[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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 would say that weariness is the same thing as fatigue. A change usually results from people that are tired of something.

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.

He did lose interest in campaigning, that much was clear. Perhaps he was weary of typical political BS, both in Washington and on the campaign.

Then in 2000, it happened again - people just got weary of the incumbent, and Gore couldn't do enough to get people fired up.

I agree. The common adjective applied to Gore at the time was 'wooden'.

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 disagree about the first part. Different segments have always been "scared and angry" about certain politicians or parties, just different degrees. You should have been around in 1968. Talk about scared and angry - makes today looks like a sunday school potluck. People were that way, to varying degrees, with Carter, Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton. And certain people will be that way with McCain or Obama. Most partisans cannot be objective - it always something fundamental that riles up the hatred or contempt. It's either hatred for the Religious Right or Atheist Left (other people's words, not mine), or color of skin or demographics or something. It is taken out on politicians belonging to the opposition.

I agree with the second part.

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?).

I was going to mention the generation aspect but only in specifics. You can't say that it was simply boomers vs the oldies. I remember reading some of the independent press from the Bay Area when I was interested in learning more about the anti-war/peace&love movements of the 60s. What was said specifically that Clinton is "one of us". "Us" not meaning boomers but "anti-war, draft dodger". He was the golden child to finalize the 60s revolution in obtaining the powerful position in the world. I also recall that this same group soured on him very early on when he advocated positions all over the spectrum.

Apart from that, Clinton did have the appeal to independents and moderates (along with Perot). I know a number of long-time Rep voters voting for Clinton because they wanted change or 'breath of fresh air". That didn't last long either when he went to positions further left of his supposed centrism (gays in military and some of his Cabinet appointees).

This perhaps played a part in the fatigue, weariness or whatever voters felt just after 22 months when the 1994 election came around.

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.

Both candidates have two perceived weaknesses: Obama - black and liberal; McCain - old and Republican. (Don't chide me for these labels, all four will be an issue in the campaign, whether they should or not.) Obama is getting a boost (how much, hard to say), just like Clinton got a boost. But in the end, it is not going to come down to issues or age, just likeability and/or charisma.