Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Speaking of history repeating, I saw a bumper sticker today that brought back memories. Most of you were too young to remember the 1992 campaign, at least the day-to-day stuff.
|
To me, it was more a campaign about weariness, than about changing direction. Reagan/Bush had lasted 12 years and the quick recession during Bush's term gave people enough of an excuse to vote for the other guy (Clinton or Perot, depending). Both Clinton and Perot hammered on that specific issue (both famously, by the way) and Bush never gave that much of an effort to fight back.
I remember that specifically about that campaign - it seemed to me that along the way Bush just gave up. By the time of the Convention, when he got saddled with a very right-wing platform, he just seemed defeated, personally.
Then in 2000, it happened again - people just got weary of the incumbent, and Gore couldn't do enough to get people fired up.
In this year, I don't think people are as much weary as they are scared and angry. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest in history. Eighty percent of the country thinks we're going in the wrong direction. People want to go in a different direction, and Obama's tapping into that.
I think you'll find the best parallels, Bucc, if you look at the generational aspect. Clinton got a big boost from Boomers who wanted to vote for a member of their cohort. That, as much as anything, was the "change" in that campaign. After 12 years of cloak-and-dagger administrations and increasingly awkward and uninspiring leaders (both Reagan and Bush went downhill in office), Clinton was definitely a breath of fresh air (at least, once he learned to give a speech - anyone remember how he bombed at the 1988 convention?).
Likewise, although Obama may not technically be a member of Generation X (on the cusp?) or Y (definitely not), he's getting a boost from being nowhere near as old as McCain.