Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SaveTheChief
Bob, I have been thinking about your statement, and you are correct. But what happened in '92 when none of Bill Clinton's past behavior seemed to impact the election? We can talk about Perot and the Reform Party, and about how they took conservative votes, but nonetheless many of those swing votes went to Clinton, even with his past record and history exposed.

They impacted, just not enough. The press refused to pursue the story and Hill's "Stand By Your Man" routine worked like a charm. Once Bill was in office, many American's were willing to turn a blind eye to the allegations in '96, not out of love for Clinton but to protect the Presidency.

If you figure 30% of the electorate is hardcore dem and 30% hardcore pub, that leaves 40% swinging. Perot got 19% leaving Clinton with 12% and Bush1 with 7%. Bush lost by 5% (if memory serves) and that can be attributed to a lackluster campaign, diddling on a weak economy and the press's relentless attacks on "No new taxes" and Dan Quayle as monkey boy. Perot certainly was factor, just as Nader was for Gore in '00.

1,886 posted on 02/12/2004 12:46:04 PM PST by Bob J (www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies ]


To: All
Estrich coming up on Hannity to discuss how she'd get out of this mess. Well she let the cat out of this bag a few weeks ago when she said Kerry had a woman problem.

Talking about the fellow who's been a "jerk" to Hannity who is guilty of the same thing Kerry's accused of.
1,893 posted on 02/12/2004 12:50:07 PM PST by BlessedByLiberty (Respectfully submitted,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1886 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson