In 1992, after George H. W. Bush had held office for 4 years following on 8 years of Ronald Reagan, the Presidential election went to Bill Clinton. In large part it was, as everyone’s heard, “the economy, stupid”. But to some extent it was probably also a gradual falling-into-disfavor of the prominently displayed values and goals of the Republican party: if Dukakis hadn’t been one of the worst campaigners ever to secure a nomination, GHWB might never have been sworn in; Dukakis was leading in the polls until everyone had a good look at him and then Bush in their respective primaries.
Or maybe not. But at any rate, there had been opportunity in 1980, 1984 and 1988 to toss lots of Democrats out on their ears, and yet when Clinton took office in 1992 it was a Democratic Congress he started off with.
Then two years later, EL WHAMMO.
Hence the question.
a) Was it Clinton’s fault? Was Election 1994 in some sense a referendum on the Clinton Administration so far? He’d started out with a bad strategy on the gays-in-military issue, then come up short on the national health insurance endeavor. Did he fuck up so bad in enough people’s eyes that they were sending him a message?
b) Was it Newt Gingrich? This Republican conjured up the Contract with America. In retrospect, follow-up was lacking, but it was a serious attempt to make Congressional elections all about national issues, rather than each candidate appealing to her or his state. Was Contract with America good enough unto itself to generate the result?
c) Was it Congress? Democrats had held Congress so long they kind of did tend to act like they owned it. They didn’t always play nice with Democratic Presidents. They certainly didn’t kiss Jimmy Carter’s workboots, and they didn’t exactly give Bill Clinton the best support imaginable either. Was it a sense that they’d grown fat and uninterested in their job as elected representatives, and needed to be turned out?
Part of it was Clinton. After twelve years of Republican presidents, Republicans may have gotten complacent. Clinton’s election may have shook them up and re-energized them.
I also give Newt Gingrich a lot of credit. He’s a talented organizer who turned a bunch of individual campaigns into a movement. He created a list of objectives so Republican candidates could say they were promoting their own independant agenda not just running in opposition to the President
I’ve cited a study elsewhere in the forum, that I can’t be bothered to find right now (sorry, maybe tomorrow), that indicates Clinton would still have won, albeit in a much closer election.
I’d like to see it if you find the time. IIRC, Perot got something like 20% of the vote that year…and I would guess a large percentage of those votes were from guys who would have voted for Bush otherwise. I know I voted for Perot, and at the time I was still a quasi-Repubican.
I’ll check out the cite though if you find the time.
No…if anything, Clinton, once he turned moderate, was the one shinning spot in an otherwise dull Democrat machine.
I’m sure Newt had an effect…but like the Republicans now, the Dems had shot themselves in the foot. They had no one to blame but themselves for their sinking grasp on power. I think the Dems tired old planks and worn out rhetoric were just…well, old. And tired. After decades of hearing the same old shit, the Republicans message LOOKED better. Especially on the economic side. Their quasi-religious bullshit turned me personally off…but appearently it struck a cord with voters as well.
Maybe a bit closer to the mark…but still wide of it, IMHO. I think their message was stale. And presidents like Carter didn’t exactly help the Dems image either. Nor did it help them that the candidates they normally served up were spouting the same liberal crap, over and over again. I think, again as with the Republicans now, folks just got tired of the same ole same ole…and wanted a change.
Thank you…appreciated. I’ll read it closely. My first thought though would be…I’m not sure (anymore) really how accurate exit polls truely are. But I haven’t really dug into the state by state analysis. I’d say though that its still debatable…but that it really doesn’t have bearing on the actual question. If Clinton would have won without Perot by a narrow margin, or Bush I held on I don’t think its why the Dems lost control of the Congress.
I attributed it, then and now, mostly to the American tradition of divided government. We were happy with a social-progress-oriented Democratic president, the Cold War being over and the security stuff that the GOP had always made their preserve being replaced by the “peace dividend” (remember that?), and there was a feeling that his “borrow and spend” impulsed had to be controlled by Republican fiscal prudence.
Any relation of that stuff to reality was coincidental, obviously, but those were and still are the common stereotypes.
After decades of hearing the same old shit, the Republicans message LOOKED better. Especially on the economic side. Their quasi-religious bullshit turned me personally off…but appearently it struck a cord with voters as well.
Hope you feel better.