Someone should ask these 4 messiah's about what would happen if Ross Perot didn't enter the race. Clinton was literally elected by leftists but governed like Republican lite.
Someone should ask these 4 messiah's about what would happen if Ross Perot didn't enter the race. Clinton was literally elected by leftists but governed like Republican lite.
The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
Jerry Brown was and is a bitter rival of Clinton and opposed him from the left in the primaries.
Raised Taxes, deregulated various sectors, media and banking too, and made deep cuts to welfare and child support programs (austerity "end welfare as we know it") only to see the surplus blown away in the Iraq war and birth rates fall.
Before the 1995 midterms, Clinton governed from the left. Hillary Clinton pushed a universal healthcare agenda that got to be unpopular thanks to Bill KristolтАЩs agenda. After this, yes, Clinton moved away from the left with welfare reform, Glass Steagall Repeal, etc.
Point being is that both Brown and Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and balanced the budget, resulting in a significant budget surplus. Neither Biden nor Obama were able to do this at any point in their presidency.
Someone should ask these 4 messiah's about what would happen if Ross Perot didn't enter the race. Clinton was literally elected by leftists but governed like Republican lite.
Someone should ask them who had solid control of congress in 1992 and who had control in 1995.
Clinton would have lost to Bush.
Your basis for that claim?
Hogwash, Clinton had that in the bag with or without Perot
If Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have won a majority. That's what would have happened. Bush would not have won.
Yeah, I'm tired of the "Perot elected Clinton" canard. Strong third-party candidacies are a sign of dissatisfaction *with the incumbent!*
I think Clinton would have won narrowly.
You could argue Perot cost Bush a Montana or a Colorado but that's about it, Clinton would have won easily.
Georgia & Nevada maybe too but yeah don't see Bush digging all the way out.
The only poll I remember seeing showed that Perot voters were split 38-38 between Bush and Clinton. There's an argument that Perot scrambling the race by getting in and dropping out helped Clinton, but I have to think that Clinton likely would have won anyway even if Perot had never gotten in.
Correct. Perot voters would've split roughly evenly between Clinton and Bush, meaning that Clinton would still have won easily.
I don't agree that Clinton governed Republican lite.
Clinton as POTUS seemed to me to be similar to how Jerry Brown governed California in the eight years before Newsom took office.
And both Clinton and Brown raised taxes on the super wealthy.
Jerry Brown was and is a bitter rival of Clinton and opposed him from the left in the primaries.
Raised Taxes, deregulated various sectors, media and banking too, and made deep cuts to welfare and child support programs (austerity "end welfare as we know it") only to see the surplus blown away in the Iraq war and birth rates fall.
Before the 1995 midterms, Clinton governed from the left. Hillary Clinton pushed a universal healthcare agenda that got to be unpopular thanks to Bill KristolтАЩs agenda. After this, yes, Clinton moved away from the left with welfare reform, Glass Steagall Repeal, etc.
Point being is that both Brown and Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and balanced the budget, resulting in a significant budget surplus. Neither Biden nor Obama were able to do this at any point in their presidency.
тАЬThe era of тАШbig governmentтАЩ is over.тАЭ