Login/Sign Up




Were there no 22nd Amendment - Bill Clinton is still President
Politics

reezer
Apr 18, 2007
6 votes
7 debaters


+ Add Argument

4
Yep - What? Was Dubya or McCain gonna beat him?


reezer
Apr 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Clinton was riding Reagan-level popularity ratings when 2000 came along. He beats Dubya like a mule if he runs. And the only way I see him not winning in 04 is if he decided not to run.

 
vancam
Apr 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3 Show

Very true, perhaps the question should be rephrased to include (would Clinton have been able to win a "fair" election with no vote tampering).

 
reezer
Apr 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

I do SO love the "Perot cost Bush 41 the 92 election" argument. That assumes that nearly EVERY vote that went towards Perot would've gone to Bush.

Which is just silly. The far more likely scenario would've been that the Perot voters would've gone equally towards Bush and Clinton, with a scattering of fringe votes and non-votes.

And you seem to be (conveniently) forgetting that Clinton's less than majority victory in '96 was still by a higher percentage (in popular voting and electoral votes) than both of Bush 43's victories *put together*.

And Bush 41 and Dole were stronger candidates than EITHER party has put forth since.

I stick by my original vote. Clinton's still the POTUS.

 
reezer
Apr 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

Gore's defeat was strictly on Gore. He ignored his connections to Clinton, tried to out-"regular folk" Dubya - and came across as an even bigger Ivy League Liberal stereotype in the process, and basically made a hash of things.

When a candidate loses his own home state, something has gone horribly horribly wrong, and that something had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

And most of the exit polls during the '92 elections indicated a 50/50 Bush/Clinton split among Perot voters.

 
beth27
May 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

Bush was running against Al Gore, not Bill Clinton. Al Gore thought he could win over some votes by denouncing ties with Clinton, possibly one of the biggest flaws of his election.

 
+ Add Argument

2
No - America would've grown tired of his act


tggdan3
Apr 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Clinton might have won the popular vote, but I'm sure after a few recounts in florida, some absentee ballots and some creative use of the electoal college system I think George would have still become president.

 
nbcrusader
Apr 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Clinton fatigue - in 2000 people were ready for a change.

 
jjc
Apr 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Bill Clinton doesn't even win in '92 if Perot isn't in the race. He only got 43% of the popular vote. In '96, after coming out of the recession, he still couldn't quite manage a plurality- 49.24% of the vote. As unpopular as GWB seems to be, he won with 47.9% and 50.7% of the popular votes. If the economy is healthy and the republicans run a candidate who is breathing, Clinton loses.

 
jjc
Apr 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reezer Show

You are correct that I've assumed a large portion of the votes for Perot would have gone to Bush but that is because I have cosistently read post election analysis that reports the majority of the Perot crowd would have voted Bush. Personally, I could care less, and I certainly don't have an ax to grind. I called the election for Clinton during the primaries because he was the only candidate with enough sense to appeal to a broad swatch of the middle class. While I think Bush 41 was an adequate candidate, he lost appeal to the Reagan wing of the Republican party because he acquiesed to tax increases while president. I believe that if he had held his ground on that issue he would have been re-elected. I don't disagree that Clinton was a strong candidate, but I do think that if he wasn't strong enough to coattail Gore into office, he wasn't as strong as you think.

 
somerandomhobo
Apr 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reezer Show

Clinton's home state also went to Bush

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong