End of the Cold War, victory in the Gulf War, and a strong economy? Bush doesn’t lose.
Clinton hammered Bush on the economy relentlessly. Take away the single biggest and most effective point of attack in Clinton’s campaign, there’s no way he pulls it off.
But that’s an incredibly dumb reason to vote against a candidate. If things are going well under a particular party why on Earth boot them out just because they’ve been there a while?
I think what he might be getting at is that when you’re in office for 12 years, convincing people things are going well is very very hard. People can easily find a small thing and turn it bigger than otherwise and because of the attribution to time, the argument wins.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
A big NYT political analysis after the 1992 campaign showed that the only state in which Perot made an Electoral College difference was Maine. Had it not been for Perot, Bush would’ve carried the state - but still would’ve lost the election.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen that for Maine, but did see it for Ohio.
"The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.
And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire."
It would make no sense with Maine anyway, even if Perot voters were more Bush than Clinton because Bush I would’ve needed a huge massive number: he came in 3rd there. Also, Maine has been Dem since 1992; Ohio a swing state.
IMHO any party left with a powerful office for more than a decade almost inevitably becomes complacent, runs out of ideas, is corrupted, or some combination of the three.
So? When that happens, and the other guys look better, vote 'em out.