As anyone who knows me well will tell you, I have immense respect for the political skills possessed by Bill Clinton. His reputation as a politician who can connect with voters is both well-deserved and well-earned. But this idea that the Clintons are brilliant campaign strategists needs to be put to rest. Let's briefly review the facts.
In 1974, Bill Clinton lost a race for the US House of Representatives 48% to 52%.
In 1978 Bill won the race for Governor of Arkansas. After winning a 5-way race for the Democratic nomination, he crushed his opponent in the general election by out-fundraising him 3:1.
In 1980 Bill Clinton survived a surprisingly strong primary challenge from a relative political neophyte, but then lost the general election by 4%. As governor, he lost his first shot at reelection.
In 1982, Bill reclaimed the governor's mansion with a 54-45 split. For those who don't recall, 1982 was a huge year for Democrats nationwide, with voters punishing Republicans for a deep recession that plagued Reagan's first term. Despite this fact, the myth of the "comeback kid" is born.
Clinton then went on to serve as governor until 1992, successfully standing for reelection in 1984, 1986, and 1990. (They amended the constitution during his last term to increase time in office from 2 to 4 years.) Sadly, Google wasn't able to turn up data on the election, but nothing I have ever seen or read has led me to believe that these elections were hard fought contests that required great political skill to survive.
In 1992, Bill Clinton enters a race nobody thinks he can win (Bush's post-Iraq War I approval rating was at 80%), survived numerous campaign scandals to outlast a week Democratic field (a.k.a. Comeback Kid II), and then won the general election with a plurality of the vote in a serious three-way race. The final tally was 43-37-19 Clinton-Bush-Perot.
In 1996, Bill Clinton was an incumbent president who won what was essentially a two way race with Bob Dole, claiming 49% to Dole's 41%. Again, a plurality but not a majority, and this time as the incumbent president.
In 2000, Hillary Clinton won her first election, defeating Rep. Rick Lazio, a stand-in for Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had dropped out unexpectedly when a combination of health problems and a nasty divorce sunk his campaign.
In 2006, Hillary Clinton spent $36 million - the most of any candidate running for the Senate that year - to defeat a bunch of nobody's in an election that was for all intents and purposes uncontested.
________________
Now let me be absolutely clear about this.
I am not suggesting that this means Hillary will either win or lose this primary race, nor am I saying that the Clintons don't each posses other impressive political talents. What I am saying is simple:
Aside from the 1992 "comeback kid" episode, what precisely have the Clinton's done to deserve this reputation as masters of the campaign?
And I mean that seriously: what have they done?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
