How did bill clinton win louisiana, kentucky, and states such as kentucky, west virginia, montana?
>>18248814Because the political dynamics of 1992 were different back then. Also he was governor of Arkansas
>>18248814Still a lot of older Southerners who voted Democrat. The younger generation by then were mostly Republicans.
>>18248814Both candidates and parties were very centrist and there really wasn't much party loyalty. Politics didn't become as divisive and set until Obama.
>>18248826>and there really wasn't much party loyaltythere was lol. it was taken as a given back then that Catholics, Jews, and blacks were all going to vote Democrat and Anglo Protestants were all going to vote Republican.
>>18248814Back when Virginia wasn't occupied by DC suburbs ;_;
>>18248831Blacks and Jews, yes. But most demographics were pretty split in the middle and would go either party depending on the candidate.
>>18248831>it was taken as a given back then that CatholicsThis is post-Roe. Bill Clinton won a plurality (44%) but notably not an absolute majority of the Catholic vote. HW won 35% of the Catholic vote and Ross Perot won 20% of the Catholic vote. Exit polls showed HW Bush had carried a narrow majority of Catholics against Dukakis in ‘88
>>18248814He was simply the GOAT.
>>18248814Because he was a Southerner and tough on crime. He was the last president to know how to play both sides. Democrats cannot win an election without a Southerner leading them, Obama was an exception because he was incredibly charismatic and messiah-like in 08.>>182488181992 was the last year where the map shifted for good thoughever, besides Florida. The West Coast and the Northeast definitively became Democratic territory while the South's transition to the Republicans was largely done (Clinton's wins in 92 and 96 were temporary and exceptional because, like I said, he was a Southerner)
>>18249607Biden was not a Southerner though but Northeastern?
>>18249625Fluke year because of covid
>>18249607>Obama was an exception because he was incredibly charismatic and messiah-like in 08.Any Dem except maybe John Edwards could’ve won ‘08.
>>18249649Dont be so sure, Obama made sure even the detritus of society were mobilized to vote him, twice. Especially among blacks who don't usually show up in droves
>>18249625Reality that Biden showed was if you run literally anything other than a old woman who cackles you can win.
>>18249625Not technically however his home state was actually an ex-slave state, his ancestors owned slaves, and he began his career as a disciple of Senate Dixiecrats.
>>18249679A ham sandwich could’ve beaten the party of Dubya in ‘08. You had Hillary putting on a southern accent that year every time she went down south and the rednecks were eating it up just like they did with her husband. The blacks were all behind her too in the leadup until Obama actually proved he could win over the white corn farmers in Iowa and be a viable candidate nationwide. Hillary was projected to win states, like Arkansas for instance, that Obama ultimately failed to win by virtue of his skin, and there wouldn’t have been an obama equivalent of “PUMA” turning out for McCain if she’d beaten Obama for the nomination
>>18249683It's true. But the Dem candidate must be a southerner, tough on crime, warm on religion and a performative pos who knows how to speak the language of the South and blacks or Boston liberals at the same time like Bill otherwise they'll always rely on flukes and false messiahs
>>18249705Hillary is a woman so you should be cautious. Projections mean nothing when you're still running to get elected by your own party. Sanders was beating Trump by the double digits in the 2016 polls but you can rest assured he'd be absolutely destroyed if he was chosen by the DNC because the GOP machine would then focus on him and crush him with his self-proclaimed socialist brand nationwide
>>18249725>comparing 2016 to 2008 Great Recession Fuck Dubya and anyone with an R next to their nameYeah we’re done here lol
>>18249625Regionalism doesnt really matter anymore
>>18249607>Obama was an exception because he was incredibly charismatic and messiah-like in 08.Thats because the grand majority of people had gotten sick of Dubya's shtick >source: I was thereThats not to say he didn't have his supporters, like myself at the time. But it was less and less overtime. However Obama's hard shift in the other direction ensured what was to be on the horizon.
>>18249725You seem to forget a sizeable minority of people started chirping about jews starting around that time. Pair that with socialism and figures like Lenin and the ghost of McCarthy start popping up in everyone's subconscious.
>>18249709JFK was not a Southerner though?
not too long ago michelle obama's go to excuse for not running was: "america isn't ready for a woman, look what happened twice!''has she acknowledged at all that Hillary had been stained with the epstein files, which now that they have been leaked, yeah she was there and was dressed up like a fucking marvel superhero and with kamala, as time has marched on, more and more from that side has double downed on kamala was simply not cut out for it. is michelle just a lazy black woman with no ambition
>>18249625Delaware is weird, not the South, but not really NE.
>>18249840aoc can't run. it goes against her religion
>>18248814Ross Perot was a spoiler, and George Bush Sr. wasn't even a nominal conservative, but a an anachronism for even his own time.
>>18249850The Bushes were never real conservatives they were always really New England statist liberals.
>>18249854Right, At least on paper, issues like abortion etc, Bush Sr. was worse.
>>18249850Ross Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush
>>18249805>pre-platform switch DemsRetard
>>18248814Four primary reasons: 1) Twelve years of Reagan and Bush had created a fatigue around the Republican party.2) The previous decades had featured a rising conservative tide and liberal retreat from the mainstream. Clinton was able to portray himself as a moderate while using his own party as a foil in his attempt to appeal to a broader swath of voters. 3) The Democratic party was a bigger tent than than it is now, ideologically speaking. There were quite a few traditional Democrats who had migrated to the Republican party, but we're willing to give a Southern moderate like Clinton a chance.4) Third party candidates drawing from both the Democratic and Republican party votes, but perhaps more from the Republicans in certain states in the South and mountain West.
>>18249955Democrats had controlled the House and Senate since 87, Bush was the only president along with Nixon whose own party never had either house of Congress his entire administration.
>>18250008Indeed. But then and now Congressional majorities don't command nearly the degree of public attention as the occupant of the White House.
>>18250008please don't forget that the late 80s-early 90s was a lot more liberal than people often remember, because Democrats had Congress and funded a lot of lefty slop during those years. especially environmentalist shit was being pushed hard when the first Bush was in office.
>>18250034Trump has been great for restoring a sensible liberal conservative balance. The 90s were responsible for alot if the decat we see in society today.
>>18250034By the same token, the late 90s was much more to the center-right since Clinton couldn't do anything but sign Republican bills.
>>18250042yes it was. feminist and enviromentalist slop was a lot more of a thing in the early 90s than 95 onward.
