Forty Years in Forty Sentences

Always regretted that you didn't take that Modern Presidential Politics survey back in college? No worries: just take in this sixty-second rendition, courtesy of Bill Clinton, from a fascinating new interview with Michael Tomasky:

Now, let me just close on an upbeat note here. I don't entirely buy the Ruy Teixiera [and John B. Judis] analysis about the natural Democratic majority. On the other hand, there is something to it.

[Lyndon] Johnson wins big in '64 cuz he marginalizes [Barry] Goldwater. They never got over it and they've been trying to do it to us ever since. By '68, Nixon wins by a point, but we all know he would have beaten [Hubert] Humphrey handily if [George] Wallace hadn't been in the race. So there was a traumatic coalescing of a culturally conservative majority in the Republican Party between '64 and '68, ratified by the '72 election, OK? So essentially from '68 forward the Republican Party had a hardcore base of roughly 45 percent. The Democrats had a hardcore base of roughly 40 percent.

So in '80, Reagan wins 51-to-41, and [John] Anderson gets, what, [6 percent], [7 percent], whatever he got? Then in '84, [Reagan] wins 6-to-4. And in '88, they win 54-to-46, which means they won 9 points of the undecided vote and we won 6 points. In '92, because of the campaign I ran, if no [Ross] Perot had been in there, all the analyses show that it would have been 52 [percent], 53 percent. In '96, if no Perot had been in there and we'd had a normal turnout, it would have been about 55 percent. [So] by 2000, sometime between '92 and 2000, because of immigration, urbanization and the suburbanite voters developing a more communitarian ethic, both parties had a base of about 45 percent. And what happened in 2000 is they were fighting over an effective 10 percent, and they fought to a draw.

So that means that we're in every race. You start with 45 percent, you're in a race. I don't care what anybody says. So sometime between 1992 and 2000, for the first time -- probably in the last four years, for the first time since 1964 -- we were no longer at a cultural disadvantage in our base. So both parties go into this next election with a natural base of about 45 percent. So in 2004, this race will be about -- it goes back to your question about the Democrats' dilemma and our division. We have to improve our turnout to their level, as we did in '98 and 2000 but not in 2002. And then we have to win the votes among the other 10 percent. That's eminently doable.

He makes it sound so easy. Sigh.

Comments

[Scott McKee]

The number of people registering as Republicans is increasing, and has for the first time in recent history, come even with the numbers of Democrats. So the elections will be decided by about 10 to 20 percent of the electorate in the Middle.

I don't think one side or the other will he able to mobilize its base better than the other. In the absence of war, I think the Middle Folk (fondly refined to as MFers by both we Republicans and you Democrats ;-) )might give the Dems the nod. But this coming election year, we will still be at War. So the Republicans will probably win. Especially if the terrorists manage to carry of a major attack in the U.S. at the end of Ramadan, as thy have threatened.

Respectfully,

Scott R. Mckee, M.D.

By the way, generally a very good site you have here.

[aaron wall]

Of course he makes it sound easy, he is one of the worlds greatest schmoozers.

I do not think the Republicans stand a chance. Dean by a landslide! The internet is too powereful and current government is too corrupt to continue existing as it has. I intend to shift a few thousand voters myself!

[Jordon Cooper]

He has to make it sound easy. No one wants your coach to tell you that you are about to be blown out of the water! That being said, he does have a point and even for a few days in 1996, Dole/Kemp were back in the game and in 1992, it looked like Bush/Quayle were going to catch Clinton/Gore and for a couple of days, the Dems will be back in it. How both the Replublicans and the Dems handle that will decide how the race will be won.

[Scott McKee]

aaron wall's comments are interesting, however I don't believe the internet protocols only allow one political side to benefit. blogs are helping to reduce the power wielded by a left biased media. I do think Aaron has one point correct: he will likely influence thousands in their votes. after reading him, thousands of undecided will go to the polls and vote for Bush.

[Ana Gomez]

I think Scott McKee comments are very intresting, in an importan country with a lot power the goverment have to be decided by all the population. It will be the most democratic. For that reason americans have to vote, in all elections.

Ana Gomez
http://www.hersilia.com

[Nicholas Barnard]

I find Ana Gomez's comments irrelevant as she doesn't even address the issue at hand: the effect of the Internet on political campaigns. Its defiantly an interesting discussion and every campaign has latched onto the weblog craze. (Although they all post way too much for my taste.) I'm not sure who started it first, but I believe it was the Dean campaign?

But Dean's camp is following the cluetrain. They've got real people actually talking in their own name and with their own voice, plus the Dean camp has comments turned on. the George W. Bush camp on the other hand has comments turned off and their entries seethe with corporatespeak.

The Dean campaign is trying something different, and untested in modern politics. The Bush campaign is about business as usual.

Who has really been paying attention to the Internet?

Well besides I'm voting for Gore for 2004 because we all know he INVENTED the Internet. ;D

Nick Barnard
http://www.inmff.net

[Aaron Wall]

" I don't believe the internet protocols only allow one political side to benefit."

The comments being enabled/disabled was my exact point.

Those afraid of feedback do not want any (drug companies, oil companies, their puppets...)

Despite using MovableType, (which is awesome) Bush still filters out any type of feedback.

"left biased media"

Specifically, which of the large rich half dozen media conglomarates are left biased? Please show specific examples.

You may think of me as a fool, but I have had millions of pageviews of my simple websites. My name on this post links to some of the sample feedback I got from one of my partially completed super simple sub domains.

You may think I am nuts, but the reason some of my websites rank in the top 30,000 on the web is because others disagree with republicans such as Scott McKee. Others think feedback is a GOOD THING.

"I do think Aaron has one point correct: he will likely influence thousands in their votes."

I wonder if Mr McKee gets feedback similar to what I get from absolute strangers. In my own mind it is doubtful.

Did I mention that I am also an editor for many major web directories (and a search engine marketer?)

:)

[Scott McKee]

Well Mr. Wall
First greetings to you. I congratulate you for having opinions, something I find many people just don't have. So there we have something in common. It's after that we part company. Yes, I do have strangers comment on my opinions. In that these are at small discussion groups, fewer than you receive. Generally, most people I talk to end up agreeing with me if they agreed before, and most that don't stay that way. They stay that way even if I have proved them wrong. So I find most people are not open to changing their minds. The numbers that you or I might influence are less than you think (or less than others may think).

Polls and news stories I have read seem to show a shift to more people becoming Republicans. I may be wrong, but I don't think the electorate will let the Democrats get hold of national defense in the middle of a war. We'll see who is right in about a year.

In a friendly manner of open discussion,

Scott McKee

[aaron wall]

I thank you for giving in to middle ground easier than I did. Perhaps I am a smaller person :) In many ways I do agree with much of what you say. I realize to most people I seem over the top, but it is who I am.

It is refreshing to see that as frustrated as your comments sometimes are, you are still basing your comments in logic. Perhaps I find it easier when I sometimes do not :)

[Scott McKee]

I have to admit that I love good discussions, it tends to sharpen my own thinking. I sometimes suspect most of the of the folks could care less which of us is right (or left :-) ),as long as whoever is in office mostly leaves them alone. The true wisdom of the masses. My own journey has taken me from being a Mao-ist in high school to being mainly a libertarian - republican mix. Good talking to you!

Scott McKee

[diseño web]

hehe, sorry, but, who is Michael Tomasky ?
Sorry my ignorance

[sed]

http://www.the-boysfirsttime.com
http://www.mikesapartment.org
http://www.1-welivetogether.com
http://www.1-bignaturals.com
http://www.4u-topshelfpussy.com
http://www.inthevip-sex.com
http://www.1-milfhunter.com
http://www.1-cumfiesta.com
http://www.1-milf-hunter.com
http://www.1-big-naturals.com
http://www.1-we-live-together.com
http://www.1-cum-fiesta.com
http://www.4u-in-the-vip.com
http://www.4u-mikes-apartment.com
http://www.4u-boys-first-time.com
http://www.4u-top-shelf-pussy.com