Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
They don't ask whether you'd vote for him -- they ask if you think he'd win. I'd think that the more direct 'would you vote for him, vs. McCain' would give a more interesting result.I doubt that he would win. That strange jelly-like mass in the middle, the swing voter, seems to become fatigued after 8 years of exposure to a POTUS; and this fatigue would come back after a few weeks of coverage of his campaign.
Yep. The roarin 90's are remembered fondly by all. The tech boom would reignite, everyone's 401K would be fatter, we'd be loved throughout the world, our military would be honed to a sharp edge bombing some obscure Balkan nation from 30,000 feet and I'm sure he'd get Osama bin Laden this time.
"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease it's troubling".- David Geffen about the ClintonsYou want fries with that?
And if Nixon could be resurrected, given the horrific domestic and foreign problems the US now faces and Nixon's track record of diplomatic finesse and domestic innovation - would he be elected if he ran?And if we were somehow magically able to replace George W. Bush with Nixon at a push of a button beginning in 2005 - who wouldn't call that a good deal?And if I had to pick a Dem I'd take Clinton over Obama, Kerry, or the new-deranged Al Gore - the 3 candidates the Dems came up with after Bubba - any time. Or his underqualified ex-1st Lady.
The fact that Clinton can't run gives centrists a lovely opportunity to employ a little cognitive dissonance about him. Much the same way people cheer on Edward Kennedy in Denver, bravely recovering from brain surgery. If he was running for president, we'd have to think about Chappaquiddick. When Hillary was running there was a lot of concern about how she'd keep Bill in line; if he was running himself that concern would only increase. If Bill was running, the press and the Repubs would have reason to bring up all the negatives about him. Right now, they don't.
That is not a poll. It is an unscientific and inaccurate way of pretending to measure public opinion. But at a blog that is characterized by faux neutruality, faux public opinion polls are probably quite fitting. Quack, quack.
They elected FDR four times and he was just as bad, so yeah, Clinton would be elected again if he could. Thank goodness he can't.
Skyler, I wouldn't even want to THINK about the Boggle we could make from "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and all his Vice-Presidents' names.
The economy was in the midst of a downturn just as he was leaving office. And there was the whole purgery and impeachment mess. Folks seem to forget that Clinton was unpopular enough in 1999 and 2000 that Al Gore made a concerted effort to run away from his association with President Clinton.Clinton had as much chance to win in 2000 as Bush would have in 2008 if he were constitutionally eligible.I think the only President to have been truly effected by that amendment was the one Democrats were afraid of when they helped pass it, Eisenhower.He could have won in 1960, but he probably wouldn't have run given his failing health.Reagan might have won in 1988, but he would not have chosen to run given his age and health.Clinton is much easier to take now that he hasn't been in office, but people seem to be forgetting that he only received 43% of the vote in 92 and 49% in 96 (against a very weak GOP candidate), and without a third party spoiler, wasn't likely to do any better than Gore had in 00.Maybe after not being President for 8 years, he'd have a chance in 08, but there's little evidence that he would have been successful in 00 (or even 04 if he had decided to try for a comeback, then).I have no doubt he could have beaten all comers in the Democratic Primaries in 00, 04, or 08, however, but that's different from getting elected.(but Hillary would have never put up with putting her ambitions on hold for so long, she would have stopped him, or divorced him and ran against him)
Maybe after not being President for 8 years, he'd have a chance in 08, but there's little evidence that he would have been successful in 00 (or even 04 if he had decided to try for a comeback, then).That sounds right to me. 2000 and 2004 would have been hard -- 2000, certainly. 2004, Bush was eminently beatable, it's just Kerry was the wrong instrument. Clinton might have been able to, but I think that would have been fairly close.In 2008, though, the rest of the field was so weak on the Democrats side that he would have had a good shot at claiming the nomination -- better than Sen. Clinton, who lacks his charm. And if he had the nomination now, he would have a lot more going for him than Obama.He'd have an actual record of accomplishment to run on, seen through rose-tinted glasses, to boot. For yuppie intellectual snobs, he has an academic record roughly as impressive as Obama's (the more so since he got there from a trailer park, as opposed to a posh prep school), even if he wasn't a lecturer at UChicago, and for the blue-collar crowd his wife managed to attract, he doesn't give the same sneering "I'm-better-than-you" vibe that Obama and his ilk give off. He's common and he revels in it.He'd be running more like the generic Democrat than Obama, who's what, 10 points behind than the generic Democrat? And that would be enough to count as a landslide these days.
I haven't been able to figure out which answer is more cynical.
That is not a poll. It is an unscientific and inaccurate way of pretending to measure public opinion.Apparently you don't know what the word "poll" means. There's no requirement that polls be scientific or accurate, and Reynolds isn't pretending to "measure public opinion" except of that portion of the public which reads his blog.But at a blog that is characterized by faux neutruality, faux public opinion polls are probably quite fitting.Since when does Instapundit pretend to be neutral? You need to find something better to whine about.
Anybody (even those who literally hate anything Clinton) who doesn't think Bill Clinton wouldn't beat McCain is out of their frigging mind.If Hillary was the nominee she'd be 15 points ahead of him herself.And if Bill did run and win...again...at least we could understand what the hell he was saying...whether we agreed or not.
Photos When Michelle Met Hillary..No evidence of bloodshed.
>>purgery Bill is bulimic?
No. If Clinton had been eligible to run again, the Senate would have removed him from office when he was IMPEACHED for obstructing a sexual harassment suit. Moot point.
Post a Comment