I
Ilovethe90's
Guest
...contradict that? (Long question)? I WILL NOT buy into the common assertion among republicans that Ross Perot won either of the elections for Clinton. He actually took from Clinton's base, and if you areinterested to know m reasoning with conservative news sources, you may feel free to PM me.
What we are in the middle of here is a repeat of very recent history. The recent history that I am referring to is the presidency of Bill Clinton. Now for a minute lets forget about political party and look at the similarities between Presidents number 42 and 44, Clinton and Obama.
1. These two men were both elected in a bad economy, with an unpopular incumbent Bush, and won in an electoral landslide.
2.Both have extreme charisma and promised change. They both campaigned as youthful leaders, and campaigned on change and an ailing economy.
3. But what matters more than any of the previous points is, the fact that BOTH of these men began their time in office with controversial health care reform, which dropped their approval ratings.
Clinton, like Obama, was widely criticizedd and many republicans expected him to be a one term guy. This was from 1993 through early 1995. Then the economy did a complete 180.Clinton's approval skyrocketed, from 1995 through 2001 he had a massive public approval rating. Re-elected in another electoral landslide where his opponents once said he wouldn't be re-elected at all. And this was despite the fact that he failed miserably with health care.
There are many theorys for the booming economy of the Go Go 90's. Maybe it was Clinton's policies, maybe the republican congress or maybe the dot com boom, or a combinationn of the three. Regardless of the reason, incumbent presidents NEVER loose their bid for re-election when the economy is good especially when their predecessor left it a bad one.
And that is exactly where Obama comes into play. The economy is about to steady itself, probably by Mid 2010. History tells us that this means re-election. Remember, people vote with their wallets in mind.
Fifteen years later, we are seeing a near identical scenario taking place. In an identical scenario, why don't people expect an identical Outcome? Meaning the election of 2012 going the same way as the election of '96 in the incumbents favor?
Voice in wilderness: It is a possibility they will gain. However, in 2010 there are not enough "Swing districts" for the republicans to take the majority, unlike1994.
What we are in the middle of here is a repeat of very recent history. The recent history that I am referring to is the presidency of Bill Clinton. Now for a minute lets forget about political party and look at the similarities between Presidents number 42 and 44, Clinton and Obama.
1. These two men were both elected in a bad economy, with an unpopular incumbent Bush, and won in an electoral landslide.
2.Both have extreme charisma and promised change. They both campaigned as youthful leaders, and campaigned on change and an ailing economy.
3. But what matters more than any of the previous points is, the fact that BOTH of these men began their time in office with controversial health care reform, which dropped their approval ratings.
Clinton, like Obama, was widely criticizedd and many republicans expected him to be a one term guy. This was from 1993 through early 1995. Then the economy did a complete 180.Clinton's approval skyrocketed, from 1995 through 2001 he had a massive public approval rating. Re-elected in another electoral landslide where his opponents once said he wouldn't be re-elected at all. And this was despite the fact that he failed miserably with health care.
There are many theorys for the booming economy of the Go Go 90's. Maybe it was Clinton's policies, maybe the republican congress or maybe the dot com boom, or a combinationn of the three. Regardless of the reason, incumbent presidents NEVER loose their bid for re-election when the economy is good especially when their predecessor left it a bad one.
And that is exactly where Obama comes into play. The economy is about to steady itself, probably by Mid 2010. History tells us that this means re-election. Remember, people vote with their wallets in mind.
Fifteen years later, we are seeing a near identical scenario taking place. In an identical scenario, why don't people expect an identical Outcome? Meaning the election of 2012 going the same way as the election of '96 in the incumbents favor?
Voice in wilderness: It is a possibility they will gain. However, in 2010 there are not enough "Swing districts" for the republicans to take the majority, unlike1994.