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

dy156 · 01-29-2008, 11:04 PM

Been awhile since I've posted, but impressed with the politics board of late...

There's a big long meaty thread here about whether it will be "the economy, stupid" as a major campaign issue again this year as it was in 1992. There are plenty of other parallels to that presidential campaign as well. (please- no comments about long and meaty)

It might be tempting to draw parallels to the '92 campaign- A very unpopular president named Bush was struggling to avoid a deep recession resulting -in part- from a war in Iraq- and through the president's efforts (I predict) the economy will turn around just in time for the new president to take credit.

But I think '96 is the better example based on the Republican field. Here's my observations/predictions why:
Giuliani = Forbes; a NY social liberal and economic conservative who exits relatively early.

Romney = Phil Gramm; the "thinking conservatives'" logical choice who is "right" on all the issues but kind of creepy with some baggage as an individual- Romney has lasted longer because let's face it- he looks and sounds more presidential.

Huckabee = Buchanan; social conservative who strikes a chord with many and does surprisingly well early on, but is alarming to the big-business Republicans

McCain= Dole; war hero and perennial presidential primary loser who no one is really excited about but gets the nomination, only to show his lack of political savvy in losing to someone entrenched in power but tainted by allegations from the past with a last name of Clinton.

Sorry, can't think of as many parallels on the Democratic side. John Edwards is no Paul Tsongas. Perot jumped in (again) but just as an afterthought, just as billionaire Mike Bloomberg is rumored to be considering doing this year. Obama has a little more credibility than Jerry Brown did.

just consider it "deep thoughts... by Dy156"

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.

01-29-2008, 11:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	history, not news or political science... Been awhile since I've posted, but impressed with the politics board of late... There's a big long meaty thread here about whether it will be "the economy, stupid" as a major campaign issue again this year as it was in 1992. There are plenty of other parallels to that presidential campaign as well. (please- no comments about long and meaty) It might be tempting to draw parallels to the '92 campaign- A very unpopular president named Bush was struggling to avoid a deep recession resulting -in part- from a war in Iraq- and through the president's efforts (I predict) the economy will turn around just in time for the new president to take credit. But I think '96 is the better example based on the Republican field. Here's my observations/predictions why: Giuliani = Forbes; a NY social liberal and economic conservative who exits relatively early. Romney = Phil Gramm; the "thinking conservatives'" logical choice who is "right" on all the issues but kind of creepy with some baggage as an individual- Romney has lasted longer because let's face it- he looks and sounds more presidential. Huckabee = Buchanan; social conservative who strikes a chord with many and does surprisingly well early on, but is alarming to the big-business Republicans McCain= Dole; war hero and perennial presidential primary loser who no one is really excited about but gets the nomination, only to show his lack of political savvy in losing to someone entrenched in power but tainted by allegations from the past with a last name of Clinton. Sorry, can't think of as many parallels on the Democratic side. John Edwards is no Paul Tsongas. Perot jumped in (again) but just as an afterthought, just as billionaire Mike Bloomberg is rumored to be considering doing this year. Obama has a little more credibility than Jerry Brown did. just consider it "deep thoughts... by Dy156"

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.'"