2020 US Election (Part One)

[metatron]

Evidence tends to show that "Perot cost Bush the election" is a myth." In fact there is basically no evidence to support that claim, and lots to support the opposite.

The idea that Perot hurting Bush was a myth... is a myth.
And you thought we would accept an article - such as it is - by him as an argument for anything?
No.

When Steve Kornacki has something to say about electoral politics, investigating the opposite of what he says as potentially true or useful is a good idea.
You could have just as well handed us an article by Rush Limbaugh about how - supposedly - women clearly prefer men of girth.

I mean come on... it's not even well written. He stumbles over his own points. You could have written a McCase of a third the length and made the point better than Kornacki.

Sure man...he wasn't an outraged Republican wanting to tack GHWBush's hide to the door over taxes on millionaires or anything like that.

For anyone interested:

There were no GOP primaries to run in, realistically. As usual for the times most state parties defaulted to the sitting president as their guy. That was where Perot started saying he would run independently in protest, because he wanted some other Republican to at least challenge GHWB. When he didn't get his way, he surprised the GOP by following through on the threat.

Berzerker's report about 'drew from both parties' is accurate, but is simplified to the point of idiocy. Without Perot in the race Clinton had absolutely no shot, and everyone knew it at the time...except maybe Berzerker. Handfuls of Democrats joining the boatloads of disenchanted Republicans is well beside the point.

1. There were primaries in '92. Pat Buchanan ran in them and he did pretty well for being way out there and running against an incumbent.
David Duke was in it too. And he didn't do well, even for a clansman. I mean, heck, he got 10% in MS and that was his high tide.
Well, maybe Buchanan got his votes. *shrugemoji*
It was - ostensibly anyway - Bush looking so vulnerable that cued Perot to decide on running after the New Hampshire primary.

2. In that 22 minutes clip i mentioned a while ago the Doug Ford character asks "what am i running for?"
That's arguably a good problem to have in most cases. However if you have to ask "who am i running against?" and you're the incumbent, you're probably in trouble.
Bush had that problem and so did Carter. The latter had to win a nasty primary and then take on the Republican opponent and that guy's primary opponent who went all independent and was now stealing from Carter's support more than anything.
Now, of course even Anderson's vote total added doesn't give Carter the election. But it's the different optics and narrative that might have.

Careful ... because its funny in this context... I'll remind you guys that AOC in 2024 is only possible with a Trump win.

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here obviously... but the point is still undeniable and humorously ironic... So does that change anyone's analysis?

Erm... if you don't win this election you'll have a 6-3 Scotus for a decade or two and Trumpist Republicans will do nasty things to you by way of Article I Section 2 (3).

If you happen to lose, which would be extremely bad, i have a tip for you though:
Don't spend the first 30 months on a mythical quest for some piece of paper.
You can't have that with every presidency; that's bad politcs - and lackluster entertainment for the rest of us.

I do. At least I think that the Democrats, specifically Donna Brazile allowed themselves to become worried that the impeachment of Clinton made him toxic and Gore tried to distance himself from his best political asset, Clinton, as a result. So the voters were left with humdrum Gore alone and we got an election where folks felt "Meh" about both candidates, but at least Bush was "someone you'd like to have a beer with".

Gore should have won that election easily, but the impeachment left a stain on Clinton that alienated him from being able to help his party win. I think endless impeachment proceedings will similarly stain Trump and drive a wedge between the "establishment" and the base... which a candidate like Biden or Bernie, with lukewarm support, is going to need in order to win.

Clinton in '96 got 49.2
Gore in 2000 got 48.4
That's -0.8
Bush gained 7.2 over Dole, though.

*raisesbothhands*

Just sayin'...

And when there is no choice but to investigate and hold people to account, like Iran-Contra, everyone decides we should pretend that the president didn't known about it, because, well, that might be too partisan!

If we want those norms to change, then Democrats need to [...]

...start to have a problem with Jeffrey Toobin representing their views on CNN.

 

[Lexicus]

But your argument, taken to its logical extreme, would be that Congress investigating the president is pointless unless the investigations will end up removing him from office.

Nah, not really. Keeping corruption stuff in the news every so often is a different goal than impeachment, with a different set of tactics.

People won't learn anything new, public opinion won't change, so why bother?

I mean, yeah, welcome to my life.

 

[Ajidica]

Nah, not really. Keeping corruption stuff in the news every so often is a different goal than impeachment, with a different set of tactics.

@metalhead I agree with Lexicus here. The GOP has shown themselves to be more devoid of basic human decency to an extent I wouldn't have thought possible. As a result, impeachment isn't going to get through the Senate and it will be little more than a motivator for the Teahadists and Trump's Basket of Inexplicables to rally around.
Corruption hearings are a whole different matter. If anything, I think the Democrats are focusing too much on Trump's failings. Everybody knows Trump is a lying, bigoted, greedy, corrupt, boor. Some of his supporters like that, and other think it is a fair deal for tax cuts and Kavanaugh. I think the Democrats need to hammer home on the corruption and bad governance of Trump's advisors and Secretaries. Trump's supporters may be invested in him, but they aren't invested in his advisors. Make Trump go out and defend his obviously corrupt and incompetent advisors.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Erm... if you don't win this election you'll have a 6-3 Scotus for a decade or two and Trumpist Republicans will do nasty things to you by way of Article I Section 2 (3).
If you happen to lose, which would be extremely bad, i have a tip for you though:
Don't spend the first 30 months on a mythical quest for some piece of paper.
You can't have that with every presidency; that's bad politcs - and lackluster entertainment for the rest of us.
Clinton in '96 got 49.2
Gore in 2000 got 48.4
That's -0.8
Bush gained 7.2 over Dole, though.
*raisesbothhands*
Just sayin'...

I have no idea what you are getting at with any of this...

 

[Lexicus]

Trump's supporters may be invested in him, but they aren't invested in his advisors. Make Trump go out and defend his obviously corrupt and incompetent advisors.

Or at least, you know, get rid of them and put in new ones fast enough to slow down their wholesale destruction of the government.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker's report about 'drew from both parties' is accurate, but is simplified to the point of idiocy.

My position is purely anecdotal

Anecdotes > exit polls?

 

[Kyriakos]

I have no idea what you are getting at with any of this...

Don't vote establishment again, fam
Feel the bern (though likely he has been extinguished by now).

 

[onejayhawk]

I have no idea what you are getting at with any of this...

It's very involved rebuttal of metalhead's premise that Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election. They both have points but metalhead stays rebutted.

I am not sure what it has to do with 2016. No one in the Democratic poll is nearly as charismatic as Bill Clinton. Bernie is probably the closest and he's not very close. To win in 2016 the Democrats need another Clinton or Obama and they need another Perot or Wallace

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don't vote establishment again, fam
Feel the bern (though likely he has been extinguished by now).

I don't see how you get that from what he said

It's very involved rebuttal of metalhead's premise that Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election. They both have points but metalhead stays rebutted.

No I don't think that's right. Looking at it again, I think the point was that from 96' to 00' the Democrats did worse and the Republicans did better... which upon reflection, seems to bolster my original point... the impeachment of Clinton helped the Republicans.

So let's start impeachment proceedings against Trump and see what happens. Worst case scenario, we get an AOC run in 2024.

I am not sure what it has to do with 2016. No one in the Democratic poll is nearly as charismatic as Bill Clinton. Bernie is probably the closest and he's not very close. To win in 2016 the Democrats need another Clinton or Obama and they need another Perot or Wallace

Now this I actually tend to agree with... which incidentally also seems to indicate that you agree with @Timsup2nothin about Perot. Is that correct?

 

[metalhead]

@metalhead I agree with Lexicus here. The GOP has shown themselves to be more devoid of basic human decency to an extent I wouldn't have thought possible. As a result, impeachment isn't going to get through the Senate and it will be little more than a motivator for the Teahadists and Trump's Basket of Inexplicables to rally around.
Corruption hearings are a whole different matter. If anything, I think the Democrats are focusing too much on Trump's failings. Everybody knows Trump is a lying, bigoted, greedy, corrupt, boor. Some of his supporters like that, and other think it is a fair deal for tax cuts and Kavanaugh. I think the Democrats need to hammer home on the corruption and bad governance of Trump's advisors and Secretaries. Trump's supporters may be invested in him, but they aren't invested in his advisors. Make Trump go out and defend his obviously corrupt and incompetent advisors.

Trump won't defend anyone, he'll discard them as soon as they prove problematic for him, and find new ones that are less competent and more blindly loyal.

How are random hearings on "corruption" going to move the needle on anything? Who is going to tune in, or care? The purpose of this isn't removal, it's to make the case of Trump's criminality as clear as possible, and then get the GOP on record as opposed to removing an obviously criminal president, who violates the constitution daily, from office.

If the only potential downside is that "people will think it's partisan," I dunno how that's much of a downside. They'll say the same about corruption hearings, or anything else you try to do. So either public oversight is worthwhile, or it isn't.

 

[metalhead]

The idea that Perot hurting Bush was a myth... is a myth.
And you thought we would accept an article - such as it is - by him as an argument for anything?

I like how you trash the article but don't cite a single data point to refute it.

Try 538 then, if Kornacki is not to your taste. Only this time, if you want to refute it, make an actual argument.

Here is a less data-y take on why this is not true.

 

[Lexicus]

You aren't entertaining, you're the prop.

I mean the ancient aliens stuff is kind of entertaining.

 

[Kyriakos]

Guys, this is the Civilization forum. We are supposed to be Civilized
(it is the fanatics forum too, but i try to repress that detail)

 

[metatron]

I like how you trash the article but don't cite a single data point to refute it.

Of course i did.
Just read the post.

 

[metalhead]

Of course i did.
Just read the post.

I read it. The only point you made that was even remotely on topic in there was "Bush looking vulnerable is what caused Perot to run." Which has nothing to do with whether Bush would have won if Perot was not in the race, other than to state the obvious fact (supportive of my position) that Bush was a vulnerable incumbent.

 

[metatron]

I read it. The only point you made that was even remotely on topic in there was "Bush looking vulnerable is what caused Perot to run." Which has nothing to do with whether Bush would have won if Perot was not in the race, other than to state the obvious fact (supportive of my position) that Bush was a vulnerable incumbent.

I'm not rewriting that same post to accomodate the lack of charity by one party or another.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not rewriting that same post to accomodate the lack of charity by one party or another.

If you want to make a post about the actual topic, then you would have to write all new material anyway.

Although I also cited additional sources upthread, so you could, I dunno, respond to those instead.

 

[metatron]

Although I also cited additional sources upthread, so you could, I dunno, respond to those instead.

It's a 3000 post thread. Most of which is the same five people bickering with each other.

I made most of my stance clear in pst #36 anyway.

 

[metalhead]

It's a 3000 post thread. Most of which is the same five people bickering with each other.

I made most of my stance clear in pst #36 anyway.

I . . . what? The topic of discussion here was whether Ross Perot cost Bush the '92 election. Post 36 says nothing on this topic.

 

[rah]

Yeah, quite the stretch.