How many Obama supporters voted for Clinton in 92 and 96?

[rug]

[robbedvoter]

1. Interesting question - I'd love to see those numbers

[XemaSab]

2. I voted for Nader in '96!

:patriot:

[rug]

3. How about 2000?

[XemaSab]

5. Clinton was not on the ballot.

:P

No, are you kidding me? I voted for my man Al Gore!

(I only voted for Nader in 96 because Clinton was WAAAAAY ahead in the polls in Cali and I was already, even at the tender age of 18, irritated and annoyed with his weak pseudo-centrist nonsense. Hence, the protest vote. :P )

[Meshuga]

4. I don't remember Nader running in 96

He probably did but he definitely wasn't a factor. I wonder how many voted Perot.

[XemaSab]

8. Nader/LaDuke got 2.37% of the vote on the Green Party ticket.

:patriot:

Clinton got 51%, Dole got 38%, and Perot got, like, 6%. :P

[ulysses]

62. he did.

That was my first vote for him as well.

[goodhue]

33. So did I

I voted for Nader in 96. In 92 I was out of the country and did not vote absentee. I had been a big Jerry Brown backer and probably would have written him in. My state was not a swing state in 92 or 96, so my vote was of little consequence. In 1988 I voted for Dukakis, in 2000 I voted for Al Gore.
So I'm one of the Obama supporters who never ever voted for Clinton.

[HereSince1628]

6. Clinton was running then? Oh! You meant THAT Clinton

I thought you meant CLINTON!!!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

13. As a New Yorker, I voted for Hillary for senator, twice.

What a disappointment.

....Helloooo Hillary, where have you been???

[OzarkDem]

7. How many voted for Bush I or Dole?

Even better question.

[Bucky]

28. Hey, people grow.

[flor de jasmim]

9. Alert: false (indirect) argument!

Different times, different options.
In 1992 Clinton was the "fresh face" that we now see in Obama. He was approximately the same age that Obama is now, and he represented energy and a generational change.

Now, of the two democratic candidates, who best fulfills that image?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[psychopomp]

17. I think you are too quick to judge

There is nothing wrong with what that poster wrote and your reply was ill-considered and rude.

Yes, Sen. Obama is to 2008 what then-Gov. Clinton was in 1992: the fresh-faced challenger who represents a changing of the generational order.

[rug]

18. Two points:

Starting a post with "alert" empties the post of meaning and replaces it with agenda. Rude is a strange term to use in this forum.

Second, if Obama is the 2008 Clinton, what makes you think he will not disappoint?

Finally, what does "the fresh-faced challenger who represents a changing of the generational order" mean? It strikes me as a naive description of a poltical process that is based on power, money and class. "Generational order" has nothing to do with it.

[flor de jasmim]

24. He probably will disappoint (everyone does, sooner or later!)

What I meant is that the implication behind a poll "Who did you vote for in 1992/96" implies that if one voted for Clinton in those years (and I did), then I would be more inclined to vote for HC in the present election. Otherwise, why pose the question?

My point was simply that for some people the reasons that led them to vote for Clinton in 1992 might lead them to vote not for HC but for Obama.

I have no particular "agenda" here (as an Edwards supporter who has already voted in the primary election)--my point was on the underlying false assumption that I saw in the way the results of the poll could be "read". While the question itself is cut-and-dried (either people voted for Clinton or not), the same results could be interpreted in very different (and opposing) ways.

[rug]

30. I am more curious to learn if those bashing Clinton now supported him before.

So far, it appears 90% supported him. There seems to be a lot more than 10% attacking him, his record and his wife now.

[psychopomp]

63. Well, that post is gone now

Sometimes people can be quick to lash out at newer DU'ers for perceived breaches of conduct, usually for pointing out the frailties of some icon of the Left.

I am aware that Sen. Obama may disappoint as President. In fact, I very well expect it. Who wouldn't, after our Dem politicians have let us down again and again since 2004.

However, I allow myself to hold on to--here it comes--hope that this time we are getting the real thing: a leader who will work towards healing the divides that have cut this nation up and will work for peace and justice.

[flor de jasmim]

19. Does longevity = wisdom here?

[rug]

21. Does brevity?

[flor de jasmim]

26. Touché

Am I breaking rules? Is there an etiquette book? (The icons above don't give a clue.)

[KAZ]

25. Welcome to DU Sandi! We're usually a lot more friendly,

but the primaries have everyone in a sniping mode.

[flor de jasmim]

31. Thanks for the welcome!

Every election cycle someone talks about it being "the most important" election--and it is always true, at least to some extent. This one is particularly so, though, so I understand. There is a certain freneticism to this one. The first AA! The first woman! And I hear there is an AA woman who is considering a run with the Green Party. And we had a Latino in the group, a "shortie" and probably at least one left-hander. I'm not trying to be flippant--we have had a wonderful group of candidates to choose from. It's like we're in a fancy chocolate shop and can only buy one piece! What to choose, what to choose? Any one of the D candidates (including the much-maligned Gravel) would be a tremendous boost to our morale over either of the remaining Republicans.

So chin up! No matter which way this contest ends (and I do have my druthers), we will win the election in November and get the country moving forward on the right (LEFT) track.

So have a nice day-- back to work for me!

[union_maid]

10. I vote for the Democrat

Always. Because the worst Democratic administration will be better than the best Republican one. And those are really the choices we have. Clinton was not my Primary choice in '92. I preferred Harkin. That didn't stop me from voting with enthusiasm in November and celebrating when he won.

Now I'm an Obama supporter in that I voted for him. I haven't gotten into the flame wars that are going on here. I think our choice is between two good candidates. I'll vote, with honest enthusiasm, for Obama or Clinton in November.

[Avalux]

11. I voted for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it would have been.

So don't try to draw the conclusion that because most of us voted for Bill Clinton twice, we should be voting for Hillary.

[LTR]

12. In '92

Wasn't able to in '96 because I had just moved and couldn't register in time. The Clinton/Dole race was the only major race on the ballot and that looked like a shoo-in for Clinton.

Otherwise, I have voted in almost every even-numbered year election since '86.

[mod mom]

15. I did. I was much more naive to policy and just voted straight party w/o

evaluating the real issues. NOW I pay attention to detail and I got very involved after 2000 election theft.

[mmonk]

16. I actually worked for Clinton/Gore.

I did not see the DLC as clearly as I do now. Hindsite is 20/20.

[Adelante]

20. Both 92 and 96

Not just voted, I broke my ass on both campaigns and attended inaugurations.

[rug]

22. Who do you support now?

[Adelante]

29. Obama

The question was for Obama supporters, no?

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. I cast my first vote in a Presidential election for Bill Clinton in '96.

I was too young to vote in '92, but if I'd been eligible I would have voted for Clinton then, too (and did, in my high school mock election...I was politically aware at a fairly early age).

[Bucky]

27. I'm for Obama now, but I supported Clinton in both the primaries and the general

As a teacher I'd been impressed with what he'd done with education investment in Arkansas for years.

[H2O Man]

32. '92, '96, 2000, 2006. n/t

[shadowknows69]

34. And the relevance this has on this election is what?

[theHandpuppet]

35. Yeah, I don't understand it either

Unless the OP believes we voted for the Republicans. :shrug:

[rug]

37. The attacks on Bill Clinton have been made part of this election.

It is interesting to see if those attacking Clinton now on his record suopported him when he was making it.

Not so hard.

[blm]

36. I did - believing Americans would finally get accountability for BushInc's crimes of office

but then it turned out Bill Clinton protected Poppy Bush and his cronies like Jackson Stephens throughout the 90s, including PARDONING another BCCI-IranContra operative for Poppy before he left office.

Bill's generous actions towards the Bushes led directly to another Bush regime, events of 9-11, and this Iraq war.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Why do some of you want the protection of BushInc to CONTINUE for the next decade?

[rug]

38. Has Obama said he's going to prosecute Bush?

[blm]

44. Obama CAN'T - what a prez CAN do is facilitate ACCESS To documents and files that

investigators and commissions can use to decide whether prosecution is warranted.

THAT is something that should have happened when BushInc was at its most vulnerable and most exposed in Jan 1993 - but that Dem president wouldn't do it. Instead, he protected all those matters for BushInc and his powerful cronies who as it turned out, BANKROLLED Bill's political career in Arkansas AND his primary campaign.

Ever wonder WHY Poppy Bush ran the worst campaign ever for a sitting president? He expected to get impeached after the Dec 1992 BCCI report was released.

What happened to that report? The one that SPECIFICALLY requested more documents were needed and listed 20 outstanding matters that needed further scrutiny.

[onenote]

39. I did, although I don't know what this is supposed to prove.

Help me out. Tell me what it means that I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and voted for Obama in today's primary (keeping in mind that I will vigorously support HRC if she gets the nomination).

[rug]

40. Are you voting for Obama because he's better or do you oppose a Clinton return?

And why?

[onenote]

45. from an earlier post: my explanation of why I ended up going with Obama as my choice

I have steadfastly remained on the fence in the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I find myself moving off the fence and wanted to share my thinking (with the hope that I am not starting a flame war in doing so).

First and foremost, I should be clear that I approach the issue of who to support from a totally pragmatic perspective. I want a candidate that can win. Period. That may bother some people who think that it means I have no principles, but I can live with that criticism. What I can't live with is another four to eight years of repubs controlling the executive branch (and by extension, the judiciary).

With that in mind, I have always considered Clinton, Obama and Edwards (the only candidates I felt were ever serious contenders for the nomination) as nominees who could defeat the repub candidate and I would have no problem in voting for any of them. If anything, I was probably leaning a bit towards Edwards based on my belief that he might be more acceptable to the electorate at large than either Clinton or Obama.

However, Edwards never did catch on and now he's gone. As between Obama and Clinton, I see strenghs and weaknesses in both. Obama's "newness" is both an advantage, in that I think it attracts people who have not previously gotten involved in politics and who are ready for "change", and a disadvantage, because many will consider him too inexperienced or untested. (I personally am not concerned about Obama's experience or lack thereof; my only reason for mentioning it is that my perception is that some voters may be concerned).

As for Clinton, her lack of "newness" is also both a blessing and a curse. She is a known entity. Her husband's presidency, particularly in comparison to the past eight years, looks pretty good and that attracts a lot of Democrats who have been active in the party through both the good times and the lean times. On the other hand, she is a polarizing figure to many. Its unfair that this is the case, but its undeniably true. I think she, like Bill before her, can overcome that and win against any of the potential repubs, particularly because of her appeal to women, but overall I'm not sure if the number of "ABC" voters doesn't offset at least in some significant measure, the number of voters that she brings in that would not previously have paid attention to the campaign.

Ultimately, my leaning towards Obama is based on the sense that I have that his message of "change" (whether or not you believe it means anything in reality) is resonating with a lot of voters, particularly independents and those who have not gotten involved in the political process in the past. Does he have the potential to push away voters, particularly those who with deep set racial biases? Yes. But I think a lot of those voters, sadly, also would be alienated by a female candidate. So on balance, I see the Obama candidacy of having more potential upside for exciting a part of the electorate that hasn't been active.

I think that either a clinton candidacy or an obama candidacy could generate a lot of excitement. But at the moment, I'm personally feeling that this sense of excitement surrounds the Obama campaign more than the Clinton campaign. Maybe its just an infatuation with the new and unknown -- and like all infatuations, it will diminish. But at least for the moment, that feeling of excitement is drawing me in and pulling me off the fence in Obama's direction.

[BklynChick]

41. neither time. way too moderate for me, and he proved that fact. supporting obama now.

[Arugula Latte]

42. I was in the crowd in '92 when he took the oath of office.

Crisp, clear, cold Washington DC winter day.

I was so excited back then. I really thought the Reagan/Bush nightmare was over, and that the country had come to its senses at last.

Then the '94 election happened.

The Clinton presidency had its good points and its bad points.

Today, I vastly prefer a fresh start with Obama.

[DiamondJay]

54. he took the oath in '93

after the 92 election. get it right.

[Arugula Latte]

55. Oops. You're right.

Jan. '93. I posted that before coffee... :hangover:

[democrattotheend]

43. I was too young to vote

But I would have, in the general. My mom recently dug up a cute video of me singing this little jingle I made up, that went something like "Vote for Clinton for America's sake..."

I don't remember the primaries in 1992 at all (I was only 8), but knowing what I know now about the candidates who ran, I probably would have supported Harkin or Tsongas in the primary. Probably Harkin.

[RoadRage]

46. Never.. ineligible in 92, didn't vote in 96 NT

[alphafemale]

47. Someone able to vote in '92 would be in their mid 30's now.

That's clear cutting a large number of people.

So now you boomers don't trust anyone UNDER 30?

And I voted for Clinton in '92 and '96 by the way.

I'd vote for Clinton in '08 if she's the nominee but I hope she isn't.

[cloudythescribbler]

48. Both 92 and 96, small donation in 92, living in homeless shelter in 96 but still voted .... nt

[ieoeja]

49. I assume this meant "in the primary".

I supported Clinton then for many of the same reasons I support Obama now. By 1992 Reagan's failed policies and anti-American activities were coming to light and people were sick of it. The country was poised to reverse Reaganism, and Clinton had the charisma needed to lead that change.

Then he became President and embraced Reaganism, giving it a bipartisan stamp of approval.

So why did I vote for him in 1996? I was so busy defending Clinton from the lies and innuendos of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" -- a quote from an FBI report by the way; not paranoid ramblings of Hillary as the VRWC has attempted to portray it -- I never had a moment to clear my head to assess Clinton.

The VRWC shot itself in the proverbial foot. Had their attacks been less constant or less virulent, Clinton may well have been a one-term president as his Democratic support might have melted away.

[stevietheman]

50. Voted for Clinton in '92, Perot in '96 -- I foresaw Clinton's 2nd term troubles. n/t

n/t

[Bucky]

51. kiq and reck

o'mend

[BooScout]

52. interesting side note........Obama campaigned for B Clinton...

Yes he did.:think:

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I wasn't able to vote in '92 or '96 here's what I probably would have done

'92 I think I would've supported Harkin in the primary. If it was down to Clinton/Tsongas by the time it got to my state I probably would've picked Clinton. I don't think I would've voted for Jerry Brown because he didn't really have a chance.

'96 I would've voted for Clinton.

[adabfree]

57. Voted for Clinton 92 and 96

Obama supporter now...

[Drunken Irishman]

56. I wasn't old enough in 1992 and 1996.

2004 was the first presidential election I could vote in.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Both times.

I'll also add that I was one of the 10% of Americans who did not like Bush after 9-11.

I think there's a discrepancy on that issue as to whom supports whom. But it'd be impossible to prove.

[Neecy]

59. I voted for him twice

In 1992, I donated a lot of money to his campaign and worked as a volunteer for him in California. In 1996, after he screwed the gay community over with DOMA, I voted for him but not with any enthusiasm, and I didn't donate/volunteer either. It would be the same story if Hillary gets the nomination - she'll get my vote but that's all.

[Jed Dilligan]

60. Eligible both times, never supported him

My first GE vote for President was Gore in 2000, my first primary vote was Obama this year.

[dcindian]

61. 46 yr old Southern Tier New Yorker here

yep the Clintons have had my vote every time.

Don't think it will happen again due to the way she is handling this fiasco of a campaign.