Skip to comments.Prepare Yourself for Obama's Second Term (Maybe we should fear a repeat of 1996...)
Posted on 11/18/2011 8:07:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For some time now, many conservatives have thought that President Obama is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. They think that chronic 9% unemployment, creeping inflation, and a foreign policy of self-abasement and weakness will doom Obama to a single term, and that he'll slink off with his tail between his legs in disgrace, just like Carter did after 1980.
Maybe they should be thinking about the election of 1996 instead.
Does anyone remember the disaster that was Bill Clinton's first term? The first attempt to put gays in the military, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics, and the "Assault Weapons" Ban? The proposal to raise taxes, increase spending, and downsize the military? Hillary arrogantly proclaiming that she was no little Tammy Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies? That she would revamp the entire health care system, by herself, in secret, without congressional input? Does anyone remember the Waco debacle, which led directly to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Clinton's allegation that it was the fault of talk radio? Does anyone remember the landslide Republican victory in the House in 1994, breaking forty straight years of Democratic control -- a massive rebuke of the Clinton administration?
And yet...Clinton got re-elected in 1996. He didn't just squeak by, either -- he won a crushing 379-159 victory in the Electoral College and beat the Republican ticket by eight and a half percent in the popular vote.
Conservatives were in shock. How could this happen? Answer: after the 1994 conservative revolution in the midterm elections, the Republican 1996 presidential campaign turned into the Revenge of the Flaming Moderates. The Republican primaries featured banal, milquetoast candidates like Lamar Alexander (whose campaign strategy was to don a flannel shirt and stand in front of a sign ...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In 1996, we had the following candidates:
Steve Forbes, Richard Lugar, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander and the doddering Washington insider Bob Dole.
Is the current bunch any better than the above?
Obama is no Bill Clinton.
Difference - Clinton “triangulated” - 0Bama did not.
and we now have an MSM that is even MORE in the tank for the Democrats than ever
It is possible, but not probable. The mood of the electorate is vastly different this time. 1996 things were ok. Plus, Obama moved left to find his lost base, while Clinton moved hard right to save his presidency. He signed on to tax cuts and welfare reform, co-opting some of the issues of the GOP. Obama has not done that. He’s fighting problems in his left flank as well as losing the independent voter. Unless there is a significant noticeable economic improvement, he has a tough battle to get back for four more years. It is possible, but not probable.
I doubt it, the clintoons were favorites among the rats...they were “victimized” by a right wing conspiracy....
Dumbo on the other hand is taking their money too with no results and very little to call their own but 15 trillion in debt
Interesting. But we’ll have a MUCH better feel in 8 months or so.
They just changed their name.
Nothing else has changed.
Exactly - plus, HillaryCare was “gone” as an issue by 1996.
the “professionals” and “established”
would have it that only romney can win.
i doubt it.
just the opposite.
cain could win.
We also had a strong 3rd party campaign by Ross Perot in both 1992 and 1996. I’m surprised the writer of this article didn’t mention Perot at all. Perot got 8% of the popular vote in 1996. He drained more votes from the Republicans in both ‘92 and ‘96 than he did from Democrats. Bill Clinton may still have been re-elected in ‘96, but it would have been a much closer election without Perot in the race.
Actually, Ubama/ACORN had the Democrat caucuses locked up. None of Hillary's delegates even had a chance to vote.
And, despite all of that, Clinton probably would have been defeated anyway in 1992 if Cap Weinberger hadn’t been indicted in an “October Surprise.”
PS. Visit Solyndra Central - www.facebook.com/pages/Solyndra-Central/203750986367386?sk=wall
I’m trying to get all the info on the scandal collected and available in one place...
BOB DOLE, that is the reason we lost.
People wanted that “young” fresh face lip biter. Not some tired establishment Republican.
Plus Clinton convinced everyone that he LOVED everyone.
I voted for Forbes, but then held my nose and voted for Dole.
No more nose holding or settling.
It’s like Republicans have been brainwashed. If they look good or feed some kind of leftist caused race guilt (where non is deserved). It’s time for Repubs to grow up. You woukd have thought that Christine O’Donnell and Sharon in NV would have provide a lesson. But apparently not. Repubs are getting ready to repeat the mistakes of 2010, but on the Presidential level.
Obama is no Clinton.
But it’s worthwhile to be mindful of given the current GHOP field.
s/b “GOP” (Not IHOP.)
I can't buy this analysis. A large portion of this 49% are receiving Social Security. Yet Barry isn't all that popular among the older age group--why should he be, he's screwing around with Medicare. Then you have the lifers on welfare. They don't come out to vote the same way that Tea Partiers do.
This is not to say that the welfare class is not a problem for the GOP candidate. But the idea that the O needs only 2% of the self-supporting is just plain wrong.
Yes, they are better. Much better. And the economy during Impeached42’s term was doing MUCH better than during Hussein.
I don’t buy this doom and gloom crap. Hussein is not loved by anyone except his base and the MEDIA. Independents are sick of him.
Remember how during the 2004 and 2008 campaigns the media would CONSTANTLY talk about the problems Bush and McCain had with Independents? I do.
Today, you NEVER see a network or local “news” source talking about independents. Know why? Because they are turning on Hussein in massive numbers.
0bummer is much worse than Clintoon.
The current crop of GOP candidates are marginally better.
As long as a third party spoiler doesn’t come along, we could be in decent shape to win.
“We also had a strong 3rd party campaign by Ross Perot”
one suggested correction:
We also had a stupid 3rd party campaign by Ross Perot
I have never forgiven that jug-eared idiot for inflicting clintoon on us for two terms. And YES, it was his fault.
My prayers are that some other delusional moron doesn’t float to the top of the bowl and give us zero 2.0.
What a lot of people overlook in the mid-1990s is that Bill Clinton actually signed most of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" into law -- including items like the Federal welfare reform that he had previously vetoed. By 1996 he was basically running as a moderate Republican candidate.
You think Barack Hussein Obama would do any such thing?
Given the candidates, the state of the GOP, the take my ball and go home attitude if my guy doesn’t get the nod, I am predicting here and now an Obama victory in the range of 274-290 EVs. The GOP keeps the House but loses a third of the Tea Party freshmen, and they get to 49 in the Senate.
The OKC bombing saved Bill Clinton.
RE: BOB DOLE, that is the reason we lost.
So, who is the 2012 version of Bob Dole?
If Romney is the nominee, Obamacare will be gone in 2012.
SCOTUS and obamacare. That’s the wild card.
RE: We also had a stupid 3rd party campaign by Ross Perot
Ron Paul might possibly be the 2012 version of Ross Perot...
Oil is trading over $100/barrel today, and the "official" unemployment rate is over 9% while the actual rate is probably north of 15%.
And I haven't even mentioned massive bank bailouts, enormous personal debt, and all the other issues that affect the attitudes of voters. Any comparison between 1996 and today is pretty silly when you consider just how far worse off most Americans are these days.
Yup. We can’t get “McCain’d” with Romney this time...
Dole hit the spending limits early in 1996 so he coudn’t run ads until the convention was done. Clinton didn’t face a primary challenge and had all those chinese $$$ flowing in. Clinton was able to advertise nd hd th bully pulpit. Dole was tapped out and had to work against Senate Democrats which made it difficult to get any kind of message out.
Plus...Dole was a gazillion years old when he ran and has an odd manner of speech. He was satirized to the point he became more of a joke than a candidate
But...the nail in the cofin was welfare reform. Once that was passed and Clinton bowed to pressure and finally signed it, Dole had no real issue to work with domestically. He was toast.
“Given the candidates, the state of the GOP, the take my ball and go home attitude if my guy doesnt get the nod, I am predicting here and now an Obama victory in the range of 274-290 EVs. The GOP keeps the House but loses a third of the Tea Party freshmen, and they get to 49 in the Senate.”
The wild card is the independents. Most of the moderate/independents I know are talking about staying home. If they are motivated to break one way or the other, that would be a deciding factor.
I can’t imagine what would motivate them, I think they’ll stay home in large numbers, and your prediction will come to pass.
Somehow I think Summer 2012 will be much quieter. Doesn't mean he won't win again, but the enthusiasm and excitement will be notably absent.
The formal and informal TEA Party organizations haven't even gotten started.
And the Obamah & Democrat supported OWS Movement has been an eye-opener to many uninformed Americans.
Interesting take. I suspect Mitt Romney would do far better among independents than most people realize. He’s exactly what many independents really look for in a candidate: a fart in the wind who can take any position from one end of the political spectrum to the other on most issues, depending on which way the wind blows.
“Conservatives were in shock. How could this happen? “
We ran Bob Dole, Clinton didnt run as a hard leftist, we had no huge international crisis, and the economy was not in the toilet.
How hard was that to figure out?
(If I'm wrong, I'll console myself that the next four years will destroy as many liberals as it does conservatives!)
Wasn’t the economy doing better?
it all depends on what happens in the next year.. I hope Obama sinks further and loses, but if the economy makes some strides, who knows. I would gladly take a bad economy until then to de-elect the marxist in chief.
Its like Republicans have been brainwashed. If they look good or feed some kind of leftist caused race guilt (where non is deserved). Its time for Repubs to grow u
WOW! You can be even be intellectually contradictory in the same post.
Bob Dole is the reason we lost in 1996 but you want Republicans to grow up and vote for Bob Dole 2.0 in 2012!
Just how many days have you been off your meds this time Marty?
RE: Wasnt the economy doing better?
In 1996 the stock market was on its boom phase, the tech bubble was on its way and unemployment was just 5%.
Clinton also wisely triangulated his positions essentialy taking off all the issues the Republicans have against him.
He listened to Dick Morris and signed Welfare Reform, capitals gains tax reduction and the budget was close to being balanced.
Do we see ANY of that today?
RE: you want Republicans to grow up and vote for Bob Dole 2.0 in 2012!
Who among the current lot is Bob dole 2.0 ?
2. When Bill Clinton took office unemployment was 7% in 1996 unemployment was at 5.6% and trending downward, it would be 5.2% by election day. When Obama took office unemployment was 7.8% now it is 9.0%, and is expected to be well over 8% on election day.
3. In 1996 Bill Clinton ran a positive campaign, a good economy, building a bridge to the 21st century etc. Obama can't run on his record, so he is running on class warfare, "do nothing congress". etc.
4. Bob Dole, although a decent person, was a lousy candidate. He had the charisma of a paper sack and next to the youthful and charismatic Clinton he looked old, tired and weak. Not matter who we nominate in 2012, they should be more charismatic and appealing than Dole.
(I'm not saying that Obama can't win. But the election is not going to be a repeat of 1996 if he does.)
RE: you want Republicans to grow up and vote for Bob Dole 2.0 in 2012!
Who among the current lot is Bob Dole 2.0 ?
Perot ran in 1992 and 1996.. He had a bigger impact in the 1992 election.. but still thanks to him we got Clinton.. total a$$Hat..
I like Bob Dole a stand up good guy but he is no NEWT! Newt is a bulldog. If he is the nominee he will rip at BO like nobody has to date. That said I believe the media is dug in deeper than ever before. That is a big concern when you are trying to stay on message and your opponent has a well oiled battle force protecting him. Big concern. My second concern is this... US! To date we have done a poor job at supporting our nominees. I knew the media would attack them but the conservative voters have piled on almost all of them. you can not win an election when you are attacked from your own side. Obama got his OWS to steer the news clear of his failures and the media is working away after the debates to demean every candidate that takes atop a poll. Bambi has been let off the hook at 39% and crawled back to 45% with just this alone. If we continue to be divided and help throw our guys under the bus he may just get back to 50% Articles like this are a warning.
All good points on why 2012 is NOT 1996 but please add:
2) The rise of conservative internet site
3) people in 2012 are PISSED
But we'll have just a subset of the same candidates we have now, and they will have been beaten like pinatas for 8 months by the MSM.
I fully expect the left to pull some shenanigans similar to the Perot fiasco.
0bama has, all his political career, pulled “something” in order to not have to run head to head with his opponent.
It’s the Chicago way.
Clinton could run on a strong economy. Obama cannot run on a weak economy - he can’t claim success, and he doesn’t have enough of the voters dependent on government to get a majority (like the PRI in Mexico did).