Why Republicans Own the White House.

[Postman]

Ever since Richard M. Nixon was elected President in 1968 the Republican Party has retained control of the White House except for 2 anomolies.

1. The ONLY reason Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, won the Presidency in 1976 is because of fallout from the Watergate scandal.

2. The ONLY reason Bill Clinton, a Democrat, won the Presidency in 1992 is because of Ross Perot. Had Ross Perot NOT run as a Third-Party candidate, and in the process siphoning off Republican voters, George H.W. Bush would have won.

Take away those 2 anomolies and you have Republicans in control of the White House for the last 36 years. WHY?

[Skittles]

1. they control the voting

suppression of votes is the key

[slackmaster]

2. IIRC Bill Clinton was also elected President in 1996

Republicans in control for 24 out of 36 years.

I think Ronald Reagan was an anomaly because of his magnetic personality. Give the GOP half credit for that and the score is even.

:D

[Guarionex]

3. Americans are warhungry people...

it's been seared into the nation culture that their main quality of a U.S. President is has ability to be (or grandstand as being) TOUGH.

Nothing about leading the country forward toward social justice, better standard of living...no..that takes a second seat to "protect us".

The funny thing is that if the United States would haul their forces from the rest of the world, much of the ill-will agains the nation that crystalizes into terrorism or threats to the United States would dissipate. Thus, in the "defense" of the nation, what we do is cause the prophecy to come true (more people hate us, more threats).

So, because of that, the Executive leader has to be, first and foremost, a warmonger to pass the test of the American people...remember how John Kerry, a verified participant in a war, had to compare his war credentials to a guy who went AWOL and who draft dodged? Is that not enough evidence of how absurd the mentality of the American people, and of the whole "who is tougher" context?

[Postman]

15. the reason for that is this...

private property.

There is alot of private property overseas that is sold as "National Interest"

Why do you think the US military exists as it does?

To protect freeedom? Hello?

[bluestateguy]

4. #2 is a myth

A third of those Perot voters would have voted for Clinton, a third for Bush and a third would have stayed home. Most of them were Bush voters in 1988, but most were not prepared to vote for him again. Bush Sr. had approval numbers in the low 30's, the right track/wrong track polls indicated that over 60% of the country believed the nation was on the wrong track, much worse than today. No way Bush Sr. was winning that election.

[Postman]

7. They believed that partly due to PEROT.

I was a Republican who voted for Perot because I LIKED PEROT.

If it were strictly BUSH versus DUKAKIS, I would have voted for BUSH hands down.

[Cobalt Violet]

14. .

[bullimiami]

5. Im not so sure of Perot in 92.

The republicans were so dissatisfied with Bush they were ready for a change. Without Perot I think there is no way to know how they would split.

I think they are in the WH because they are willing to do ANYTHING to win. Our party leadership doesnt even seem to be willing to fight for justice and honesty.

[Postman]

8. ergo, the Democratic Party is dead.

n/t

[President Jesus]

11. also, don't forget the importance of Pat Buchanan

Pat represented the evanglical culture warriors quite effectively, and when his candidacy died, they stayed home.

GWB's electoral success truly does lie in having the undying love of these people, a BIG difference between him and both his father and Dole. They give him just barely enough to eke out 'wins.'

I really wonder if the GOP can find another candidate like this for 2008, cuz McCain, Rudy, or Hagel surely ain't it.

[President Jesus]

6. crap.

Bill Clinton winning by nearly 10 points in both 92 and 96 does not qualify as an 'anomaly.'

What you're failing to realize is any party's most important responsibility: to keep itself unified. The very fact that it couldn't for 8 years does not denote strength, rather weakness.

I would say what the Republicans have done starting with Nixon is even the playing field by co-opting the racist south. Prior to tapping into the south's rampant racism, they had a very difficult time winning the white house. Now, they have a 50/50 shot at it, given candidates of equal strength.

[Postman]

9. not with rigged voting machines.

and the Dems are fine with it. Go figure.

[serryjw]

10. I work for a market reasearch company.....

we are doing our year end file updates. I spoke to a 19 year old black female who has not graduated HS, is unemployed, has no skills and is a REPUBLICAN!

[Postman]

12. it seems the default ideology after being exposed to it all your life is..

republican.

You have to be de-programmed (aka educated) to realize that your ox is being gored.

[President Jesus]

13. not a surprise- GOP campaigns don't require critical thought

When you think about it, semi-retarded people must love the GP, because they really do make everything seem black and white. "We're good, they're bad, trust us because God is on our side, 'nuff said."

[serryjw]

16. I know this was 'tongue and cheek'...BUT

you are correct. When I was on one of our CU (CO) campuses, I saw a 45 year old mother with 2 retarded daughters in their 20's and BOTH said they were voting for Bushit BECAUSE they also were good Christians

[Yupster]

22. Wow talk about your statistics

Three of the Democratic Party's base voter groups all in one person

African-American
Did not graduate high school
Female

And a Republican -- where are our statisticians when you need them?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VOX]

23. Your "new ideas within the Democrat party" are standard GOP fare...

BTW, it's "Democratic Party" -- your usage is a dead giveaway.

Enjoy Boot Hill.

[0rganism]

18. You want anomalies? Try the 2000 election in Florida or 2004 in Ohio

Plenty of anomalies there -- except those anomalies are now considered "business as usual".

[Historic NY]

19. Nixon would have lost in 68 to Humphrey........

It was fairly close about 400 thousand difference in popular vote. Wallace siphoned off almost 10 million votes and that sealed Humphrey's fate. Of course our convention in Chicago didn't so anything to help either.

[Yupster]

20. I don't agree with you on # 2

Go state by state and you will find that Clinton undoubtedly won some states because Perot was in the race.

Just for one extravagant example, I don't see Clinton winning Montana in a two man race.

There is certainly no state that Clinton lost that he lost because of Perot. I can't even see a possibility of that.

However, I don't think you can get to 270 electoral votes for Bush by extrapolating where Perot's votes would have gone.

You get to a closer election for sure, but I don't see how you get to a Bush win.

Just my opinion from looking at each state's numbers.

[ComerPerro]

21. They lie their asses off

They tell people the lies they want to hear.

Also, for a more in-depth analysis, check out "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank.