How did the Democratic candidates look in June of 91?

[pstokely]

Or in June of 03?

[Art_from_Ark]

1. I don't know about June of '91

but certainly by early 1992 the media reports I remember were focusing on Clinton's alleged sex scandals.

[karynnj]

6. Alledged?? He pretty much conceded some truth to them, but defined them as in the "past"

This is like referring to Anthony Weiner's "alledged sexting".

[Art_from_Ark]

8. DId he?

I don't remember him admitting to the Gennifer Flowers allegations in early '92-- he finally admitted in 1998.

Also, Clinton denied the Paula Jones allegations

"Paula Corbin Jones filed suit in 1994, alleging that Bill Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel room three years earlier, when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee.

From the start, Clinton denied any wrongdoing. He accused Jones of being an opportunist who went public with her story to make money and harm him politically."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm

So at the time, they were allegations.

[leftynyc]

9. He didn't mention her name

but I remember a 60 minutes episode where he admitted having failed as a husband (or something like that). Everyone assumed he was speaking about Flowers.

[Art_from_Ark]

10. Having an affair and "failing as a husband"

are not necessarily mutually inclusive. There are many ways one can "fail as a husband" without going anywhere near another woman. For examples, please refer to the Roger Miller song "Dang Me".

[karynnj]

12. Context is everything here

The question was on infidelity. He answered that he had "caused pain in his marriage". Hillary said "You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together. And you know, if that's not enough for people, then heck, don't vote for him. http://www.qotd.org/search/search.html?aid=7759&page=6

No man, who had NOT had an affair, would have answered that question ambiguously - the answer would have bee a straight forward "No, there is nothing to that" or "I have been faithful to (wife's name)".

At the time of that interview, it was very clear that Bill Clinton had a serious problem - it was clear that he had had an affair. BOTH his and Hillary's answers are essentially - it was in the past and we have gotten past it and do not intend to say more than we have". In essence, the 1992 media and voters then gave the Clintons a pass on this issue considering it not important. This would not have happened if he were not the media favorite.

I suspect that might have continued to be the case for politicians if Clinton, humbled and embarrassed by having to deal with this in the primaries, had held himself to higher standards in the White House.

[leftynyc]

13. I understand that, however

this was days after the Gennifer Flowers tapes came to light and it was obvious that was what he was referring to.

[karynnj]

11. Paula Jones was AFTER 1992 - as your own quote suggests

What I am speaking of is that Bill Clinton and Hillary went on 60 minutes and he said that he "had caused pain in his marriage" That was in reference to questions on Gennifer Flowers. Add in Hillary Clinton's response, it was clear there was something there.(He did deny particulars - arguing that the tape was in some way manipulated, which it may well have been. However, the tape did show that Clinton's earlier dismissal of the issue was not the whole truth.

Obviously, in speaking of 1992 and what was out there on Clinton, I was not speaking of Paula Jones - they had not even been whispered then.

[rpannier]

2. IN 91 I thought we looked fairly weak

Brown, Tsongas, Clinton, Harkin, Brown and Bob Kerry

[scheming daemons]

3. It was so bad, Brown was there twice

;-)

[rpannier]

23. I voted for Jerry

As a former Chicagoan -- Vote early and often

[JoePhilly]

4. That group was much stronger than what the GOP has on deck.

[karynnj]

5. I somewhat agree - and I like many, were waiting for Cumo to decide

(It was Bob Kerrey, not Kerry.) I was impressed with Brown and especially Tsongus after reading more about them. The NYT magazine had a cover article on Bill Clinton that was full of praise for him and Hillary that I think was in 1990. I was disappointed when I read more about him elsewhere, but it would have been hard to sustain the hype of that article. After Flowers and the draft, where his first responses were lies or incomplete truth, I really was genuinely ABC for the nomination - even though I did see the charisma and media fascination. (Note - this is the correct use of that - unlike Carville and Begala who UNHELPFULLY applied it to Kerry, when he was the Democratic nominee.)

In mid 2003, my only problem was that there were two New England candidates - either of which I was completely happy to have as the nominee. Either would be the candidate I was happiest to have selected since I vote for McGovern, My concern was that they would split the liberal/anti-war vote and we would end up with Lieberman. (There were also stories that suggested that Gore could enter ad I was quite willing to support him, eve though I thoroughly disliked him in 1998 and was rather unimpressed by his 2000 campaign (not yet seeing how big a thumb the media was putting on the scale.)

It is harder to look at the Republicans and think who is strong. This is especially true as things that they do in the primary could hurt in the general. (Things like Romney, while still saying climate change is real and that it affected by man, proposes doing nothing. ) I know it will be unpopular here, but I think that Romney is not weaker than Clinton on the record as governor. Arkansas always rank at the bottom - and more than a decade of Clinton as Governor did not change that. Clinton spoke of a signature piece of legislation on education, but Arkansas still was at the bottom. Romney signed the healthcare bill that really was a model for the national bill. He also is given credit for cleaning up the scandal plagued Olympics and as a successful businessman - though his company actually bought companies, fired people and sold off what was profitable. Luckily for us, Romney seems to not have the charisma and sparkle Clinton did. BUT, I think Obama is stronger than GHWB was in 1992 and there is no Perot equivalent bashing him continuously.

There are so many people in the Republican field now. There are many who really are not viable - including some like Palin, Cain, Bachman, and Gingrich. I seriously doubt the nominee will be one of them and they will likely provide all the big gaffes and crises in the primary. Anyone getting the nomination is suddenly seen as having more stature.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Very good analysis karynnj, I have a question for you about 1992

I was all of four years old when those primaries were going on, so obviously I have no conscious memory of them. Why, in your opinion, did Bob Kerrey never gain much traction? He's an incredibly charismatic guy and certainly had the military background that Clinton didn't.

[karynnj]

26. The media MUCH preferred Clinton and played him up

Some of the coverage of Kerrey telling an inappropriate joke on lesbians. In addition, Kerrey really went after Bill Clinton on the draft issues. I think that backfired in a Democratic primary, where most sympathized with people who avoided the draft however they could. (He likely would have been smarter if he took dredit for his medal of honor and went after Clinton just on lying about how he avoided the draft - and pointed out he lied on Flowers too.)The media also called Kerrey a loose cannon.

I have met Bob Kerrey, because one daughter went to New School. He is somewhat charismatic, but far less so that John Kerry in person. In 1992, I think both Brown and Clinton were more charismatic. Not to mention, Kerrey was a pretty conservative Democrat - even more so than Clinton.

As to military experience, there was no war - so it was nothing like it would have been in 2004 or 2008.

[Jennicut]

7. I remember some people feeling Poppy Bush was getting out of touch

with people but maybe that happened more in the fall into the next year. Clinton was dealing with his scandals and looked like he might self destruct. So, both parties looked like they had issues. I was 16 and just starting to follow politics. I remember during the summer of 92 watching the Repub National Convention and it was at that moment that I vowed never to vote for a Repub.

[aaaaaa5a]

14. Here is info from Gallup in 1991

Gallup poll April 1991



Lloyd Bentsen (40% favorable/25% unfavorable)

Bill Clinton (15%/12%)

Mario Cuomo (48%/22%)

Richard Gephardt (49%/16%)

Al Gore (41%/16%)

Jesse Jackson (42%/52%)

Dave McCurdy (7%/12%)

George McGovern (36%/39%)

George Mitchell (26%/13%)

Charles Robb (17%/11%

Stephen Solarz (12%/12%)

Paul Tsongas (15%/12%)

Douglas Wilder (25%/14%)

Not all of those candidates ran in 1991, but at the time they were considered the contenders.

None of the candidates who ran had an especially strong public profile relative to George H.W. Bush (80% favorable, 19% unfavorable in a July 1991 ABC poll). And yet Bill Clinton, who started out with relatively modest numbers (15% favorable/12% unfavorable), ended up unseating a president who many thought would be unbeatable.



My take…
The difference between 1991 and now is that Bush had an artificially high approval rating because of the first Gulf War. Obama does not have any artificial numbers built into his approval rating. Also, as you can see based on the low response rates, many of the Democrats like Bill Clinton did not poll well because they were unknown, not because they were disliked. This means there was room to grow. Today, everybody knows who Romney and Palin are, so there is no room for them to grow, making todays numbers a more accurate portrayal of where the race is compared to numbers from 1991.

[tishaLA]

15. I remember how much I wanted Cuomo to run

....but I don't remember ANYBODY talking about Wilder. Of course, I was young and less plugged in back then, too.

It's hard to believe Gephardt had that kind of support.

[aaaaaa5a]

16. Gephardt is like Al Gore

He is a man that will go to his grave wondering "what could have been?"

He was a big early favorite in 1988. And then decided against a 1992 run (when he probably would have won the nomination)


Gephardt was a real big labor guy. Many of the trade deals that went through in the 1990s that hurt the country, probably would not have happened had Gephardt been president.


I will never understand how Dukakis beat Gore and Gephardt in 1988. Our party is loaded with a sad history of not nominating the best, most winnable candidates for a general election. Thankfully, this year the GOP may have that problem themselves, and that could help us in 2012.

[davidpdx]

25. Another difference is that although we had some 24 hour news coverage then

It was very limited. Now there are half a dozen networks that run news all day, internet, cell phones, Facebook, etc.

[aaaaaa5a]

27. Good call.

Thats another reason why 1991 and today don't really sack up.

In 1991, there wasn't as much information available. Therefore an unknown or new candidate was more likely to poll lower. Today information is everywhere. And there is at least one major news network specifically geared to getting a Republican elected. Therefore the poll numbers are more reliable. People know about the candidates at this point in the race now, than they did in 1991.

[former9thward]

17. In June of 1991 Clinton hadn't even annouced.

He did not announce until October.

[frazzled]

18. I was a Harkin supporter early on

I remember standing for him in the Minnesota caucus--my first caucus experience ever.

[aaaaaa5a]

21. Harkin use to have a great tag line on his speeches when campaigning in Iowa..

He use to say….

"If we run a Republican against the Republicans, a Republican is guaranteed to win every time!"



Sometimes I think we took his campaign slogan and alliterated it to…


If we run our government like a Republican, to appease Republicans, then we are guaranteed a Republican result every time

[Avant Guardian]

19. At this point polls are theoretical

"What if..."

[WI_DEM]

20. In '95 Dole was leading Clinton by 8-points. So far, Obama leads or ties all his opponents.

[aaaaaa5a]

22. November 1995… Dole 46%-Clinton 39%

Here's a poll just about 1 year out from the Presidential election of 1996

Dole 46%
Clinton 39%

From the article:

Conducted by Mason-Dixon Political Research Inc., the Sentinel survey shows that 46 percent of the respondents support Dole while 39 percent back Clinton and 15 percent remain undecided.

The findings were based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 9 and 10 with 405 registered voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

''If Clinton needs Florida to be re-elected, he could easily be a one-term president,'' said Mason-Dixon vice president Robert Joffee. ''And Dole is solidifying his lead over the Republican pack.''


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-11-16/news/9511161008_1_phil-gramm-clinton-in-florida-dole

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

28. "Campaign '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush"

That was an actual SNL skit in fall of '91.
see here: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91edebate.phtml

It was assumed that Poppy Bush was invincible and that the Dems were going to lose the White House for the fourth time in a row.
It wasn't until early '92 that people began to question whether he would be re-elected.