WI: Bush vs Biden 1992

I think this massively understates what a phenomenal retail politician Bill Clinton was (and is; there's pretty much uniform agreement that he upstaged Obama at the DNC in 2012).

Unseating an incumbent President is hard even when the underlying social and economic conditions are mixed -- as in 2004 and 2012. In '92, what did you have? Bush successfully presided over the breakup of the freakin' Soviet Union, including the fall of the Berlin Wall; the first Gulf War was seen as a rousing success; and U.S. forces successfully removed and captured Manuel Noriega using nothing more lethal than Van Halen's 1984 album. Oh, yeah, and thanks to the '91 budget deal, the economy was moving in the right direction.

And what were the counterarguments? Well, you had Ross Perot bitching about the deficit, and Grover Norquist bitching about Bush breaking his "read my lips" pledge (which, of course, was the responsible and adult thing to do). And that's pretty much it.

Clinton took all of that, tapped into the lingering Democratic resentment over the Reagan years, and somehow turned that into Democratic wins in states like Montana, Louisiana, and Georgia. (!!)

How on earth is any Democrat going to do "better" than that? Does anyone honestly see Biden winning in the Deep South? In Montana? In New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas??

So I guess where I come out is: with someone like Biden as the nominee, I think you see Bush cruise to re-election in 1992.

I would certainly agree that Clinton may have done better than Biden would have, but saying that Bush would easily be reelected exaggerates the point. Bush had a lot of problems that went beyond Clinton's considerable skill. Mainly, Bush ran an incompetent campaign, the Republican base did not like him, and he happened to be running during a perceived economic downturn. He had a foreign policy focus during a domestic issue election and came off as distant and insincere on those issues, the patrician problem. While we can say the economy was moving in the right direction now, that was not how it was perceived at the time and in politics perspective is everything
Under the circumstances, Clinton was the best possible contrast. But the problems Bush faced beginning with Atwater's death predated Clinton's rise to serious contender.

I think Bush was in for an uphill climb. Whatever the case it will be a nearer run thing.
 
Dukakis carried Iowa, so Biden can too.

Yeah, I forgot; West Virginia, too (which I didn't forget, as it's a pivotal last hurrah in POTUS electoral history--a losing, urbane, NE Dem carries the Mountain State!)

All in all that makes me think Missouri and New Mexico might just sit easily in his column, what with his appeal as a middle of the road Catholic being particularly useful in holding onto a lot of swing voters Clinton won OTL in those states. He doesn't need either Nevada or Colorado to win a 2008-sized margin.
 
Top