The four years since George H.W. Bush took office in January 1989 brought about a series of dramatic world events as communism crumbled, China crushed pro-democracy protestors in a temporary recursion to Maoist ideologies, and Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and its allies responded quickly and the Iraqi forces were routed in only six days of fighting. America's first real martial victory since World War II was a cause of celebration that washed away much of the lingering demoralization from the Vietnam War. For a while it seemed almost certain that Bush would be a two-term president.Events closer to home conspired against Bush when an economic recession began in the summer of 1990 that reversed eight years of continuous growth. The recession was mild compared to the early 1980s one, but it was still significant enough. Bush, primarily a foreign policy president, was uninformed on economic issues and could not offer any answers to them. Challengers quickly emerged, notably conservative columnist and former Reagan staffer Pat Buchanan. Controversial ex-Klansman David Duke also mounted a presidential bid. Bush had the endorsement of most Republican donors and former president Reagan. He swept through the primaries and along with Vice President Dan Quayle was renominated at the RNC in Houston on August 17-20.
Texas businessman Ross Perot mounted a third party campaign, the Independent ticket, playing on voters' distrust of establishment politicians and denunciation of the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement. Although Perot was initially highly successful, even leading Bush in the polls at times, he made the critical error of dropping out of the race in July and resuming his campaign six weeks later.No less than nine different Democrat candidates emerged, but the surprise winner was Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, who positioned himself as a moderate "New Democrat." He quickly routed competitors such as Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey in the primaries, with former California governor Jerry Brown being one of the last standing. Brown made a critical blunder when he addressed a Jewish political action committee in New York City and said he was considering picking controversial civil rights leader Jesse Jackson for his running mate. Jackson's use of anti-Semitic slurs that cost him his presidential bid eight years earlier were not easily forgotten.After Clinton beat Brown in his home turf, his nomination was secured when the Democrat convention was held in New York City on July 13-16. He chose as his running mate Tennessee Senator Al Gore. Gore had run for president four years earlier, but this time around had declined to after his son sustained serious injuries in a car accident. Although the choice of two Southerners on the ticket was unusual, Gore was widely viewed as a social conservative and a balancing act against Clinton's questionable personal life as he was facing questions about marital infidelity during the campaign.
The Clinton campaign focused on revitalizing the US economy and they charged the Reagan and Bush administrations with having accelerated the gap between the rich and poor. Bush meanwhile criticized Clinton's moral character and honesty--his personal life as well as his avoidance of military service in the Vietnam War while playing up the administration's foreign policy successes. But the economy was a bigger priority to voters than foreign policy and Bush's approval ratings sank even in strongly Republican areas while Clinton consistently polled at 50% or higher.The 68 year old Bush came off as tired and out-of-touch to voters. During a notorious visit to an Orlando, Florida supermarket in February, the president did not seem to realize what a grocery scanner was.Four debates were held; three presidential and one vice presidential. The presidential debates featured all three major candidates. In the first one, the result was seen as a victory for Perot while Clinton did best in the second debate and the third was seen as a deadlock.
On Election Day, Clinton carried the day with 370 electoral votes to Bush's 168 and 43% of the popular vote to 37%. Perot won 18% of the popular vote and no electoral votes. Clinton dominated the Northeast, Midwest, and half the South with Bush's votes mostly coming from lower population states that lacked major urban centers. Vermont, once one of the reddest states in the country, flipped Democrat and as of 2024 has yet to vote Republican in a presidential election again. Pennsylvania and Michigan flipped and did not vote Republican again until 2016, and Montana went Democrat for the last time as of 2024.Clinton's youthfulness and fresh image and message, especially his focus on the economy, had carried the day. Voter demographic surveys showed that he dominated all age groups, both genders, and most income brackets. Bush's voter base was generally wealthier, whiter, more rural, and more Protestant.
that was Democrat propaganda that Bush didn't know what a grocery scanner was, even if he likely hadn't shopped for his own groceries since the Eisenhower years
>>18408582>>18408580see, Slick Willy looked like this cool young-ish yuppie who ate at McDonalds while Bush just looked like your angry burger-flipping grandpa
>>18408576last Democrat to do fuck-all in the South
>>18408593Dixiecrats were still a thing until the 94 Republican revolution.
>>18408596Ha no they weren't. They stopped mattering at all after George Wallace was shot. The only places in 92 that still had any Dixiecrats were Louisiana and Georgia, and even in the latter Zell Miller wanted to stop memorializing the Confederacy since back in the 80s.
>>18408597Miller was a kind of cool dude>speaks at the 04 RNC>gives classical CDs to new mothers>challenged Chris Matthews to a duel>state funded college tuition for residents>said that the Confederacy lost and memorializing it was stupid
>>18408607it's funny to see how there were still Democrat counties in eastern WA, ID, and MT despite those places being Aryan Nation central
>>18408607Idpol issues weren't so much of a thing in 92.
>>18408616No it became too common for candidates and parties to demonize their opponents as in "They're against children", "They're against senior citizens", etc. Clinton started it and his successors took it to a new level.
As it is in a lot of cases, people on the right were angry with Bush for raising taxes. I don’t think they voted FOR Clinton but they did vote for Perot. In 96 Bob Dole was a throwaway candidate ala Alf Landon, nothing more.
>>18408626Dole was popular with the Republican base, unfortunately his prime years as a presidential candidate were in the 70s-80s and he didn't have a chance against Nixon or Reagan so they ran him as a sacrifice against the unbeatable Clinton.
>>18408628uh...no they gave him the nomination because the Republican candidate pool was much worse. it was also not a given that Clinton would be reelected especially after the Gingrich Revolution but the economy was soaring by 96 and Dole had next to no money after the primaries and couldn't fund his campaign.
>>18408576Don't get yourself wrong here, Clinton never had a Nixon in 72 or a Reagan landslide victory, he won all his states by a plurality aside from Arkansas.
>>18408613politics were much more centrist back then, today both parties are controlled by their most radical elements
Bush looked like a grumpy old man and he didn't really have a platform or message to run on.
>>18408637Tom Daschle was the Senate Minority leader in the early part of Bush's administration and he was a Democrat from South Dakota, a state that Democrats couldn't get arrested in now.
>>18408576Ross Perot was unique among third party candidates in that he ran on bread-and-butter issues instead of fringe ones like legalizing weed or repealing the 13th Amendment or whatever. He was also rich and self-funded his campaign, and he scared both major parties enough that they sent him threats if he didn't drop out.
>>18408637Only thing Republicucks are radical about is Israel dicksucking
>>18408647I think you meant can get arrested. Which is a comical overstatement.
To contextualize the impact of Ross Perot, perhaps it would be useful to look at another important figure during the campaign: Pat Buchanan. Buchanan today is known to be a fascist demagogue that has written one of the most shameful pieces of Hitler apologia ever published by an American press, but in 1992 he was considered a respectable enough Republican politician and was advocating for isolationist policy (similar to Perot in that respect).He contested Bush in the primary and nearly toppled him by just playing the 'Read My Lips' clip over and over and over again. The strategy prompted Bush's election team to switch from aggressively defending the taxation to apologizing for it and claiming it was a mistake.But Buchanan never stopped. He just kept going with it, and kept it in the news, long after he was defeated in the primary.Buchanan's media footprint was much larger than Perot's and he had a more substantial public profile. Probably the only reason Perot was able to hang his hat on the conversation about an alternative isolationist policy from the Republicans is because Buchanan installed that conversation to begin with and fueled it with the 'Read My Lips' clip, which smashed Bush's popular opinion rating from a high of 80% to a low of 20-something percent.
>>18408658tf is Buchanan a fascist demagogue?
>>18408662>1977writes that Hitler was a courageous man who knew his foes like Chamberlain and whatnot lacked courage>1992writes that desegregation would inevitably fail because blacks are genetically inferior>2007writes that Jews control the USA as a shadow power>has been a known friend and supporter of David Duke since the 80s>written on other occasions that the death toll of the Holocaust was exaggerated, that Franco saved Spain, and that Jim Crow was justified due to white superiorityall this was totally overlooked by Republicans or hand-waved away until he conflated the Iraq War with WW2, at that point the party pretty much ignored him and he has no real friends left outside David Duke and the Aryan Nation
Bush was a foreign policy president much like Eisenhower and Nixon, he wasn't sharp on economic issues and that was more important to voters by 92. The recession was pretty mild compared to the 79-82 one but it did play into Democrats' hands. Bush also leaned too hard into culture wars issues that were also fairly unimportant to voters. the recession was actually over by 92 but unemployment was fairly high, peaking at 7.8% in the summer.
further, the big trigger of the recession was cuts in defense spending with the Cold War coming to a close. defense and aerospace companies laid off literally thousands of people overnight.
>>18408582Clinton got back the suburban vote for the Democrats which was something they'd lost in 1968.
>>18408672when Bush was asked about how the national deficit personally affected the average American and he was at a loss to answer
>>18408672He stumbled into some very bad luck.>a recession which was not particularly severe but enough to be used against him by his opponent>LA Riots>Hurricane Andrew>the Republican Party being exhausted at the executive branch>on top of an energized, motivated Democrat Party that had been almost shut out of the White House for the last 24 years
there was a recession on top of the LA Riots and no new taxes, plus the 80s were over and any Reagan era political messaging was outdated and no longer relevant to the present
>>18408822I think it was less that than Bush seen as not quite filling Reagan's shoes. Yes, Reagan raised taxes too but he didn't publicize it. The left doesn't especially like Clinton because they consider him a sellout centrist especially after the 94 midterms, but Bush had neither of the two surrounding presidents' political acumen. Further, Bush had no experience in elected office prior to being president, he and Eisenhower were the only presidents from 1932 to 2012 that had not held a state or Federal level elected office prior to being president. He was a diplomat and CIA chief, not a campaigner, and he won on 88 off the back of the still popular Reagan and by running against a tomato can opponent.
it's hard for the same party to win 4x in a row, the Democrats held the White House for five election cycles during the FDR-Truman era but were inevitably tapped out by 1952 and needed a rest for a while
>>18408672he just looked like a cranky old dude. i mean the guy was pushing 70 and looked and acted like it too. it was the first election that a baby boomer was running for president while the last several presidents had been GI Generation guys so it looked like a generational shift.
He pressured Israel with withholding an aid package if they kept building settlements in the West Bank. He also publicly trashed on the Israeli Prime Minister Shamir, who used to be an Irgun member.So Clinton ran a campaign on how he wouldn't treat Israel like that and Bush Sr. lost 90% of the Jewish American vote. It is sort of similar to how Kennedy used an Anti-Castro posture to accumulate votes from the Cuban Diaspora in Florida.
>>18408662Buchanan's speech at the 92 RNC was the beginning of the party really adopting hateful and racist rhetoric.
>>18408819>a recession which was not particularly severe but>the words of a Millenial who was in diapers in 92Actually the economy 90-92 was pretty poor. It wasn't as bad as 79-82 or 2008-12 but it was nonetheless quite bad. Young college grads couldn't find work, lots of aerospace workers got cut thanks to the Cold War ending and ended up working at McDonalds, etc. Bush just didn't have answers, he vetoed an unemployment benefits bill passed by Congress and looked pretty disconnected from reality.
>>18408836Jews were always a majority Democrat bloc anyway so that doesn't hold water, /pol/.
Bush was cooked when Buchanan challenged him. Incumbent presidents challenged by their own party tend to lose, that's a bad sign.
>>18408847The recession actually lasted just a little over a year, from June 90 to August 91 and was lifting by 92 but Bush was a lousy campaigner who couldn't sell voters on it.
>>18408630Clinton could have been a one term president, he was quite unpopular in his first two years and the 94 Republican sweep didn't come out of the air.
>>18408871Clinton’s strength was very overstated, at least in 92, when he beat Bush by only about 3 million votes. To put that in perspective, Dukakis had been beaten by 7 million and Mondale by 16 million. As a percentage, Dukakis actually did better than Clinton at 45% over 43%.The reason he was elected was because 19% of the country voted for Perot, but that huge number is downplayed, which in my mind is connected to the shock Hillary Clinton loss in '16. Bush's timid brand of Northeastern Republicanism was disliked by a large chunk of the country. This was memory-holed, but that is what the swing vote always was.
>>18408576It is really strange nowadays Missouri used to be swing state until 2012 presidential elections
Bush was right though when he criticized trickle down economics.
>>18408896the 80s economic boom was what now?
>>18408895>2012last election they went Democrat was 96. by 2000 the Democrats had basically forgotten about rural and heartland state voters.
>>18408900Buying a few years of prosperity by selling out the middle class to corporations?
>>18408904Obama in 2008 won Indiana, Iowa and was close to winning Missouri
>>18408873there we go. Reagan's coalition never entirely warmed to Bush because they always had the faint sense that he was a liberal-leaning New Englander.
Bush didn't really want to win a second term anyway and everyone could see how bored he was throughout the campaign.
>>18408914dude's image and campaign rhetoric were still geared for the 80s electorate but it was a new decade
HW was a great foreign policy president>final collapse of Soviet communism>handles Tiananmen Square reasonably and ignores some of the McCarthyites in Congress who wanted to carry out a thermonuclear strike on China>Gulf War, obviouslyThat said he was not good at domestic policy aside from the Americans With Disabilities Act and updating/strengthening the Clean Air Act. His administration was basically just Reagan's third term but without Reagan's charisma. The recession was lifting by 92 but he failed to advertise it to voters and generally he looked tired and like he just didn't want to be there anymore.Also Clinton was young, he had that JFK effect and as a Southerner could avoid the Northeastern liberal image that sank Dukakis.
>>18408582my dad voted for Bush, he was a stockbroker back then and most of his colleagues went with him or Perot. Clinton voters were under 30s or committed Democrats. Perot voters were usually Reagan Democrats ie. union workers who crossed party lines and some liberal/moderate Republicans. Bush voters were committed Republicans.
>>18408576>democrats taking large parts of the South and basically the entire Midwest Weird to think that this was just around 30 years ago
>>18408930My dad voted for Bush somewhat hesitantly because he was ideologically closer to him than Clinton and knew Perot was not going to win. He was teaching at OSU-Marion back then and a lot of the campus liberals had mixed opinions on Clinton as they thought he wasn't lefty enough. Yes, the economy was improving during 92 but Bush wasn't a savvy politician and instead doubled down on foreign policy and culture wars stuff rather than play up the recovery from the recession.
>>18408936>He was teaching at OSU-Marion back then and a lot of the campus liberals had mixed opinions on Clinton as they thought he wasn't lefty enoughMeaning, what exactly? Not liberal enough on economics or social issues?
>>18408934As anon said, Democrats still had a rural/blue collar contingent in the 90s but by 2000 they totally forgot about those voters.
>>18408909Iowa had been a Democrat state since 88 and the results in those other states were mostly due to elevated black turnout.
>>18408939>Meaning, what exactly? Not liberal enough on economics or social issues?Not liberal enough on pretty much everything.
Easily broken down:Bush voters:>suburban middle class conservatives>Christfags>paleoconservatives>neoconsPerot voters:>blue collar workers>some paleoconservatives>people who disliked the two major parties out of principle>isolationistsClinton voters:>dudeweed people>LGBT>non-whites>liberals>centrists
I live in a heartland deep red state and most of the people I knew back then were Bush voters who considered Perot a lolcow. Keep in mind that these people would have just mindlessly pushed the R button in the voting booth regardless of who was running (still true here btw) and didn't know or care much about Bush's actual policies.That said I was in college back then and most of the professors were as liberal as you'd expect. They also considered Perot a lolcow and knew relatively little about Clinton, but they just couldn't vote for the other two guys on principle. As far as I remember Perot voters were edgelords who hated the two party system.
>>18408930The stereotype throughout the 90s was that Republicans were fuddy-duddy old guys who wanted you to go to church and jail you for smoking weed while Democrats were cool and appealed to Gen X.
didn't Perot run just to fuck Bush over and it was a personal grudge?
>>18408965Kind of. He considered Bush a New England carpetbagger and not a real Texan.
>>18408576close elections are better anyway as they compel the party in power to work harder and be more rational. landslides breed complacency and a greater chance of embracing extremist ideologies.
>>18408576what happened in Montana? last time the state went Democrat.
>>18408982Montana was a state that traditionally had a lot of union workers, which were still pulling for Democrats up until the 2000s. The Western states and Ohio saw Perot swipe a lot of Bush voters and Clinton appealed enough to working class voters to retain Ohio and Nevada in 96 (Colorado became Democrat since 08 for other reasons, namely mall hipsters in Denver). Despite his commanding nationwide win, he did do notably worse in almost every state west of the Mississippi in 96. Because that was essentially Perot’s base in 92– white rural voters, particularly in the West where there was less of historical union presence that could keep those voters loyal to Democrats in 92 like we saw in the Midwest.
disappointing thing about Clinton is he just kept the post war foreign policy even though he had a great opportunity to remove us from the neocon neolib polices with the collapse of world communism.Instead we just remained in NATO and kept most of our bases around the world.
>>18408909Indiana went Democrat by a larger margin than Missouri.
anyway, Montana was a more competitive state back then and was close to going Democrat in 08
>>18408576Ditto California, first election voting Democrat since 64 and it's remained so since.
>>18409007as has been established before, California was a Republican state in presidential elections from the 50s to 80s because of the Cold War and the state having a lot of MIC jobs but state level politics had been much more Democrat leaning especially since the 60s
>>18408995politics were a lot more centrist prior to the Internet when you just watched the network news or read mainstream magazines or newspapers which gave you an inoffensive middle of the road take. there were nutcase newsletters from libertarians, /pol/tards, communists, etc but they were fringe and most people never saw them.
>>18409019Meaning, what exactly
>>18408873to me it's proof the Electoral College is a fucking retarded system and should be abolished
>>18408995actually MT is the most unionized state in the West
Of third-party candidates who carried 0 states, Perot '92 is the highest ranked, and even higher than La Follette and Thurmond who did carry states.
>>18408576>1992How did the tragic events in the sweltering summer of that year affect the Presidential election?
>>18409113It's said that Nash's home state of Michigan flipped blue due to protest votes against Bush's inaction against the rapists.
You can argue that America reached its political and economic peak in Clinton Era. If so why is that era so rarely nostalgized contrary to 1980s and 1950s ?
>>18409218>economic peakDeindustrialization was well underway and the dot-com bubble carried the economy. And anyway it is nostalgized, many retards keep saying they miss "le comfy 90's" where there were supposedly no racial tensions and no "wokeness".
I wonder if the anon who constantly posts against the Electoral College in threads about Republican victories will show up now to denounce Clinton winning 69% of the Electoral College with only 43% of the popular vote.
>>18408909>>18408943Bush won Iowa in 2004. Also black turnout can't explain lilywhite red states like Montana Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Utah and Idaho swinging leftwards by double-digit percentage points from 2004 to 2008. Bush just sucked and Hillary would have probably won by a bigger margin than Obama(that's what the exit polls showed too).
>>18409108Never heard of Benson 1916 and Thomas 1932, wonder why they got over 2% of the vote
>>18408668they hated him for telling the truth
>>18408658>>18408662>>18408668>>18408840Buchanan was right and one day a statue of his will replace MLK's.
>>18409506Indeed, let the /his/tinxes cope and seethe that their sole purpose in life is to be vote cattle for the Democrats.
>>18409218probably because the 50s and 80s were Republican-dominated eras
>>18408593Frankly you're kind of retreaded if you're the Ds or Rs and you don't run a charismatic southerner as your candidate. Southoids are clannish little fucks who will always vote for one of their own over a Yankee and the rest of the country still simps for a classy southern gentleman.
>>18409620Arkansas didn't seem to care much for their former first lady
>>18409238>I wonder if the anon who constantly posts against the Electoral College in threads about Republican victories willYou mean LBJfag.>>18408907>>18408896This is him.
>>184096251. The anon you're replying to is a Pajeet and 2. She's a carpetbagger and not a real Southerner lol
>>18409625>lady>not a southerner, just married to onefound the problems
>>18409631>>18409632Well Bush was also a carpetbagger but the South went for him over Southerner Al Gore. What gives?
>>18409635Gore isn't charismatic in the slightest and is a boring little technocrat who belongs behind the scenes and not on the center stage.The less charismatic candidate has lost every time since Nixon vs Kennedy with the sole oddity being 2020 where Biden's mediocre charisma was able to beat out Trump's polarizing love him or hate him charisma.
>>18409638Ford was much more charismatic than Carter. Carter was self-sabotagin himself during the entire campaign and barely squeaked past the finish line thanks entirely to Ford's pardon of Nixon.
>>18409638>>18409644Nixon was not exactly known for his charisma either
>>18409649Still more than Humphrey or McGovern somehow
Also if we count primaries, Carter "whipped" Ted Kennedy's ass, Ford beat Reagan, and Mitt fucking Romney managed to win his party's nomination.
>>18409635The 2000 election marked the end of it being a guarantee that a presidential ticket would win their home state.
>>18409664Of all presidential and vice presidential candidates since 2000, only Gore and Romney did not carry their home states, so in fact it's still mostly true that you're usually guaranteed to, plus even in earlier times candidates sometimes still lost their home state like Adlai Stevenson.
>>18409664>>18409669>guarantee It was never a guarantee, the country was just not as polarized prior to 2000 for enough close election to occur to test it out. But we do know that California voted to the left of the national vote in both '72 and '84.
>>18409658Primaries don't count because weird ideologues and party wonks have. more power in them
>>18409669McGovern did not carry his home state however he performed better in it than his national average, overall his strongest region was his backyard in the Upper Midwest.
also one should mention that the Electoral College is a major asspull. if you look at the electoral maps for 72 and 84 you'd think Nixon and Reagan won 90% of the vote when it was like 60% and 57%.
Reminder that if both the Presidential and vice-Presidential nominees are from the same state then that state is forbidden from allocating them any electoral votes
>>18409685Yeah and when you look at '92 you'd think Clinton won like 70% but it was just a measly 43%, not even a majority! Clinton stole the Presidency!
>>18409686i know that. in the 2000 election Dick Cheney had to change his voter registration to Wyoming even though he'd lived in Texas since the early 90s because the electors weren't allowed to vote for a president and vice president from the same state.
>>18409690Imagine the third-party kino if it would somehow manage to happen
>>18409685That's still a huge blowout and were the parties reversed you would have a quite different take on it, LBJfag.
>>18409690He wasn't even seeking the job, he just met with Bush to discuss campaign plans at the latter's ranch and he asked if he wanted to be his running mate. Cheney was a little surprised but accepted the offer.
>>18409690>>18409701I wonder how he would react if you told him "in 24 years you would shill for an African/Indian woman against Donald Trump in the election"
>>18409644some say Ford lose because he refused to bail out NYC, but NYC has not voted Republican since Coolidge so i don't buy that idea
>>18409704Trump at the time was running for Reform nomination and was assuming a very liberal/progressive image. He attacked Buchanan by calling him homophobic, in 2000 no less. Cheney would probably think Trump will be the Democrat candidate and the brown woman will be a conservative firebrand like Thatcher.
I agree that HW looked like a tired old guy and didn't really want another term.
>>18408672>Bush also leaned too hard into culture wars issues that were also fairly unimportant to votersneeded to pander to batshit insane evangelicals
>>18408672>>18409732>bush said things that were correct but clinton was a southern white man so voters were blindsided>clinton of course ends up embracing the social liberalism bush warned aboutIf it's any consolation Bush would have probably cucked out too.
>>18409732I have mixed opinions on evangelicals. On one hand they're a useful shield against feminazis and LGBT, on the other they did, particularly during Dubya's administration, back some very dumb, counterproductive ideologies like banning stem cells and unrealistic ideas about abortion and contraception.
>>18409746>i agree with them about the slippery slope but i still want to camp somewhere in the middle of the slopeClassic.
>>18408578>>18408580>>18408582where do you go to find old political cartoons?
>>18409746>yfw abstinence onlyclearly these people don't remember being 15 themselves
>>18409732These are the same guys who want to ban all abortion and have legal child marriage.
>>18409765i never once heard a single mainstream evangelical figure, not Falwell or Robertson or any of those guys advocate child marriage
>>18409772He probably thinks David Koresh was leading mainstream Evangelical or something.
>>18409772that's legal in a lot of Latin America with parental consent and often results in very sad situations. a 12 or 13 yo girl gets married to an adult guy but he's really just a pedo/fetishist and dumps the girl as soon as she gets pregnant and does the same trick again with a different girl, and they're just children basically who are left bewildered because they thought the guy genuinely loved them.
>GIANT SUCKING SOUND
>>18408952It just took another 25 years for Buchanan and Perot's platforms to be mainstream.
>>18409788Nah it was always just waiting to be tapped up. What happened in 2016 was the Republican primary field being extremely crowded, Trump would have never made it otherwise. And secondly, Hillary convincing Biden not to run for the Dem nomination because "it was her turn" even though he was the obviously better pick and would have easily defeated Trump.
>>18409796Beg pardon? These people always existed, in the 70s they printed crank newsletters normal people never saw and mainstream news outlets were bland consensus centrism.
>>18409796>a huge variety of people are on x>this means that all kinds of agendas are being posted constantly>im going to frame all of these agendas as belonging to one specific group i hateIf you go to your typical evangelical today, or in 1992, they would not support child marriage.
>>18409760>heh, those kooky evangelicals, don't they know nothing existed before counter-culture?
>>18408924Foreign policy was definitely his strength, but with the end of the Cold War it seemed less relevant or important. In his memoirs Clinton admitted that if the Cold War hadn't ended Bush would have won in 92.
>>18409653Humphrey sure but I’d say McGovern was more charismatic than Nixon tbqh. His convention speech was more charismatic than anything Nixon ever did, only problem is no one saw it because it aired at 2 am or something like that
>>18409785Kek
>>18409625>Arkansas didn't seem to care much for their former first ladyHillary had a shelf life in the south that had expired by 2016, but in 2008 she enjoyed genuine popularity down there, and people up north were mocking her at the time for “code switching” her accent whenever she held an event in the south. If she’s the nominee in ‘08 instead of Obama, then the Dems likely add Arkansas, Missouri and West Virginia at the very least to their win column. All the polls had her beating McCain by a larger margin than Obama
>>18410003Nowadays the South (or Sun Belt) likely seems to be the new major electoral battleground after the midwest
>>18408961honestly that stereotype didn't actually change until the 2010s, arguably not until mid decade with the rise of trump
>>18409625I think people really memoryhole that she was a senator for New York in the 2000sbut even then she was seen as having strong southern coattails at least in 08, but by 16 those coattails were gone and she got nuked by her shitty campaigning, baggage from the clinton era, and new baggage from the obama years
>>18408961that changed under Dubya when the Republican brand was being a white trash dudebro who listened to Jason Aldean
>>18408576>China crushed pro-democracy protestors in a temporary recursion to Maoist ideologiesprotestors were actually Maoists protesting about introduction of capitalism in China....
>>18409113awful meme
>>18410553Hi wolfie
>>18409785Mexicans (including women) would never do that
