|
|
Saturday, August 28, 2004
|
|
ASK skippy, PART ELEVEN
The esteemed Mr. Trout asks,
You have expressed admiration for the campaigning skills of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Who would have won a dream matchup between these two? Assume neither was the incumbent.
I've actually given this some thought over the last four years. I firmly believe that Bush's 2000 electoral strategy was predicated more on running against President Clinton than Vice President Al Gore. That's where all of that "bringing honor and integrity back to the Oval Office" stuff came from. It was a particularly smart move for two reasons.
Firstly, it made Gore seem inconsequential. Governor Bush almost never mentioned Gore by name or, for that matter, Clinton. But the honor and integrity bit was code for "no blowjobs for me on the job." It put a huge spotlight on the administration's number one flaw, dishonesty and immorality. While people disagree whether Clinton's follies warranted impeachment, everybody agrees that the Lewinsky affair was unseemly and cheapened the office. Americans are very touchy about such things.
Secondly, the country was at peace and enjoying a period of prosperity. Such periods are historically difficult for a challenger. Bush couldn't use the "are you better off than you were eight years ago" line, because, by and large, they were. But campaigning on Lewinsky pointed out the moral challenges of the administration.
If there were no 22nd Amendment and Clinton was seeking a third term, I firmly believe that Bush would have defeated him in a landslide. As gifted a campaigner as Clinton is, and I believe him to be without peer, I don't think that he would be able to overcome his own moral shortcomings. Americans are unique in that they have to like the people they elect. If you look back on every presidential election in the last 72 years, the more personally likeable candidate won. The only exception to this rule was in 1968, where Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey.
Therein lies the silver bullet against Clinton. While he enjoyed a job approval rating in the high 60's in 2000, his personal approval rating was in the low 20's. In fact, Clinton's personal approval numbers were lower than Nixon's at the height of Watergate. And Americans have to personally like their presidents.
A hypothetical race with a Governor Clinton running against a Governor Bush would be far more interesting. Remove everything that happened in President Clinton's administration and you have a formidable candidate. Clinton shares several strengths with Bush. Both have impressive political instincts. Both have the "just folks" appeal that American voters respond to. But Bush has a couple of negatives that Clinton does not. Bush is nowhere near as a smart as Clinton is. He also has a swagger than can come across as arrogant. While Bush is a far more gifted debater than he is given credit for, Clinton's mastery of the issues, combined with his personality, would humiliate Bush on television.
Then there's the Electoral College. Southern Democrats make the South competitive. The last Republican to win the presidency without sweeping all 11 former Confederate states was Ronald Reagan, who lost Georgia in 1980. Reagan more than made up the difference by winning California, which Bush will never have a realistic chance of carrying. Clinton, however, would almost certainly win Arkansas and Tennessee and would have a better than even chance of carrying Louisiana and Florida. Combining these states with the Democratic monopoly in the North East and West Coast, Clinton would win handily in the Electoral College. The only sure states for Bush would Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Montana and Alaska. It's not inconceivable that Clinton could beat Bush in Virginia. Even Ohio would be competitive and no Republican has ever become president without carrying Ohio.
As non-incumbents, Clinton would annihilate Bush. But it sure would be fun to watch.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
