• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will the Clinton presidency wind up hurting Democrats more than any other?

B

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Don't get me wrong, I liked Clinton and thought the amount of scrutiny he was under was borderline treason by the Right..

However, his failure to pass any moderate legistation during his first two years in office and the massive mobilization effort by the Republicans in 94 has really hurt the Democratic Party going forward. The South, which had been alligned with Conservative Democrats since Lincoln had finally realigned to the Republican Party, something that took generations to happen and something that may take double the amount of time to reverse. With the South now completely under Republican control at all levels of government, and the realignment of votes, what share does Clinton shoulder when this all happened on his watch?
 
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Don't get me wrong, I liked Clinton and thought the amount of scrutiny he was under was borderline treason by the Right..

However, his failure to pass any moderate legistation during his first two years in office and the massive mobilization effort by the Republicans in 94 has really hurt the Democratic Party going forward. The South, which had been alligned with Conservative Democrats since Lincoln had finally realigned to the Republican Party, something that took generations to happen and something that may take double the amount of time to reverse. With the South now completely under Republican control at all levels of government, and the realignment of votes, what share does Clinton shoulder when this all happened on his watch?
Click to expand...

Clinton was only a minor player in the realignment you describe, which had been ongoing long before he hit the scene. The southern states gave near-unanimous support to Republican presidential candidates in 4 of the 5 presidential elections between 1972 and 1988. Clinton enjoyed greater success in the South than any Democrat since Carter, but even so, the south generally went for Bush. In 2000, Gore didn't take a single southern state, including his home state of Tennessee.

The voting patterns for southern governorships and Congress seats have largely mirrored this pattern - the south is simply becoming more Republican over time. There are a number of explanations for this, and Clinton is only a small piece of the larger puzzle.
 
The long term shifts are more due to Reagan's popularity and legacy, than Clinton's failures. Reagan transformed the political and cultural landscape.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
The long term shifts are more due to Reagan's popularity and legacy, than Clinton's failures. Reagan transformed the political cultural and landscape.
Click to expand...

OMG, I think I've just agreed with you for the first time.

Edit: I'm going to go wash my hands. :laugh:
 
Civil rights act and EEOC crap though Carters pres brought south to repubs, not clinton.

I seriously wish the south won civil war and I'm sure they do too. The mid west is pretty central but devide between north and south is pretty serious.
 
Well, I did study the realignment in detail, and have to disagree with some of the main points some of you are making. From a congressional/state & local standpoint, there were dramatic shifts that occured during the Clinton presidency. Nobody can possibly argue that the South had an ideological shift, of course they should have voted Republican way before Clinton came to office. However, during the congressional races in 1994, Newt and Co. came up with several brilliant ideas, such as the Contract with America and using negative images of Clinton to sway votes at the midterm elections. This combined with people like Rush Limbaugh helped start a grassroots movement that changed century old voting patterns. Many traditional Conservative "Democrats" switched parties when they saw the writing on the wall. This all peaked with the ousting of the Democrats from the House and Senate majorities, and was tied to a huge shift in state and local politics. The Republicans used Clinton's unpopularity to finalize the realignment, but you can not minimize what happened in 1994.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Civil rights act and EEOC crap though Carters pres brought south to repubs, not clinton.

I seriously wish the south won civil war and I'm sure they do too. The mid west is pretty central but devide between north and south is pretty serious.
Click to expand...

Interesting point - I can't say it has ever occurred to me to consider what would have happened if the South had won. I imagine there'd be a fairly stark contrast between the US and the Confederacy economically, though one never knows.
 
Bumrush, I can agree, but none of that would have happened unless Reagan tilted the American political debate to the right. It was a monumental shift that the 90s depended on.
 
Everyone I know in the south have always been conservative except those who've really bought into the class and race warfare thing. Most of the complaining I'm hearing is about liberal Yankees messing with something that's not theirs and poking their nose in the affairs of southern states like a new breed of carpetbaggers. And ruining the country and crucifying Christ all over again and turning the country into a Sodom and Gomorrah. Heck even many of the Democrats say that as well. And let's not forget that the "Civil War" was really the War of Northern Aggression. And if the South would have won we'd have it made. Hank Williams Jr. would be the president of the USA. The day Elvis passed away would be a national holiday. The supreme court would be down in Texas and if they were proven guilty then they would swing quickly, instead of writing' books and smiling' on T.V. All the cars would be made in the Carolina's and ban all the ones made in China. Every girl child would be sent to Georgia to learn to smile. Yep we'd be better off.

 
If the south won, there would be two seperate countries. The south would be going through it's civil rights fiasco era right about now due to slavery being ended at a later time. Economically, it would be far more industrial.

It would also border on, if not be an outright Christian theocracy within the veil of a Republic.

 
Your point is kinda off out in left field. Clinton carried a lot of the mid west states and several southern states, in both 92 and 96. So your moderate legislation is not even in the discussion. Quite frankly I don't even see your point at all.
 
It has less to do with the Presidency, more to do with the makeup of Congress and local/state legislatures.

I suggest you read this

Text

and this:

Text

Just some background information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top