Would solid IRV in '92 give Clinton greater acceptance among many conservatives?

And not everything, for there's still the rise of right-wing talk radio. There's still factors such as the decline of middle-class jobs. And many conservatives seem to feel that Bush, Sr. was cheated out of his second term.

Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992.

Suppose there had been a solid IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) system in place where paper copies are kept and localities can do recounts and Clinton comfortably wins. Would a significant percentage of conservatives have then accepted him as president?
 
And not everything, for there's still the rise of right-wing talk radio. There's still factors such as the decline of middle-class jobs. And many conservatives seem to feel that Bush, Sr. was cheated out of his second term.

Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992.

Suppose there had been a solid IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) system in place where paper copies are kept and localities can do recounts and Clinton comfortably wins. Would a significant percentage of conservatives have then accepted him as president?

I doubt it. Look at how they responded to 2008, when Obama won 53% of the vote. Clinton winning the popular vote more comfortably doesn't change anything in my view. Rancid right wing radio is still there and FOX "news" was just around the corner.
 
I have in mind the percentage baseball type of deal. That if the disapproval rate of Clinton changes from 28(?) to 22, it does make a difference.

In addition, and this is the thing which really blows me out of the water, the Nader vote in Florida was a heck of a lot more closely split between Bush and Gore than people think. If there was a similar perception about the Perot vote in '92, IRV which demonstrates that no, this is not really the case, may have an effect and kind of a long arc effect. (even though Perot was arguably between Bush and Clinton on a lot of policy issues)


http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
Two political scientists look at the down ticket voting for Florida 2000. The punchcards were translated to electronic data, and they looked, okay, here's a person who voted for Nader. How did they vote down ticket? And these two political scientists concluded that, had Nader not been in the race, at most 60% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore and at least 40% of them would have voted for Bush. The split may have even been 55-45. Like I said, just blew me out of the water.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
I doubt it. Look at how they responded to 2008, when Obama won 53% of the vote. Clinton winning the popular vote more comfortably doesn't change anything in my view. Rancid right wing radio is still there and FOX "news" was just around the corner.

The perception of a president by oppositions parties (any opposition) has little to do with the margin of victory -- it's based on the policies they implement and how they govern in general. That's the case with Obama as well -- he came in, rode rough shod over Republicans, implemented left-of-center policies with virtually no Republican input, etc. That does NOT breed fandom.
 
I'll take you one better. It's often not high level policy. It's often the little things. The perception of respect or disrespect.

For example, early in his first term Carter tried to cancel some water projects, many of them probably were boondoogles. But I think Carter was perceived as a Johnny Come Lately as the whole thing was the end result of political horse trading where members were going to bring money into their districts. And then, the thing which really got him was that brand new Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill put forward some kind of compromise in which some of the projects would be (?) suspended pending review or something like that. But, the Democrats who had stuck out their necks supporting Carter then felt really let down.

And, since you bring it up, I think Obama tried to work with Republicans but they were against every single solitary thing which he tried to do.
 
Last edited:
The perception of a president by oppositions parties (any opposition) has little to do with the margin of victory -- it's based on the policies they implement and how they govern in general. That's the case with Obama as well -- he came in, rode rough shod over Republicans, implemented left-of-center policies with virtually no Republican input, etc. That does NOT breed fandom.

That's just it though. Obama did try working with him. The Affordable Care Act was an attempt at compromise with them (The GOP proposed mandates in the 1990s as an alternative to Hillarycare, Romney passed essentially the same thing in MA), Obama originally wanted a Public Option. Heck, Mitt Romney in 2009 was all over the media telling the President to use the Massachusetts plan as a blue print, Obama not only did that, but he maid Massachusetts law national.

And with regards to Clinton, outside of health care reform and maybe DADT (which was also a compromise) Clinton really didn't govern all that liberally in 1993 and 94. The GOP, in my view, was just bitter in defeat in both instances, especially after '92 as they felt as GeographyDude said, that Bush 41 was cheated out of a second term.
 
I say this as a Republican, I wish Obama would have passed a single payer system. He could have used medicare as the frame work. Something like play with the insurance tables for cost a higher deductible and forced all hospitals or Doctors that take 1 penny from the federal gov. To take said insurance. Like a deductible of $3500 per person unless a person qualifies for medicaid. Drug co-pays based on part D. Also, add dental.

The problem with Obamacare is Doctors don't want to take it, but the main thing is it really did not please anyone on either side. I feel if we had a single payer system no one would want it repealed. It would satisfy to many people. Would people pay more for premiums for a system that worked? I think yes, including a lot of people voting Trump.

I feel like Obama caved to the insurance industry. As a Veteran who will be a retired one day I would like to see the VA privatized.

As far as Clinton in '92 I was 20 years old. He did not feel legitimate. Perot "stole" the election. He showed his under pants he put on sunglasses and played the sax. He was not the national grandfather, he had a mouthy wife. How could he be President? Some kind of fraud. Then Rush told us we were so right. So stupid now looking back, silly and dumb. Yes, Bush was a good President. But Rush was an idiot, Clinton was better. He did a lot of things with his pants down and no one cared. It was the economy stupid. If I had known what was going to happen. Half the country hated Bush half of the country hates Obama. No one just despised Clinton at the start. Ah, the 90's.
 
Wouldn't matter

We were becoming very polarized --- the hatred of Bill and Hilary by the conservatives wouldn't change.

look at Obama. Won easily and doesn't matter
 
Top