How many people heard of Bill Clinton in 1990?

[BlueStater]

As far as I can tell, most people only knew him for that awful speech he gave at the 1988 convention. Two years later, he was elected president.

Candidates for the 1972 nomination including Edmund Muskie and Ted Kennedy but it ended up going to anti-war candidate George McGovern.

Jimmy Carter was a little-known governor in 1974 and was considered to have little chance against more well-known candidates.

The 2004 frontrunner was originally Joe Lieberman. Then it was Howard Dean. Eventually, the nomination went to John Kerry.

You see where I'm going with this? I can't stand the media's constant assurance that people like Clinton and McCain will be the nominees. A year from now, Hillary's candiacy could very well end up like Lieberman's and the last person anyone expected could end up as the frontrunner.

At this point in time, I could care less. I'm not going to concern myself with a presidential election that's nearly two years away. Pulling the troops out of Iraq and seeing justice served to that lying idiot in the White House is far more important to me right now.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I understand, but things ain't like they were back in then.....

2004 being the exception, and actually John Kerry was polling the best initially...and he ended up with the nomination.....sooooo.....

most of the other years you cite are years before the telecommunications act of 1996 was signed and enacted. That would be before Fox and MSNBC existed and before Newsweek was also part of the family. That would have been when CNN was still operating as a real newstation and wasn't owned by the same folks who put out Time magazine and the partner of Disney's ABC. It would have also been a time before CBS was owned by Viacom. It would have been prior to nothing but media whores on television editorializing the news; a time when Dan Rather and others still reigned. It was before Murdock and the moonie times; before tabloids ran by conservatives were quoted as much as mainstream newspapers. Before radio had been conglomorated into one giant agency or two. It was a time when the media was not called liberal every damn day. Hell, it was before the days of Ojay scandalous tales that go on for days and days.

All in all, those days are not these days. The polls and what the media does have different powers now. What they say goes....for the most part, and if anything unplanned shows up, they have learned to deal with it pretty quickly (see Dean Scream).

Far as I'm concerned, the activist have to be right there at the starting gate along with the Pundits know it all.....or else the masses will be totally brainwashed by the time it matters.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. There was no internet as we know it today in 1990

That is the key difference. If I didn't know who the Governor of Arkansas was today I could find out in a few clicks. If I wanted to find out in 1990 I guess I suppose that my best bet would be to go to the library and browse the newspaper archives.

Basically, access to the internet allows us to know who every potential presidential candidate is before they run. I guarantee you if the internet as we know it today was around in 1990 DUers would be talking extensively about Bill Clinton.

[liberalpragmatist]

4. That's a great point

And though it's really obvious (and I'm sure my thoughts have touched on that before), I never really considered that in isolation.

But it's totally true. How would I have found out who represented which states back in 1990? I'm too young to remember a time when I didn't use the internet to find information - it became widespread when I was in grade school, so by the middle of my elementary school education we were looking up things online (mid-90s).

I suppose there was the Almanac of American Politics.

[FrenchieCat]

5. True...and the Internet is growing, BUT

The masses are still mostly get their news from the Electronic Media; the TeeVee. They are the voters that make a difference in the end....and they usually don't tune in till just a few week prior to the election. Prior to that, their TeeVee News has been their background noise. They tend to vote based on what the television said. I hate that, but I think it still applies.

[TwentyFive]

3. You make a very wise point. We should not look to coronate a candidate now.

I'd bet at least 100 Democrats are preparing plans right now to run in 2008. Most will abandon those plans, but a few we haven't thought of may decide to make a run.

Also, what if the economy takes a huge nosedive in 2 years - which is entirely likely with Bush in the WH? Hungry poor people don't vote for moderates. Think about that in 2008.

[jobycom]

6. The media had proclaimed Clinton the front runner by 1990.

The only person fully in the race by 1990 was Paul Tsongas (the Howard Dean of that year, IMO, for better and worse), but Bill Clinton was already making all the moves to run, and the media saw the strength of his organization, the donors backing him, and his political skill as governor of Arkansas. They were talking about him in 90 the way they are talking about Hillary know, but there were fewer news outlets, less time spent on political news that far from the election, and no Internet. But those who were paying attention knew his name.

The media isn't just speculating on who is going to run, and they aren't just pushing the big names at us. They know who is running. A candidate doesn't just wake up six months before the primary and decide to run. They start building their infrastructure two or more years in advance. They begin trying to get committments from the big donors, they start recruiting state and local politicos to lay the groundwork for a campaign (and to keep their opponent from getting them). Several people do this and then decide not to run, of course, but if the media is talking about them, it is because they have begun the process. Al Gore is the enigma, though. He's not running, but he's keeping his name out there. He can gear up faster than anyone else. So they have to watch him, but since he's not declared, they don't talk about him much.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. Wasn't a lot of the attention focused on Cuomo, though?

And if not Cuomo then on people like Sam Nunn and Bill Bradley?

I can see how the media would have focused attention on Clinton, but was it the kind of coverage that Mark Warner got before he opted not to run - you know, the upstart who could beat Cuomo or Nunn?

[napi21]

7. All of you are right. The internet does make a big difference now.

But I still be;oevethere are some surprises out there. I can tell you if I had MY choice right now, it would be the Gov. of Mt. Governor: Brian Schweitzer.

Yes I first saw him on TV and I was very impressed. I've even heard a number of TV interviewers ask him if hewould consider a run for the WH in 08. Each time he answered the same..."Why would I want to do that? I have the best job in the world right here in Mt."

I believe he has the charisma that BC has, and I sure hope he changes his mind. He would start off as a dark horse candidate, but I don't think it would take longforthe majority of the public to fall in live with him as our candidate...even the TV folks.