Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   "What if Bill Clinton had run for president in 1988?" In related news, The Watcher left his gig with Marvel Comics and is writing headlines for Huffington Post now   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
28
    More: Silly  
•       •       •

680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2007 at 12:43 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-10-01 10:49:28 AM  
I loved that series.
 
Gwendolyn
2007-10-01 11:00:59 AM  
When Clinton did run for president, in 1992, he was the same age as Obama is today. The claim by a white male that at age 42 he had as much experience as a 46-year-old black man probably will bring unintended consequences by firing up a larger Obama vote among African-Americans. The hubris of that statement invokes, all too neatly, the gripes by other white males in affirmative-action friendly workplaces across America; it's a way of speaking in code that most white Americans don't notice, but that black Americans understand painfully well.

What in the fark is this guy reaching for? Your experience is determined by what you've done. I think being a governor of a state give you a bit more executive experience than a Senator.

BTW the only two Senators to have gone straight from the Senate to the White House is Harding and Kennedy. Kennedy's dad cheated to get him in there.
 
Dr.Fey [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-10-01 12:30:28 PM  
Gwendolyn: What in the fark is this guy reaching for? Your experience is determined by what you've done. I think being a governor of a state give you a bit more executive experience than a Senator.

BTW the only two Senators to have gone straight from the Senate to the White House is Harding and Kennedy. Kennedy's dad cheated to get him in there.

...And despite the myopic vision of today claiming that GWB is worst.president.evar, those with a knowledge of history consider Harding to be the worst by far. His presidency was littered with scandals.

/and he may have been fatally poisoned by his wife at the Palace Hotel.
 
maxpeck
2007-10-01 12:52:16 PM  
Cigar sales (from the "special" humidor) would have been better in the late 80's?

That blue dress would have been nastier now?

/just saying...
 
Shaggy_C
2007-10-01 1:12:37 PM  
Dubya would not have been president. He go into 1600 on name recognition alone.
 
Manfred J. Hattan
2007-10-01 1:19:57 PM  
Shaggy_C: Dubya would not have been president. He go into 1600 on name recognition alone.

Clinton wasn't ready in 1988 -- he wasn't Clinton yet. He gave Dukakis' nominating speech and it was so long and boring it's said the crowd actually cheered when he said, "in conclusion." We still would have had Bush the first, and maybe for two terms because a loss in '88 would probably have killed Clinton's chances in '92.
 
MCStymie
2007-10-01 1:26:37 PM  
Someone call James Garfield's ghost and get him to possess someone and run THAT for president.
 
Jesus the 33rd
2007-10-01 1:38:01 PM  
+1
 
NASAM
2007-10-01 1:43:39 PM  
Manfred J. Hattan: Shaggy_C: Dubya would not have been president. He go into 1600 on name recognition alone.

Clinton wasn't ready in 1988 -- he wasn't Clinton yet. He gave Dukakis' nominating speech and it was so long and boring it's said the crowd actually cheered when he said, "in conclusion." We still would have had Bush the first, and maybe for two terms because a loss in '88 would probably have killed Clinton's chances in '92.

The only reason Clinton won in '92 was because of Perot.
 
Amy Sly
2007-10-01 1:54:20 PM  
"What if Bill Clinton had run for president in 1988?"

Dark Phoenix would have killed all the X-men?

(So cool when she reversed the "fast-ball special" in mid-flight and turned Colossus back to flesh to get stuck by Wolverine.

/geek
//obvious
 
Pro Zack
2007-10-01 1:58:29 PM  
Dr.Fey: ...And despite the myopic vision of today claiming that GWB is worst.president.evar, those with a knowledge of history consider Harding to be the worst by far.

to be fair, most of the people on Fark have only known one president.

and it's Cool to dis Tha Man!
 
Dawg47
2007-10-01 2:09:28 PM  
NASAM:
The only reason Clinton won in '92 was because of Perot.

Maybe Perot wouldn't have had a foothold in the race if GHWB wasn't a blundering, awkward idiot. Modern politics requires charismatic leaders. Bush was frigid and unlikable. Clinton was young and energetic, and represented change. Besides, a lot of the wingnuts voting for Perot wouldn't have shown up otherwise.

Clinton had 100 electoral votes to spare. I'd be real curious to see where you think Perot specifically lost states for Bush. Looking at the map and the '96 election results, I just don't see it.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-10-01 2:41:41 PM  
Dawg47: I'd be real curious to see where you think Perot specifically lost states for Bush.

It's hard to quantify -- Perot didn't win any states so he didn't get any electoral votes.

BUT -- the general consensus on the popular vote is as follows:

Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37.4%
Perot: 18.9%
Others: .7%

Perot ran independently with the express purpose of being an alternative to the GOP, so the general assumption is that most of his votes would have gone to Bush instead.

But let's be really generous and say 5% of the voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run and the other 13.9% would have gone to Bush--he still would have won handily. In fact, he would got a majority in the popular vote, which Clinton didn't.

You younger Farkers may not remember that before the election in 2000, Clinton's victory in 1992 was one of the most bitter, ugly elections in history. The rage the DNC had for Nader in 2000 is nothing -- NOTHING -- compared to the GOP's apoplectic, vein-popping, spittle-spewing fury at Perot for handing the White House to Clinton.

It was, IIRC correctly, the first time in history a candidate won the White House without also winning the popular vote, and by a margin enormously wider than the 48.something % Bush got in 2000. The only reason Nader's measly 2 percent of the vote made any difference is because the margin in Florida was so razor-thin. But Perot walked off with nearly a fifth of popular vote--the fact that Bush would have won otherwise was never really in doubt.

Yes, I know the only reasons that bizarre little Ferengi got even one vote is because Bush 41 violated his campaign promise not to raise taxes and squandered the high approval he had after the Gulf War; not to mention the fact that Perot paid for his own campaign.

But the same argument could be made against Nader--that if the Dems were doing what folks wanted, no one would even listen to the guy.

Doesn't matter--no one remembers that about Nader OR Perot. All they remember is that they split one of the parties badly enough to tilt the election and are widely hated for it.
 
NASAM
2007-10-01 2:51:35 PM  
Dawg47: NASAM:
The only reason Clinton won in '92 was because of Perot.

Maybe Perot wouldn't have had a foothold in the race if GHWB wasn't a blundering, awkward idiot. Modern politics requires charismatic leaders. Bush was frigid and unlikable. Clinton was young and energetic, and represented change. Besides, a lot of the wingnuts voting for Perot wouldn't have shown up otherwise.

Clinton had 100 electoral votes to spare. I'd be real curious to see where you think Perot specifically lost states for Bush. Looking at the map and the '96 election results, I just don't see it.

I agree GHWB was a blundering, awkward idiot. But he had a high approval rating coming off the Gulf War, and most people thought that he would cruise to re-election. The recession and "NO NEW TAXES" hurt him badly.

To answer you question, I think Perot definately cost Bush Georgia (C-43% B-42% P-13%), Ohio (40-38-20), Kentucky (44-41-13), Louisiana (45-40-11), Iowa (43-37-18) Montana (37-35-26), Nevada (37-34-26), and possibly New Jersey (42-40-15), Tennessee (47-42-10) and Colorado (40-35-23).
That's a 99 electoral swing.

So, yeah, maybe my original post was a bit of hyperbole, to say Perot is the ONLY reason Clinton won. But I think GWB would've had a very good chance of re-election if Perot wasn't in the mix.
 
luckybastard
2007-10-01 2:51:59 PM  
Dirk Pitt doesn't agree, Al.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-10-01 2:55:54 PM  
Pro Zack: to be fair, most of the people on Fark have only known one president.

Yeesh--put me down for nine.

And get off my lawn.
 
Bird3149
2007-10-01 3:31:15 PM  
Manfred J. Hattan: Shaggy_C: Dubya would not have been president. He go into 1600 on name recognition alone.

Clinton wasn't ready in 1988 -- he wasn't Clinton yet. He gave Dukakis' nominating speech and it was so long and boring it's said the crowd actually cheered when he said, "in conclusion." We still would have had Bush the first, and maybe for two terms because a loss in '88 would probably have killed Clinton's chances in '92.

You are absolutely correct, dude. I came here to say the very same thing.
 
EvelFarknievel
2007-10-01 3:32:19 PM  
[image from i82.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
McManus_brothers
2007-10-01 4:38:52 PM  
So will Ron Paul be the Ross Perot of 2008? Seems likely to me.
 
karasoth
2007-10-01 4:54:14 PM  
I worked for the Perot campaign in Florida so I am getting a kick out of these replies

in *FLORIDA* half the Perotista's were former Democrats
 
TypoFlyspray
2007-10-01 4:56:11 PM  
All questions of who should be president aside, that was a really well written article. Still not planning to vote Obama in the primary. Or Hillary. Dole has my vote to lose. (Clinton and Obama are nearly identical from where I sit. It will be one of them, so I am going to vote for the Guy I actually like.)

Dr.Fey: ...those with a knowledge of history consider Harding to be the worst by far. His presidency was littered with scandals.

I agree, and I think his heirs (if there are any) are celebrating as post presidency analysis of the Bush Debacle lifts Harding out of the Basement.

Dr.Fey: /and he may have been fatally poisoned by his wife

Laura, are you listening, dearie.

Manfred J. Hattan: Clinton wasn't ready in 1988 -- he wasn't Clinton yet. He gave Dukakis' nominating speech and it was so long and boring it's said the crowd actually cheered when he said, "in conclusion."

Sadly, that's absolutely right. Bill learned from that speach how not to work a crowc, and then learned from being Governor how to do it right. That said, had he decided to run, he may possibly have learned well enough in thumping Docockis to have out orated Bush the Elder, who was no James K. Polk, stump wise (and still beats his dumbest little boy all hollow).

NASAM: So, yeah, maybe my original post was a bit of hyperbole, to say Perot is the ONLY reason Clinton won. But I think GWB would've had a very good chance of re-election if Perot wasn't in the mix

Thank you. By saying that you allow me to agree with you insofar as it goes. I think that Clinton might possibly have been able to beat Bush I in 88, though. Poppie hadn't come off of the Gulf War yet, so he didn't have that going for him. What he did have was Veep incumbency. Coming off of the Regan injection of religion into politics, I think Bill might have been able to run a very different campaign than he ran in 1992. On the other hand this is kind of like what if Germany had gone forward with Operation Sea Lion and waited for the knife in the back from Stalin before turning on Russia. The world would be different, but no one knows how.
 
karasoth
2007-10-01 4:56:51 PM  
Also if you read Dick Morris's account

(and while he has had a falling out with the Clintons I don't have a single problem believing this is true) that in the run up to a possible 88 bid that Bill had far more "loose" women to contend with. and he spent three years tying those problems down.

*IF* that is true imagine MASSIVE BIMBO ERUPTIONS + the Rob Loewe Sex tape

It would have been a major implosion if Bill ran in 88
 
karasoth
2007-10-01 5:01:16 PM  
On the other hand this is kind of like what if Germany had gone forward with Operation Sea Lion and waited for the knife in the back from Stalin before turning on Russia. The world would be different, but no one knows how.

ONLY if the Alien Space Bats were involved TypoFlyspray
/A.H.W-I represent
 
NotoriousW.O.P
2007-10-01 5:06:44 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom:
It was, IIRC correctly, the first time in history a candidate won the White House without also winning the popular vote, and by a margin enormously wider than the 48.something % Bush got in 2000. The only reason Nader's measly 2 percent of the vote made any difference is because the margin in Florida was so razor-thin. But Perot walked off with nearly a fifth of popular vote--the fact that Bush would have won otherwise was never really in doubt.


Nope, Rutherford B. Hayes become president without winning the popular vote in 1877.
In fact, Clinton wasn't even the first president to get elected with a plurality, not a majority. Woodrow Wilson was elected with 42 percent of the vote in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans by forming the Progressive (aka Bull Moose) Party.
Otherwise, salient points all. Republicans hated Clinton, and hated Perot even more for siphoning votes off of them.

/History nerd
 
karasoth
2007-10-01 5:09:18 PM  
NotoriousW.O.P

but havin seen the insides of the Perot org in 92 and in 96 here in Florida.. they weren't republicans dude

in 2000 even less so
 
evilboyevil
2007-10-01 6:06:46 PM  
Galactus would have defeated the Silver Surfer and the Fantastic Four and eaten the Earth?
 
Aexia
2007-10-01 8:40:22 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Perot ran independently with the express purpose of being an alternative to the GOP, so the general assumption is that most of his votes would have gone to Bush instead.

But let's be really generous and say 5% of the voters would have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run and the other 13.9% would have gone to Bush--he still would have won handily. In fact, he would got a majority in the popular vote, which Clinton didn't.

I don't have any links handy but most of the surveys I've seen have said that Perot voters would've split fairly evenly between Bush and Clinton.
 
halfwaytoheaven
2007-10-02 12:02:21 AM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Lincoln got something like 37% of the popular vote in 1860. Narrow margins in the northern states, didn't even appear on the ballot in the south. I think that's the record.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more stories with less ads? Try

TotalFark

It's what the cool kids are doing.
It also helps us pay the bills.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.