Correlation isn't causation. Bill Clinton isn't the reason Dems do better now than when they were at their nadir. Perhaps you didn't notice, but we lost both houses of Congress when he was President and if he was as great as you seem to think 2000 would have been a walk.
because he clearly made Democrats better off in terms of Presidential elections than we were in 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, or 1968. Just look at the fucking electoral map. Thats what matters. Look at the states we never used to win and mostly lost in those elections I mentioned that we now always win. These include Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, CALIFORNIA, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Maryland, all of which are worth an amazing amount of electoral votes, over 170. We lost nearly all of those states in those 5 elections. Also, we used to get blown out in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and they not only were won by Clinton, but even with weaker candidates, are still close. We only lost Congress because of corrupt Dems and an amazing amount of scandals that happened before his term. You also forget how poorly the media treated him. Gore also won more votes than Bush, but you also forget what an abysmal campaign Gore ran. He had no message nor did he try to define Bush, and he also picked a bad running mate. But how many times does our party get called "weak on crime" or "soft on welfare" anymore? Those are why we always would get killed in elections. If yo have any memory, those issues are what killed us from 1968-1988. We averaged 113 electoral votes during those years. We always do much better today. And it was Bill Clinton, not Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, or Hubert Humphrey who fixed our image on crime and welfare.
truths about the Clintonmessiah. We lost those elections because we had bad candidates. I love how you just omit 1976 because it doesn't fit your thesis. Your worshipful analysis is too simplistic to take seriously. It was not just "crime and welfare" that hurt democrats in that time period.
Bill did some good things but he didn't single-handedly save the party.
Likewise, Bill didn't singlehandedly destroy the party, either, as some continuallly suggest.
Denigrating his accomplishments for political gain by Democrats has been shamefull.
maybe we lost it because after 40 years of dem congress rule . They were fed up w/ us? :)
Btw, did that loss stop the American people on economic prosperity? .... Oh hell no...
he left office after his 2nd term holding the highest rating as president in 40 years before him.
if you give us the economic prosperity of the 90's . I'm happy...
or cheap oil. So there's no going back to the 90s. Balancing the budget like Bill did would be a good first step.
thank you!! I was going to post this info, but you beat me to it
It is amazing how some people rewrite history to slam BC
No, his administration was not the primary cause, but his missteps certainly did not help. His inexperience in dealing with Congress wasn't helpful. I hope that Obama does better, given the fact that he's about the same age as Clinton was when he ran. He's got legislative experience so hopefully he knows how to finesse Congress.
and the unwillingness of the Congress to work with Bill Clinton wasn't helpful at all either.
Many factors played a role. The ones you mention and also Bill's political missteps at the beginning of his term. Bill has many good attributes but he also has some very unhelpful ones.
