking that Clinton would talk about how great he is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

...And MSNBC just showed some woman holding up her Medicare card with her ID and everything in full sight. /sigh/

SI

That was the pool camera and it showed up on all the networks and cable channels.

[Tigercat]

This is like watching a 50 year old Elway or Montana come out of retirement and sling some TDs in the playoffs.

[JPhillips]

I wish Obama had a quarter of the ass kicker in him that Clinton has.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You watch Bill speak, and you see how he could talk the pants of a nun.

Reminds me of a Frank Caliendo sketch.

Bill Clinton could convince you he was not here.


In full Bill Clinton mode: "I am not here. What is 'here'? It's just 'there' without a 't'."

[larrymcg421]

There's no doubt in my mind that Clinton would've won a third term.

[RainMaker]

Bit hypocritical of Clinton to bash Republicans for wanting no regulations on the financial industry when he signed into law the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There's no doubt in my mind that Clinton would've won a third term.

Or Gore would have been president if he hadn't run away from Clinton.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Or Gore would have been president if he hadn't run away from Clinton.

Not so sure I'd agree with that. Gore had (at that time) the same problem Romney seems to have. He just wasnt personable & engaging. Polite, well-spoken, knowledgeable, etc...but not engaging.

Thats what makes Clinton, Clinton. Obama is going to have a tough act to follow tonight. As much as he's always praised for his ability to inspire...I think inspirational speeches lose their luster when the audience (in this case, the TV audience) is looking for an affirmation of why they chose to believe in him. And the reason they believed in him was because they thought he could rise above partisanship to solve problems & change the way government could function. Telling the American people that you're right and the Republicans are just too obstructionist flies in the face of what he was selling in the first place and I think THAT is what swing voters are wanting to hear an answer for. It (the lack of a satisfactory explanation) may not be enough for them to move to Romney, but it may be enough to tune out Obama.

[JPhillips]

A few thousand votes in FL would have swung the election to Gore. Not letting Clinton campaign for him was his biggest mistake, IMO.

[SteveMax58]

I think you're forgetting what the common opinion, mindset, and focus of voter was at that time period. Gore didnt exactly run away from Clinton policies either, he just didn't buddy up with him because of Clinton's perceived "greasiness" at the time. Time always softens things like that but in 2000 the common/middle opinion of Clinton was "scumbag who spends more time looking at women's figures than economic figures". EDIT: I'd wager that he came so close because he wasn't perceived as slimy as Clinton. Aligning more would have rubbed some of that slime onto Gore for more voters than Gore would win.

Not to say it was fair...it was just not the same backseat issue for the middle/swing voter then, as it would be right now. Don't be surprised when 2016 or 2020 comes around & GWB is a sympathetic/popular figure. Its crazy to run on GWB alignment in 2008/12 but by 2016 we could very well have enough bad memories to replace those bad memoires that make the Bush years seem like "better days".

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think you're forgetting what the common opinion, mindset, and focus of voter was at that time period. Gore didnt exactly run away from Clinton policies either, he just didn't buddy up with him because of Clinton's perceived "greasiness" at the time. Time always softens things like that but in 2000 the common/middle opinion of Clinton was "scumbag who spends more time looking at women's figures than economic figures". EDIT: I'd wager that he came so close because he wasn't perceived as slimy as Clinton. Aligning more would have rubbed some of that slime onto Gore for more voters than Gore would win.

Not to say it was fair...it was just not the same backseat issue for the middle/swing voter then, as it would be right now. Don't be surprised when 2016 or 2020 comes around & GWB is a sympathetic/popular figure. Its crazy to run on GWB alignment in 2008/12 but by 2016 we could very well have enough bad memories to replace those bad memoires that make the Bush years seem like "better days".

Clinton's approval was high 50s, low 60s that entire election year and he left office with a 66% approval. People didn't care about that slime. His approval was a staggering 73% when he was impeached and remained in the high 60s throughout the entire impeachment trial. Bush left office with a 34 and that was his highest rating all year. The situations aren't remotely comparable. Gore definitely screwed up by not using Clinton more.

[kcchief19]

The Gore camp kept Clinton off the campaign trail because they thought he would be a hindrance, not a help. With Gore struggling at the end, they began using Clinton in targeted areas.

If you look at the polls at the national and states where Clinton campaigned, Bill definitely helped. Had Gore pulled him out a week earlier and sent him to Florida, Gore wins.

If Obama wins this election, Clinton will get a huge share of the credit. If Hillary wants to run in 2016, Bill just cleared the field for her. Obama has to back her, and with Bill, Hillary and Barack on the same side, she is unbeatable.

[Swaggs]

If Clinton's speech has some sort of impact on the electorate, I think this simple fact that he threw out will be a big part:
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.

That message is easy to get out, for voters to remember, and is a pretty big rebuttal against "Trickle Down/Supply Side" and tax cuts for the most wealthy because they are "Job Creators."

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Clinton's approval was high 50s, low 60s that entire election year and he left office with a 66% approval. People didn't care about that slime. His approval was a staggering 73% when he was impeached and remained in the high 60s throughout the entire impeachment trial. Bush left office with a 34 and that was his highest rating all year. The situations aren't remotely comparable. Gore definitely screwed up by not using Clinton more.

Well, clearly when somebody loses an election, it always seems like a better idea to have done x, y, & z. But its just as easy to overlook the concept that perhaps Gore actually maximized his vote potential & simply lost because of Gore the candidate.

Unlike Clinton's approval rating, Gore was up against a candidate...not a black & white "happy/unhappy" question mark. Clinton certainly would have delivered some votes, but would have alienated other votes in the process. The same SS lockbox votes would be more inclined to vote socially conservative at that time. And being perceived as "accepting" of general infidelity in a leader would not have gone over nearly as well with THAT voting base as I think you're imagining. Today, its less relevant as bigger problems are at play...but at that time Clinton's presidency made it seem a bit too easy to be president (perhaps) for Gore's own good.

[JPhillips]

Certainly Gore believed that at the time, but there's every reason to believe he was wrong. Clinton had an approval rating over 60% and he seemed to have helped Gore in the states he did limited campaigning.

All the available evidence implies Clinton would have helped. Until I see some numbers showing otherwise, I'm sticking to what I said.

[JPhillips]

Some numbers I've found.

In late October 2000 Clinton had an approval rating of 57%

Gore carried every state that had a higher approval rating of Clinton than the national average, with the exception of Florida.

Clinton might have also helped in NH, where a Dem governor easily won reelection and Gore only lost by @7200 votes. In 96 Clinton won by 10 points and in 2000 he had a 56% approval rating in NH. A NH win would have made Gore the President.

Clinton may have helped in AR. In 92 and 96 Clinton won by @17 points. In 2000 he had an approval rating of 53% in AR.


I think it's clear Clinton would have likely had a positive effect in any of these three states. What evidence shows that Clinton campaigning would have cost Gore votes in the close states?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A few thousand votes in FL would have swung the election to Gore. Not letting Clinton campaign for him was his biggest mistake, IMO.

I thought the consensus was basically the Gore won (on paper)anyways?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought the consensus was basically the Gore won anyways?

This.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought the consensus was basically the Gore won (on paper)anyways?

I think, but can't prove that more people intended to vote for Gore in FL. The problem is the margin in FL was lower than the number of ballots routinely thrown away for inaccuracies. I don't think we'll ever know with certainty who won FL.

Eventually the race had to be determined outside of a recount. It would have turned out with the same result, but I wish the Supremes would have let the Congress do it's job as prescribed in the Constitution.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's clear Clinton would have likely had a positive effect in any of these three states. What evidence shows that Clinton campaigning would have cost Gore votes in the close states?

Well, with the caveat that the beauty of polling data is that you can frame it to say anything you want it to say...any polling you can find leading up to and including exit polling from the 2000 election will show moral/ethical issues as having a large impact on voters. You can look at it as "well, they voted Bush anyway" for the people who made that their key voting criteria, but its also indicative of what is important in the time period of the election. Especially when its higher than in other elections.

Gallup polling for the 2000 election (also includes 2004) by demographics. Note the heavy 14 point advantage Gore received with seniors (and 8 points with 50+). Indicative of his (primarily focused on) Florida campaign with seniors.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9469/elec...-20002004.aspx

Not the actual Gallup poll (couldnt find it on Gallup...but cited by Roper as "Gallup October 2000"...or 1 month ahead of the election). Note that Education is #1 and Moral/Ethical/Religious decline is a close #2 in terms of importance to voters nationally.
EDIT (you'll need to click the question yourself apparently): http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi...arch?TopID=437


As another data point, the LA Times exit polling (page 14 specifically) which is even (self-admittedly) weighted with more Californian voters.

I think this poll reiterates that while people liked Clinton's policies (56-58%)...they did not like Clinton (62-65%) and Gore needed to distance himself from Clinton the man, in order to win the older generation vote which certainly meant Florida in 2000. I hope we can agree (without need to cite) that older generations are socially & morally more conservative as a general premise.
EDIT to add link: http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu...Date=&abstract

WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS COMES CLOSEST TO THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT
PRESIDENT CLINTON?
1 I like Clinton as a person and I also like most of his policies
2 I like Clinton as a person, but I don't like most of his policies
3 I don't like Clinton as a person, but I like most of his policies
4 I don't like Clinton as a person and I also don't like most of his
policies
RESPONSES PERCENT ACTUAL
1) L/CL-L/P 2435 30% 31%
2) L/C-DL/P 291 3% 4%
3) DL/C-L/P 2146 26% 27%
4) DL/C-DSP 2945 36% 38%
ý69) OMIT 401 5%
SUM 8218 100 100

I'm actually quite surprised (as somebody who lived in Florida at that time) to hear anybody argue that rolling Clinton out in Florida in 2000 would have swayed that election. Quite the opposite impression than I had of the time but I also think there is data to tell that story (as are many stories possible to write as I will readily concede).

[miked]

Front page of Fauxnews this morning, taking up half the screenl...

Democrats at Odds Over How God Made His Way Back Into Platform

In God We Trust — four words that speak volumes about America's values, yet Democrats booed and shouted 'no' when His name was restored to the party platform, and now can't agree on how or why it happened.

[sterlingice]

That's ok - everyone else has the "Clinton hits home run, can Obama keep it up" message

SI

[JediKooter]

Bill Clinton Finally Just Shows America His Penis | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[miked]

Actually, a few of the other outlets have the jobs report, which came out stronger than expected and the resulting market rally.

[RendeR]

Seriously, without term limits, Clinton is STILL our President....



EDIT: ANd I too loved the whole "Arithmatic" piece. FUckin hilarious.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Seriously, without term limits, Clinton is STILL our President....



EDIT: ANd I too loved the whole "Arithmatic" piece. FUckin hilarious.

Continously? No way. A little bit of Bill Clinton goes a long way.

I could see him winning after sitting out for 4 years maybe, but I think the country was pretty much done with his drama after 8 years. I don't think you can't really look at the poll numbers when he was leaving office and assume that those would convert to votes.

[JediKooter]

I seem to remember that the smart thing for Gore to do was to limit Clinton as much as possible during the campaign. Oh how times have changed.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RendeR

EDIT: ANd I too loved the whole "Arithmatic" piece. FUckin hilarious.

Did you love the "Speling" piece too?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I seem to remember that the smart thing for Gore to do was to limit Clinton as much as possible during the campaign. Oh how times have changed.

That's what the stupidest political consultant in history, Mark Penn, told him.

[larrymcg421]

His high poll numbers contributed to votes in the 1998 midterms when the Dems gained seats. It was the first time in 64 years that a 2nd term president's party picked up seats in the midterms. And considering how high his numbers got during the impeachment and trial, the public was irritated with the Republicans creating the drama. If he ran, he'd be an incumbent candidate with a 3.9% unemployment rate (the lowest in 31 years) running against GWB. You're out of your mind if you think he loses in 2000.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

His high poll numbers contributed to votes in the 1998 midterms when the Dems gained seats. It was the first time in 64 years that a 2nd term president's party picked up seats in the midterms. And considering how high his numbers got during the impeachment and trial, the public was irritated with the Republicans creating the drama. If he ran, he'd be an incumbent candidate with a 3.9% unemployment rate (the lowest in 31 years) running against GWB. You're out of your mind if you think he loses in 2000.

And I would counter that you are looking at the hypothetical 2000 race through the prism of the actual 2012 race. The low unemployment rate then just meant that the electorate had the luxury of focusing on a bunch of other stuff, and I think we can all agree that Clinton gave any opponent a lot of ammunition to use against him.

Maybe I’m just not remembering the mood of the nation right; it was 12 years ago after all.

[molson]

I would have actually watched every GWB/Clinton debate. Could we still set that up somehow?

Edit: And it does make no sense in retrospect but it was just kind of accepted that Gore should distance himself from Clinton, I do remember that. That wasn't seen as a big mistake at the time. I even remember an SNL skit about it, where Gore was trying to avoid Clinton or something, and it was just an accepted part of the premise of the skit that that made sense. We had accepted Clinton by 2000, but if he was still campaigning and running for president, I don't think he'd have been as popular. He was like an old friend that a lot people were OK with finally leaving after crashing on the couch for so long.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: And it does make no sense in retrospect but it was just kind of accepted that Gore should distance himself from Clinton, I do remember that. That wasn't seen as a big mistake at the time. I even remember an SNL skit about it, where Gore was trying to avoid Clinton or something, and it was just an accepted part of the premise of the skit that that made sense. We had accepted Clinton by 2000, but if he was still campaigning and running for president, I don't think he'd have been as popular. He was like an old friend that a lot people were OK with finally leaving after crashing on the couch for so long.

This is pretty much how I remember it too. Kind of like how McCain distanced himself from Bush in 2008. Different atmosphere, but, still you had a candidate/party nominee that purposely kept their distance from the incumbent president due to the actions of that president.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's what the stupidest political consultant in history, Mark Penn, told him.

True. Mark Penn is a complete moron (well, as a consultant. As a pollster, he's quite brilliant).

[bronconick]

Oh yes, Mark Penn. The man who designed the Democratic Primary system in 2008 and then proceeded to hit every base of fail in advising Hillary Clinton how to navigate it.

[larrymcg421]

Mark Penn probably is not only a horrible strategist but a total and complete asshole with zero people skills that made everyone miserable on Hilary's 2008 campaign.

[ISiddiqui]

If you didn't know any better, you'd assume he was an Obama plant.

[JPhillips]

There were lots of Dems that thought Gore should have let Clinton campaign. The media thought Clinton was too scandal tarred, but rank and file Dems thought Gore was a moron for distancing himself from a successful president that had been his boss for eight years. It's really hard for a VP to run against the president.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe he's just looking for someone to dance with.

[larrymcg421]

And I'm amazed that people think an incumbent with 3.9% unemployment would have lost. I just don't buy that at all. Attacks on Clinton's indiscretions did not work in 1996 or 1998. Even at his lowest ethical moment, he had staggeringly high approval ratings. There's no reason these attacks would've randomly started working in 2000.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you didn't know any better, you'd assume he was an Obama plant.

TV personality: Mr. Penn, you trail Senator Obama by 140 delegates currently. How do you plan to make up that difference.

Penn: "We'll just win California. It has 388 delegates by itself."

TV: "Uh....The delegates are divided proportionately, sir. At best, you'll make up 20-30."

Penn: ......

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And I'm amazed that people think an incumbent with 3.9% unemployment would have lost. I just don't buy that at all. Attacks on Clinton's indiscretions did not work in 1996 or 1998. Even at his lowest ethical moment, he had staggeringly high approval ratings. There's no reason these attacks would've randomly started working in 2000.

If you could isolate it out to be like any other presidential election involving an incumbent, it's an easy call. But the X factor is the whole 3rd term thing. I don't think a ton of people would be on board with that generally. I think there would have been a serious case of Clinton fatigue. And ya, 3.9% unemployment sounds awesome now, but it was just our world in 2000. I don't think a lot of people really feared what was around the corner, we just thought we were all getting better off, like we always had, a few hiccups aside here an there.

I think presidents at the end of their 2nd term get a little bit of a popularity boost just based on the fact that they're leaving. I'm not sure if there's anyway to quantify that, I don't know if approval ratings is really the measure for it, but I just seem to remember, based on nothing but feel, that Regan and Clinton both had a more warm and fuzzy public acceptance at the end of the presidencies. And even though most were more than happy to see Bush leave, even that hatred died down just a bit towards the end. I don't know for sure what would happen, but I think the public perception of all 3 of those guys would have been a lot different if they were still active political figures.

[bronconick]

Given how close Gore got while being a life sized whittled artifact, I think Clinton could have won a 3rd turn, but it would have been closer than his two wins.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by molson

I would have actually watched every GWB/Clinton debate. Could we still set that up somehow?

Edit: And it does make no sense in retrospect but it was just kind of accepted that Gore should distance himself from Clinton, I do remember that. That wasn't seen as a big mistake at the time. I even remember an SNL skit about it, where Gore was trying to avoid Clinton or something, and it was just an accepted part of the premise of the skit that that made sense. We had accepted Clinton by 2000, but if he was still campaigning and running for president, I don't think he'd have been as popular. He was like an old friend that a lot people were OK with finally leaving after crashing on the couch for so long.

I will grant that "conventional wisdom" was that Clinton would be more of a hindrance than a help. But if "conventional wisdom" dictated campaigns a lot of consultants wouldn't have jobs. You're paid to be right, not to do the expected.

The difference in the campaign was that the GOP knew the key was getting out your base, not minimizing your opposition's base. Penn was afraid to unleash Clinton not because he would rally Dems but because he would poke Republicans -- and not to mention outshine Gore.

If Penn looked at the poll numbers and knew how to run a campaign, he would have had Clinton campaigning in Democratic strongholds rallying the base from the convention. He does that, Gore wins the electoral college too.

[Grover]

GOP congressman likens government student loans to Holocaust | TPM2012

Lord...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grover

GOP congressman likens government student loans to Holocaust | TPM2012

Lord...

So many in the GOP are just mentally unhinged. It's just sad at this point. Sad and scary and pathetic all in one.

[cuervo72]

oh shi-Roscoe, huh?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So many in the GOP are just mentally unhinged. It's just sad at this point. Sad and scary and pathetic all in one.

It seems the GOP is obsessed with four things (in no particular order):

1. Women's reproductive systems
2. Nazis
3. The Holocaust
4. Sex and telling you what you should and should not do