Difference between revisions of "Talk:United States presidential election, 1992"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::the backlash was seen in Bush's very poor showing--he lost millions of votes he had won in 1992. The analysis is from Lipset, one of the leading conservative political scientists. | ::the backlash was seen in Bush's very poor showing--he lost millions of votes he had won in 1992. The analysis is from Lipset, one of the leading conservative political scientists. | ||
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | ::This statement is just a repackaged paraphrase of a Clinton slogan, "12 years of neglect," which 58% of voters rejected. FWIW, Clinton is remembered as a conservative Democrat (besides being 'the First Black President') who balanced the budget. As to Lipset, Lipset is not 58% of American voters. | |
| − | + | ::And further, 16,000,000 more voters voted ''against'' Bill Clinton rather than for Bill Clinton in 1992. Contrasted with GW Bush in 2000 where only 500,000 more voted against rather than for. No way can these facts to be obscureed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:49, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | |
Revision as of 00:50, September 11, 2009
Why don't we just use the word majority instead of absolute majority? It seems to me that's simpler and less confusing, since absolute majority, if I remember correctly, is the total out of all eligible respondants. Learn together 14:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
That makes sense. -Additioner 14:46, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
The Economy
Was the economy slumping because of inflation? I seem to recall that inflation, while not as low as it had been during most of the Reagan's years, was well below the Carter levels. The economy was slumping because of standard economic cycles. It was a temporary recession that had disappeared by the time of the election, although that information was not known until after Clinton was in office. Learn together 22:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
- You are correct; it had nothing to do with inflation. - JasonAQuest 19:10, 12 January 2008 (EST)
a backlash against 12 years of a conservative presidency
This is disputable; Clinton only got 42% and a deficit hawk like Perot can hardly be considered un-conservative. It simply was Democrats winning out in the bidding war for domestic spending priorities in the post-Cold War era. Republicans and conservatives can never out-bid or out spend Democrats and liberals on domestic social spending. Rob Smith 20:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
- the backlash was seen in Bush's very poor showing--he lost millions of votes he had won in 1992. The analysis is from Lipset, one of the leading conservative political scientists.
RJJensen 20:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
- This statement is just a repackaged paraphrase of a Clinton slogan, "12 years of neglect," which 58% of voters rejected. FWIW, Clinton is remembered as a conservative Democrat (besides being 'the First Black President') who balanced the budget. As to Lipset, Lipset is not 58% of American voters.
- And further, 16,000,000 more voters voted against Bill Clinton rather than for Bill Clinton in 1992. Contrasted with GW Bush in 2000 where only 500,000 more voted against rather than for. No way can these facts to be obscureed. Rob Smith 20:49, 10 September 2009 (EDT)