Why did Louisiana, South, middle America vote Democrat in '92 and '96?

I’m sure you could dig deeper, but a lot of times, Americans vote between the actual human beings running for President and not just the R or D. And the human being the Republicans ran in ‘92 was a the awkward incumbent, clearly inferior to his predecessor Reagan, a 2nd Bush term would have felt like 16 years of Reagan, with the last 8 being bad facsimiles, and the pendulum is typically not allowed to get swung that far without having to come back. Also, “Read my lips…no new taxes” then…taxes. And the 1st Iraqi War that 35 years later, still almost no one could tell you what the frick that had to do with us. And the Democrats ran one of the most gifted politicians of the 20th century, who convinced people he “felt their pain,” and gave the biggest generation in American history, the Baby Boomers, the 1st “one of us” they could vote for. And he played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show while wearing shades.

In ‘96, that incumbent Democrat ran against a Republican “human being” who, bless his heart, was 137 years old—possibly dead—and had to shake hands left handed, because he couldn’t move his right. Yet he always had a pen stuck in it as merely a prop.

I think the economy was pretty good both years, so there wasn’t a backlash to vote against, really or a clear “vote my pocketbook”
difference —I think the “read my lips” campaign was more about painting H.W. as a liar than him simply raising taxes.

So, at the end of the days, people were able to just vote for the human being they liked best and wanted representing us. Issues were close enough that they didn’t really matter. Clinton was young and hip and liked to slay poon. Bush was a dork who had been in power too long, and Dole, like I said, was 137 years old. At least. And we wanted Slick Willie to be our face to the world. Those elections were about the humans, not their parties. And it obviously trickled down into redder areas.

I am no political analyst, did no research before answering, consulted no data. I’m just in my mid-40s and was alive and old enough to have witnessed it. This is my memory of the overall feeling in America during that time. I’m sure you could drill farther and break it down more scientifically than that. But I don’t think that you need to. Democrats ran the better horse both times.

Yeah, it was wild. Dude was made out of teflon, similar to Trump. There was the Paula Jones thing, a bunch of Arkansas things that were too many to even distinguish one from the other, and it all just slid right off of him.

I mean, dude got caught sticking cigars up a 19-year-old intern’s pussy—in the Oval Office—lied about it under oath, explained his perjury away by literally saying “it
depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is,” and still won re-election in a landslide. “Aww, that’s just ol’ Slick Willie being Slick Willie.” People loved him.

Again, I think he was one of the most gifted politicians in history. He was as able to connect with people, in person and through tv. They believed he genuinely did “feel their pain.” That he truly cared about them on an actual personal level. He was a brilliant liar because he was able to Jedi mind trick himself with the George Constanza’s “it’s not a lie, if you believe it.” I think he talked himself into believing a lot of his bullshite.

But he was such a stark contrast to the grandfatherly figures of Reagan and Bush, who talked more down to you (not in a bad way), while he was talking more to people, on their level. Because he literally was. All those Boomers were coming into that middle-age together, they’d grown out of being hippies, had survived Vietnam, had a blast in the 80s, and had finally gotten serious and old enough to have the most power at the voting booth. And he was one of them. But he attracted just about every demo. Again, it was wild. I didn’t know somebody like that could actually be elected the president.

This is just my very amateur analysis, though.

92 Ross Perot. 96 Republican Congress balanced budget and good economy.

quote:

---

Dude was made out of teflon, similar to Trump. There was the Paula Jones thing, a bunch of Arkansas things that were too many to even distinguish one from the other, and it all just slid right off of him.

---

Back then and still today, the media picks and chooses how to cover these bimbo eruptions as Rush would say. With Clinton and most Democrats, they would report the aggravating factors as to why this person didn’t commit the allegations, while with Trump, Pete Hegseth, and any Republican, they report the glaring accusations and none of the factors that support it was consensual.

Couldn't move his right hand?


Go to hell you scumbag motherfricker. Go to hell. That was a damn war injury you POS.

quote:

---

Clinton had already been reelected when the Lewinsky scandal broke.

---

Thanks. I couldn’t remember. Seemed there was always some sort of woman scandal going on, though. He would have won anyway, even if it had come out before the ‘96 election. Part of that was him, but another big part was Bob Dole had zero chance of getting elected at that point of his life and after Clinton had broken the Boomer ceiling in ‘92. He was such a terrible candidate to run against such a popular incumbent in the middle of robust economy. I don’t remember it being framed like this, but surely Dole was just a sacrificial lamb that the Repubs threw out there so as not to waste a better talent. But I don’t really remember the primary that cycle. Maybe he was the best they had at the time. ‘96 was the 1st election I voted in. I turned 18 and graduated that year. I registered as a Republican, but didn’t vote in the primary. Too busy being 18, I guess. But I was very much invested by the general and took it seriously. I was always interested in politics—more than most my age. I worked on a state House campaign a year or 2 earlier that my buddy’s dad narrowly lost. Still, good times.

My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and a staunch Republican. I remember around this time, in his office at his house, he had boxes full of these white, styrofoam hats with “Pat Buchanan” and the year of whatever campaign he had run for when my grandfather accumulated so many. I never did know how he came to have all of those. Anyway, hadn’t thought about all of that in years. Not that it has anything to do with the OP.

Dole's problem was that his personality during the campaign was staid and more befitting the 1950s and before. He did that to himself though, because after his loss his personality came to the fore and he was jovial and funny at times.

1992 was probably the first election where pop culture media played a huge role for the first time. Bush wasn't ready for that while Clinton and Perit benefitted from it. I blame Bush's loss mostly on Perot.

Clinton was from Arkansas. His running mate was from Tennessee.
Hence the southern vote. The South still had a lot of blue dog Democrats back then. Add in, the electorate in general are dumb.

Reagan was a beloved figure. I think it's questionable whether the love was deserved but he was a strong figure. Bush was able to ride coattails in hopes that the positive energy would continue. He killed it and became vulnerable to losing the next election.

Along comes young, smart, smiling and charismatic Clinton looking into the camera and giving us his thumb tip up trademark move. The media had made Reagan and now set about making Clinton. If we only knew then what we know now about the Clintons it still would not have prevented him from being elected, the country was sick of old men with old ideas who operated clandestine activities which were often shady in nature.

Reagan showed the media how much power they had. Clinton was fabricated by the media in much the same way Obama got outrageously biased support from the media. Kamala was too horrible to benefit from it. I think what is more interesting than how these two men got elected is why they got support when neither was truly qualified. Also interesting is how GWBush siezed upon the desire for more Reagan without the sleaziness of GHWBush but he also was satisfying the need to be relatable without introducing all the character issues of Clinton.

The question in my mind, as a person born in 1968, did the deep state start in 1963 or before that time and also was the media lost in 80's and 90's or much earlier? Was Cronkite a puppet? In my opinion, had not the internet given us alternative means of influencing people we would all be comrades by now.

Edit: One more belief of mine - Reagan and Bush were deep state. GWBush had deep state advisors. Both Clinton and Obama were born to whores and thus became whores with no real male influence. Both are married to battle axe bitches too, couple of bastard cucks

Clinton ran as a conservative “blue dog” democrat. By today’s standards, he’d be Republican. It was the era of John Breaux and Sam Nunn. Today’s Democratic Party is run by freaks and commies, huge difference between 1992 and 2024.