I'm not the biggest Clinton fan but he did win twice

[fujiyama]

I saw some really stupid posts claiming that Clinton "was the worst thing that happened to the democratic party".

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. I disagree with some of the things Clinton signed into office. I also don't really care for some of the comments he's made recently.

But he did win. In fact he was the only democrat to be reelected since FDR. He was reelected decisively.

The party at this point is in a worse state than it was after Mondale's loss. I'm not saying this is KErry's fault. It's just the way things are at the moment. We have control of no branch of government.

So let's listen to what Clinton has to say, even if we'll dismiss it (I for one don't agree with his urging of Kerry to endorse state by state gay marriage bans), but let's listen to what he has to say.

I for one would have Clinton in office over Bush any day of the week...and I know quite a few that expressed that they would vote for Clinton in a minute during the election.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Of course we should listen to him

We should listen to all wings of the party. :shrug: or is that too middle of the two main ideas I hear. I too am not a big Clinton fan mostly because of my disagreements with his economic ideas and some of his social ones but he is far from the worst thing that happened to the party.

[saracat]

2. Roosevelt won three times and he was more progressive than Clinton!

If they didn't make the amendment to the constitution preventing it, He could have served forever. In fact he did die in office. But he would have been continuously reelected! Now that would be the model to follow!


on edit: Roosevelt won four times!

[JohnKleeb]

3. Roosevelt was great

I disagree with what Clinton is saying but we should listen to everyone in the party, after all we are rather should be the big tent party that Roosevelt built.

[Paul Hood]

4. Four times

Roosevelt won four times '32, '36, '40, and '44.

[bobbieinok]

5. 4 times?? 32, 36, 40, 44

[Pepperbelly]

38. so?

I do not understand your point. It is not logical. If you were to distill it to a syllogism, it would be invalid.

[JohnnyRingo]

6. Those that claim he was "the worst" are the same ones that believe

Roanald Reagan walked on water.

They give credit for his economy to Reagan's "miracle" tax cuts, and blame Clinton for the evils NAFTA, a bill initially signed by his predecessor, GHW Buxh on his way out of the White House.

Bill Clinton did sell it to the senate after a well publisized speech outlining his plans to include protections for US jobs.

Cheap Mexican labor has always been a republican wet dream:

On December 17, 1992, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and U. S. President George Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), marking the end of a process that began on February 5, 1991, when the three leaders announced they would negotiate the trade accord. Following approval by the legislatures in each of the three countries, NAFTA entered into force January 1, 1994.

<more>
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=2582

[LoZoccolo]

7. You forgot Dean.

Dean would have won in the alternate universe where he didn't lose the primary and wasn't polling worse than Bush* back then too. All we needed is to move to the left by nominating the centrist Dean and he would have won (like he did - Dean won).

[ever_green]

9. Dean won!!

:) It's as heart breaking to me as the current stolen election.

[Toucano]

35. I love you.

This post of yours says it all so perfectly. Thank you.

[madfloridian]

36. That is really ugly. And you know most of us don't feel that way.

You know that. It is sarcastic, and it is making things worse.

[ever_green]

8. Well....the point isn't just winning you know

What good is winning if we have a lame candidate? When nothing gets done, no REAL changes, it doesn't matter. The gap between the rich and poor increased under Clinton.
Things maybe seemed better under Clinton.

[fujiyama]

12. What do you mean maybe?

This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

If you think that Bush is only slightly worse than Bush, then you are crazy. As I said, Clinton wasn't perfect, but this isn't a "maybe" he was better. He WAS BETTER. In fact he was damn good.

[JohnKleeb]

14. I agree with what youre saying 100%

Hell Clinton is probably my least favorite democratic president since FDR but ya know what that still makes him to me at least a pretty good president in my eyes. My opinion is this, Clinton should be able to say as he feels as should people in the Kucinich wing of the party, many of you'ins talk about making the party like it was in the days of Roosevelt, I could not agree more, you do that through a big tent. The new deal coalition had Catholics, Immigrants, Blue Collar Workers, Blacks, Men, Women, etc. Thats just my opinion on it anyway, if you want the party like it was in FDR's day, you should be a fan of the big tent proponent and respecting all wings of the party, that means to me at least, a moderate shouldnt be purged, in fact many of the anti bush people at school are moderates, I am a far lefty I admit but I guess I have a moderate tone.

[fujiyama]

16. Yep you've got the idea

We've clearly lost group with Catholics and some immigrant groups as well. Kerry didn't do nearly as well among these groups as Clinton or even Gore for that matter. This isn't necessarily Kerry's fault though. It has to do with the way Bush conducted his campaign. It was a campaign of scare tactics and it was very effective. Also, I think it's very difficult to argue that the nation has shifted rightward in the last 4 years, partly due to 9/11 and the climate of fear it has induced. Until we break this fear, we will continue to have a difficult time winning any seats on the federal level.

The party has to be a big tent. That means it will have to tolerate people whose views may be somewhat unseemly and that we shouldn't necessarily respect. That's the only way to win.

[ever_green]

15. My point is...

that many Democrats just went to sleep under Clinton, thinking everything was going well...Now they are wide awake.
Why do you think so many people didn't bother to vote this time around? Especially blacks...because they think NOTHING will change. Nothing in their lives will get better. We've lost touch with these people. Believe me.
Clinton bombed places too, he was just quieter about it. He got U.N. approval, thereby making it somehow OK. The sanctions...c'mon, was that right?

I KNOW he was much better than Bush, but that's not saying much. I say the same of Kerry. He was just as imperialistic, he would just do it in a more "appropriate" way... :eyes:

[Atillason]

19. way off

as far as "blacks" not voting, I'm from Detroit, and I saw first hand how fired up people were about this election...the only reason support has waned for the Democratic party is "moral issues"...the majority of African-Americans are against gay marriage...people in America today are much more worried about gay marriage then they are about terrorism, because the majority of people in this country don't belive that "it could happen to them" (much like everything else). But the "rampant homosexual threat" is very real to most Americans, and they feel threatened by it. It's all about ignorance, something the Republican party has been all about for some time.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi Atillason!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sangh0]

31. Your point is untrue

and I find it ridiculous to claim that Dems went to sleep under Clinton. We didn't increase hea;th care coverage, reduce poverty, reduce crime, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and increase minority home ownership rates by sleeping through the 90's

Such absolutist speech is a sure giveaway to the weakness of the underlying argument.

I KNOW he was much better than Bush, but that's not saying much.

"much better" = "not saying much"??? That makes sense in which language? In English, "much better" *is* saying "much"

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. Funny, I thought Blacks voted in proportion to their population this year

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Awsi Dooger]

17. Good point; did you see this article about party ID change post 9/11?

I discovered it Sunday night before the election and it really jolted me. I thought the GOP gained maybe 1 point via 9/11 but this Pew article makes it look like much more: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

(on edit: this was meant as a reply to #16, not #12. must be getting late)

[fujiyama]

18. Thanks for the link

I hadn't read it before. I will now.

I think this is one thing we really underestimated. We mostly dismissed the gains the GOP made in the '02 midterm elections as a temporary thing. We didn't see it as a longer lasting problem. Apparently they lasted all the way. I think I heard somewhere that Rove and Co. really focused on rural areas where a lot of people had been registered but simply hadn't voted in years. Many of these people also approved of Bush and were born again/evangelicals.

I just saw the graph on party affiliation on the link you posted. I'm curious to see the trend line that matches with party control of the House and that graph. I would assume there is for the most part, as Dems were in control of the House through many of those years.

[Pepperbelly]

27. Bullshit ...

things WERE better. We were at peace, we were prosperous, people were optimistic, we were respected internationally, we were peacemakers.

What the fuck do you WANT?

[LoZoccolo]

10. Also, Kucinich.

OK Kucinich didn't win the general election, but he did win amongst all those voters that don't vote. The only reason he wasn't the nominee is because those people didn't vote in the primary either. But they're out there, and if you count them, then Kucinich won.

[Atillason]

20. did you just say

that he won amongst voters that didn't vote? So what's the point? If said potential voters didn't feel that it was necessary to vote if he wasn't a candidate, what does that say about their commitment to this system of government?

[fujiyama]

21. He's being sarcastic

That's why he pointed out Dean and Kucinich. Many of their supporters from the primaries believe their candidate could have won the general election against Bush. The same is true with some Edwards and Clark supporters, but to a lesser extent.

Welcome to DU. BTW I go to school in Detroit. People were fired up about these elections...and what you say about the gay marriage ban is unfortunately true. I know someone that voted straight Dem but when it came to proposal 2, he voted for it. His response was "F*ck those F*ggots". As a younger person, I am appauled by the amount of homphobia I see...but at the same time I'm not at all surprised to see how effective a tool it is at the ballot box.

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Just think what the federal courts would look like minus Clinton

He won states we don't even pretend to compete in now. Clinton won white women by huge margin, then Gore broke even with them and this time Kerry got crushed, 55-44%.

Clinton not only won twice, but his economy should have paved the way for 4/8 more years if Gore hadn't run such a pathetic campaign/and got screwed.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

22. Many repubs voted for Clinton;

Why did Clinton win?

It was to a significant extent because it was the time when the neo-cons started pushing the issue of "moral values" into the republican base. For many republicans it was to extreme so they voted for the only alternative.

source: documentary "The Power of Nightmares - The rise of the politics of fear" (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm

[looking glass]

23. Clinton never won the majority of the popular vote

Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in '92, and 47% in '96.

By all means listen to his advice, but take it with a grain of salt.

[xchrom]

24. a distubing trend in most recent elections

lack of voter turn out.
the huge turn out of 04 had as much to do with the election theft of 00 as anything else.
your point about listening with a grain of salt re: clinton is very wisely stated.
clarity of message and a show of strength for lefty principles would do a lot, i think, to counter act much of the confusion that the public views dems with.

[sangh0]

32. recent elections?

Did you just wake up? It's been going on for DECADES

And with candidates like DK, Sharpton, and Nadir, there was no reason for people to stay home because of a lack of liberal alternatives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. He Won 49.3% In 96 In A Three Man Race..

Even in the most optimistic case for Dole he doesn't get every single Perot vote in 96 if Perot doesn't run....

There's your fifty percent...


Same thing in 92 even if we give Papa Bush 60% of Perot's voters Clinton still gets a majority...


When you mention the Big Dawg's name mention it with respect baby because he might be the last Democratic president of our lifetime....

[looking glass]

33. Hypothetical

The assumption that the dynamics of a three-man race (either '92 or '96) can be normalized, simply by splitting Perot's vote totals, is erroneous. Perot's candidacy changed campaign strategies, speeches, debate prep, ad buys, and literally thousands of other things.

Nobody knows what the outcome would have been in a two-man race.

It is not disrespectful to state that President Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote. It is simply a fact.

[fujiyama]

34. Your statistics

regarding '96 are still wrong. DemocratSinceBirth is correct - Clinton got 49.3% in a three person race. While that's not a majority, it's hard to say how much he would have gotten had Perot not been in the race. It is possible he may have ended up getting a majority. He would have won still though and quite comfortably.

49.3% is the highest % a democrat recieved since Carter in '76...and that wasn't by much more (Carter got 50% IIRC). That too Carter's '76 victory was very narrow, hardly a landlide by any means. We have to look back to Johnson for a democrat that got more than 51% of the popular vote.

[Pepperbelly]

39. and how many Presidential elections have you won?

If you are like me, the znswer is precisely zero.

How could you or I reasonably determine what to take with a grain of salt since we have neither his experience nor knowledge base.

[billyskank]

25. I can see a point to it

I see the UK Labour Party storing similar trouble for its future. It was voted into office in 1997 for two main reasons: (1) a wave of popular revulsion at the conservative government that had been in power for 18 years, and (2) a cult of personality built around Tony Blair.

Seven and a half years into the Labour government, the wave of anti-conservative sentiment has dissipated (although the conservative party itself is still in the doldrums - people don't trust them either). That leaves Blair's personality cult as the only positive thing going for the Labour party. Blair himself has exacerbated this problem by governing as if his party and himself are non-different. His cabinet is eviscerated and his ministers are mostly ineffectual wastes of space with only a couple of exceptions.

The biggest problem with this is that the party has to be larger than its leader. The party will outlast the leader, and when the party becomes identified with its leader to this extent, once the leader departs (usually in disgrace; most political careers end in failure) the party is severely diminished. The Conservative party suffered the same fate when Thatcher was ousted, but I believe for the Labour party it will be even worse.

You don't have to look too hard to see why this applies to the Democratic party as well. The Democrats didn't win the two elections before George W Bush. Bill Clinton did. When Clinton left, the Democrats were diminished. That's their problem.

[The Wielding Truth]

29. If it had been up to me Clinton would have stayed our Pres. till

he didn't want it any more. Which from how we know him would have been his lifetime. Anyway, the constitution says no and I have to ride with that.
Clinton took a country from a small minded republic to a beacon of justice and good will and good business. He showed what a leader should be. He is smart and compassionate and charming with a strong sense of improving the lot of people he served. You honestly can not ask for more and still have him be human.
He just went through a rough operation and may off his game a little
but he did us proud and I would like to find another one like him around to take this country back and wake up the slave brains that are insanely following their strange leader. :think:

[littleleaguemom]

30. Even my Republican friends think Clinton could have been elected again

They also think he was the best thing that ever happened to Republicans (losing Congress, welfare, NAFTA, etc).