Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - history, not news or political science...

guy44 · 01-31-2008, 09:32 PM

I dunno. There's a lot of big, big differences between the 1996 Presidential race and 2008. For one, of course, 1996 was Clinton's year from the start, and the Republicans were pretty much just fighting to be clobbered in the general. This year is, obviously, quite open as no sitting President or Vice President is in the running.

As for the specific examples, Forbes was really much more like Romney than Guiliani. Forbes and Romney (at least early in the primary, and again in Michigan) ran as socially moderate conservative CEO candidates. Obviously Romney tried very hard to pretend he was a socially conservative theocon for a few months, but I think this comparison holds up better than Forbes:Guiliani. America's Mayor didn't really run on economic conservatism or social liberalism, but rather 9/11 9/11 9/11 - almost like a one-issue third party candidate.

I'm not sure there is a good Phil Gramm comparison amongst the current bunch, as you nailed the fact that he had an odd combination of being a respected Washington Establishment member as well as a pretty skeezy dude.

Buchanan actually parallels better, I think, with Tancredo/Hunter, as his isolationist far-right rhetoric was displayed far more prominently than any populist viewpoints he has.

McCain and Dole are the most obvious pairing, in that both were probably the most famous Republican senators of their time when they ran (as well as war heroes to boot). But Dole was very much Mr. Establishment, while I think McCain obviously has a lot of detractors amongst the Republican base for a few of his stances. Also, Dole was really just a Senior Legislator Guy, like Reid or Frist, while McCain has already run for President and has the entire mainstream media apparatus in his thrall.

Frankly, though, this race is much different than 1996. The GOP is split in the primary down its main factional lines: theocon (Huckabee), neocon (McCain, Guiliani), moneycon (Romney), and fringe libertarian (Paul), in a way that wasn't evident at all 12 years ago. The country is in a much worse place, and quite frankly, the GOP got seven years with almost complete control of the government and screwed the pooch so badly that this year looks like it could be a generational shift away from the Republicans to the Democrats.

Also, in 1996 the Democrats were running a popular, center-left incumbent president in Clinton; in 2008 the Democrats have a primary which has drawn literally record amounts of support and attention. A woman or a man of color will be the nominee for President from one of the major parties for the first time, all of which means that this primary season has no easy comparison anywhere in history - at least for the Democrats.

01-31-2008, 09:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I dunno. There's a lot of big, big differences between the 1996 Presidential race and 2008. For one, of course, 1996 was Clinton's year from the start, and the Republicans were pretty much just fighting to be clobbered in the general. This year is, obviously, quite open as no sitting President or Vice President is in the running. As for the specific examples, Forbes was really much more like Romney than Guiliani. Forbes and Romney (at least early in the primary, and again in Michigan) ran as socially moderate conservative CEO candidates. Obviously Romney tried very hard to pretend he was a socially conservative theocon for a few months, but I think this comparison holds up better than Forbes:Guiliani. America's Mayor didn't really run on economic conservatism or social liberalism, but rather 9/11 9/11 9/11 - almost like a one-issue third party candidate. I'm not sure there is a good Phil Gramm comparison amongst the current bunch, as you nailed the fact that he had an odd combination of being a respected Washington Establishment member as well as a pretty skeezy dude. Buchanan actually parallels better, I think, with Tancredo/Hunter, as his isolationist far-right rhetoric was displayed far more prominently than any populist viewpoints he has. McCain and Dole are the most obvious pairing, in that both were probably the most famous Republican senators of their time when they ran (as well as war heroes to boot). But Dole was very much Mr. Establishment, while I think McCain obviously has a lot of detractors amongst the Republican base for a few of his stances. Also, Dole was really just a Senior Legislator Guy, like Reid or Frist, while McCain has already run for President and has the entire mainstream media apparatus in his thrall. Frankly, though, this race is much different than 1996. The GOP is split in the primary down its main factional lines: theocon (Huckabee), neocon (McCain, Guiliani), moneycon (Romney), and fringe libertarian (Paul), in a way that wasn't evident at all 12 years ago. The country is in a much worse place, and quite frankly, the GOP got seven years with almost complete control of the government and screwed the pooch so badly that this year looks like it could be a generational shift away from the Republicans to the Democrats. Also, in 1996 the Democrats were running a popular, center-left incumbent president in Clinton; in 2008 the Democrats have a primary which has drawn literally record amounts of support and attention. A woman or a man of color will be the nominee for President from one of the major parties for the first time, all of which means that this primary season has no easy comparison anywhere in history - at least for the Democrats. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"