Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

1996 Election: Poll

This election takes place as the economy is greatly improving under Clinton's economic team. However, two years prior, Republicans took over the House for the first time in Decades, blocking Clinton's Healthcare initiative.   

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which candidate do you support in the 1996 Election?

    • Bill Clinton - AR - moderate Democrat (tax cuts, decrease military spending, upgrade military, Welfare reform, supports NAFTA and globalization, peacekeeping missions overseas, continue first-term economic focus, Civil Rights)
    • Bob Dole - KS - Republican (pro-business, supports NAFTA and globalization, lower taxes, opposes abortion but more moderate on it than other Republicans, cuts to social programs)
    • Pat Buchanan - VA - Conservative Republican (cater to Religious Right, anti-abortion, supports return to Reagan Trickle-down theory, opposed NAFTA and globalization)
    • Ross Perot - TX - Reform Independent (tax reform, budget reform, strongly oppose NAFTA/Globalization,
  2. 2. As a member of Congress, how do you view the Clinton impeachment?

    • He lied under oath, and conducted himself in a non-presidential way with his affairs. He should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
    • He lied under oath. His marital affairs are his own private business, however. He should be impeached, but he should not be convicted or removed from office.
    • This is just a Republican witch hunt for political reasons. There was nothing really impeachable.
    • I don't know/I don't care.
  3. 3. As a member of Congress, do you support Speaker Newt Gingrich routinely attempting to shut down the government because he opposes Clinton's policies?

    • Unbiased response - The purpose of government is to function. I do not support the major party of Congress, whatever it's affiliation, in shutting down the government because it disagrees with the president, regardless of the party with executive power.
    • Bias Republican - The Republicans have taken the house in a historic victory. As such, the people clearly favor Republican leadership. They are counting on us to block Democratic initiatives that their representative disapprove of, even if it means shutting down government. We want limited government after all.
    • Bias Democrat - This is just a Republican ploy, and desperation move for the 1996 election. Gingrich's tactic will certainly backfire. Either he'll be replaced, or Democrats will take back the House. People want a functioning government.
    • I don't know/I don't care. This is just politics.
      0


Recommended Posts

Here's 1996. 10 votes and I go to 2000. Past polls are in the forum.

I was still in grade school when this election happened. I remember not being terribly interested in this election, as opposed to 1992. People in my school were primarily for Dole. My dad was for Perot. I don't think I really had an opinion on this one at the time. I remember Dole seemed very old to me.  

Also, I've started the semester, so the rest of these might not be as detailed as the previous polls, since I'll be spending about 10 minutes on them instead of 15 to 30 minutes. Also, I may only post one poll every day or two. I'll try to keep up with the 10 votes though. 

@vcczar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Pat Buchanan. Probably Ross Perot again in the general.

2. "He lied under oath, and conducted himself in a non-presidential way with his affairs. He should be impeached, convicted and removed from office."

3.  "Bias Republican - The Republicans have taken the house in a historic victory. As such, the people clearly favor Republican leadership. They are counting on us to block Democratic initiatives that their representative disapprove of, even if it means shutting down government. We want limited government after all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Pat Buchanan - Buchanan probably in the primaries, although both have good arguments. Tough choice. Dole in the general election.

2) Option 1

3) Bias Republican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Perot

2)2

3)Bias Republican (For the leadership reason)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Buchanan in primaries, Perot is general

2) KICK HIM OUT!

3)Bias Republican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dallas@Conservative Elector 2

Out of curiosity, did you two also support impeaching Reagan on the 1988 one (I think) over the Iran-Contra Affair, a FAR more serious crime and breach of trust as a US President, all in all - in fact, grounds for treason, by many reckonings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Patine said:

@Dallas@Conservative Elector 2

Out of curiosity, did you two also support impeaching Reagan on the 1988 one (I think) over the Iran-Contra Affair, a FAR more serious crime and breach of trust as a US President, all in all - in fact, grounds for treason, by many reckonings?

 

You didn't even ask because you know I didn't:P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't either. :D As you might know Reagan and Bush 43 are my two favorite presidents, I support nearly everything they did. And it's about party loyalty. I stand with my party even during very tough times. :P 

For the history books it could have been a cool thing, if Clinton resigned and President Gore continued. I'm aware of the fact that Gore is more left-wing than Clinton, but I like Gore as a politician very much, even if I'm not sharing most of his platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I didn't either. :D As you might know Reagan and Bush 43 are my two favorite presidents, I support nearly everything they did. And it's about party loyalty. I stand with my party even during very tough times. :P 

For the history books it could have been a cool thing, if Clinton resigned and President Gore continued. I'm aware of the fact that Gore is more left-wing than Clinton, but I like Gore as a politician very much, even if I'm not sharing most of his platform. 

 

Gore was a bit more conservative than Clinton on cultural issues like abortion. Clinton didn't even support a partial-birth abortion ban!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I didn't either. :D As you might know Reagan and Bush 43 are my two favorite presidents, I support nearly everything they did. And it's about party loyalty. I stand with my party even during very tough times. :P

For the history books it could have been a cool thing, if Clinton resigned and President Gore continued. I'm aware of the fact that Gore is more left-wing than Clinton, but I like Gore as a politician very much, even if I'm not sharing most of his platform.

Of course, you do realize, that the Contras that Reagan felt were so desperately needed to be funded that he treasonously and illegally sold weapons to an enemy of the US to raise funds for because Congress denied him those funds were themselves not a group whose actually ideology was really pro-American (except superficially) or in terms of First World-style nation-building. In fact, the Contras were so craven and cowardly, despite Reagan's generous gifts, that they almost never actually engaged the Nicaraguan Army in battle, or often even attacked legitimate military targets - they preferred schools, hospitals, churches (gasp!), and massacring villages, among other such things, as favoured tactics. This style and priority of warfare is classically defined as TERRORISM. Yes, Reagan had TERRORISTS on his payroll, funded by money from an illegal sale of arms to an enemy of the US! But, his supporters still back him on that to this day.

 

And, for the record, @Conservative Elector 2, I personally believe blind party loyalty, unconditionally and without second thought, is very a foolish and destructive political mentality. One should ALWAYS the current candidates, party leadership, platform, and zeitgeist, not just sheepishly default to a party label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that connects Reagan to the funding of the Contras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

There is no evidence that connects Reagan to the funding of the Contras.

I don't think it's so much that evidence (or potential evidence) doesn't at all exist moreso than that there was never an impeachment proceedings or trial for such to be presented and analyzed in an orderly fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine @Conservative Elector 2

Yeah, I've never had party loyalty. I have set of things that I think the government has to do, and then I'll vote for which general election nominee (that has a shot of being elected) that is most likely to do them. Currently, the Democratic candidates are the ones that are most likely to do them. If a Republican nominee ever shared my believes, I'd obviously vote for that candidate. I'm generally okay with liberal or conservative fiscal policy, as long as the things that need to get done are done. So economically, I'm somewhat tolerant. I'd say my range is Far-left to center-right on economics. For foreign policy, I'll favor whatever politician is less likely to start a needless war, or provoke a war, or get militarily involved overseas. I realize there are exceptions, when it is in the interest of the world to do such things. My range here is Left to Center. Socially, I have no tolerance for Social Conservatism, which I find inhumane, irreligious and neanderthalic. Here, I'm Far-left to left. As such, I'll probably keep voting Democrat until there is a Republican or a 3rd party with a shot that has a politicians running within my zone of political tolerance. This being the case, I care little about scandal or personal behavior, if the candidate promises and can fulfill legislation I like. Part of this is because we don't really elect one person. We elected an entire administration, and appointees, including judges. For this reason, the Clinton scandals (Bill or Hillary) don't bother me in the least. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jvikings1

Yeah, Reagan somehow bypassed any real investigation, partially because of his popularity. The proper protocol should have put him through impeachment proceedings. I would have favored this even if it were FDR behind the Iran-Contra Affair. I think an impeachment-level trial would have been able to find a connection to it. He's the head of state, and chief executive, it's almost impossible for him to not be connected. If he isn't, it shows gross incompetence in his oversight of his own administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Gore was a bit more conservative than Clinton on cultural issues like abortion. Clinton didn't even support a partial-birth abortion ban!

Okay my choice between Clinton and Gore is clear.

@Patine @vcczar Yeah I know party loyalty might be somewhat controversial. Both I and my former Latin teacher were told that already. :P 

 In some elections you just have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. I think the party you call your own might offer the better candidate, despite some imperfections. I guess this year most Republicans and Democrats are experiencing this. I even liked Bernie Sanders more than Clinton, but if I were a Democrat, I'd cast my ballot for her in the general election. I wouldn't vote for a long-shot candidate like Stein just because I can't stand Clinton and to vote for my personal views. That's not very pragmatic in my opinion. I think the approach of being part of a party with an imperfect nominee and voting for him to hinder the opposition party's nominee from winning is way more pragmatic. Assuming the opposition party may be a lot worse than my own party... The same goes for Republicans who'd like to vote for Johnson, Castle or McMullin instead of Trump. Sorry @Reagan04 I know that's your approach and you may know it's not mine, but I respect yours as well. I would have loved to support Marco Rubio in the general election way more than Trump but that's life. I just think the possibility of having Clinton as President is much worse than Trump and a protest vote for Johnson/Castle/McMullin won't hinder her from getting the post effectively.

@Patine and vcczar again @jvikings1 I don't know much about the Nicaraguan Revolution or if there are any proofs for Reagan's involvement, so I can't say what's true about it. I know it was more or less a proxy war and I doubt that the FSLN victory was good for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Okay my choice between Clinton and Gore is clear.

@Patine @vcczar Yeah I know party loyalty might be somewhat controversial. Both I and my former Latin teacher were told that already. :P 

 In some elections you just have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. I think the party you call your own might offer the better candidate, despite some imperfections. I guess this year most Republicans and Democrats are experiencing this. I even liked Bernie Sanders more than Clinton, but if I were a Democrat, I'd cast my ballot for her in the general election. I wouldn't vote for a long-shot candidate like Stein just because I can't stand Clinton and to vote for my personal views. That's not very pragmatic in my opinion. I think the approach of being part of a party with an imperfect nominee and voting for him to hinder the opposition party's nominee from winning is way more pragmatic. Assuming the opposition party may be a lot worse than my own party... The same goes for Republicans who'd like to vote for Johnson, Castle or McMullin instead of Trump. Sorry @Reagan04 I know that's your approach and you may know it's not mine, but I respect yours as well. I would have loved to support Marco Rubio in the general election way more than Trump but that's life. I just think the possibility of having Clinton as President is much worse than Trump and a protest vote for Johnson/Castle/McMullin won't hinder her from getting the post effectively.

@Patine and vcczar again @jvikings1 I don't know much about the Nicaraguan Revolution or if there are any proofs for Reagan's involvement, so I can't say what's true about it. I know it was more or less a proxy war and I doubt that the FSLN victory was good for the country.

You of course realize that the American mentality of "Third Parties have no chance of winning" is actually more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an absolute truth. As long as Americans, are taught, made to believe, and convince themselves there is, by definition, no chance of a Third Party victory, than that, moreso than most other real concerns, is what will make it so, in the end. The US Constitution doesn't actually stop them from winning, itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

You of course realize that the American mentality of "Third Parties have no chance of winning" is actually more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an absolute truth. As long as Americans, are taught, made to believe, and convince themselves there is, by definition, no chance of a Third Party victory, than that, moreso than most other real concerns, is what will make it so, in the end. The US Constitution doesn't actually stop them from winning, itself.

 

agreed I would love to break away from the 2 party system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

agreed I would love to break away from the 2 party system

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

You of course realize that the American mentality of "Third Parties have no chance of winning" is actually more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an absolute truth. As long as Americans, are taught, made to believe, and convince themselves there is, by definition, no chance of a Third Party victory, than that, moreso than most other real concerns, is what will make it so, in the end. The US Constitution doesn't actually stop them from winning, itself.

This video sums up the effect of the FPTP system on creating a two-party system quite well, despite it's ridiculousness. It was shown in class at some point in high school when I was in AP Government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

 

This video sums up the effect of the FPTP system on creating a two-party system quite well, despite it's ridiculousness. It was shown in class at some point in high school when I was in AP Government.

I recall a quote by Conservative British PM Anthony Eden in the late '50's, actually, when the idea of reforming their FPTP system really, seriously came up in British political dialogue for the first time. "Are you mad? Already, Labour has gotten it's hooks in by the current model. If we adopt some cockamamey proportional representation system, our Commons will be flooded with Communists, Fascists, Ecologists, and Scottish and Welsh Separatists! It's out of the question to even consider." A good quote summing up establishment opposition to reforming FPTP systems where they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I recall a quote by Conservative British PM Anthony Eden in the late '50's, actually, when the idea of reforming their FPTP system really, seriously came up in British political dialogue for the first time. "Are you mad? Already, Labour has gotten it's hooks in by the current model. If we adopt some cockamamey proportional representation system, our Commons will be flooded with Communists, Fascists, Ecologists, and Scottish and Welsh Separatists! It's out of the question to even consider." A good quote summing up establishment opposition to reforming FPTP systems where they exist.

Although, a proportional system can lead to a fracture government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Although, a proportional system can lead to a fracture government.

This is very true and why I'm moderate on the issue, I think that therer are many pros and cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Although, a proportional system can lead to a fracture government.

However, the proponents of a proportional government believe that a legislative branch without an absolute majority will encourage compromise which, ideally, would benefit constituents more than if one party had a heavy-handed majority and could, within the limits of constitutional law and having to face the next election, do what they please. Also, in a multi-party system, all but the most inflexible and devoted voters usually have an alternative party if they're standard favoured party disappoints or fails them, and thus parties can't afford to be as cavalier about their support base as is often seen in two-party systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Patine said:

However, the proponents of a proportional government believe that a legislative branch without an absolute majority will encourage compromise which, ideally, would benefit constituents more than if one party had a heavy-handed majority and could, within the limits of constitutional law and having to face the next election, do what they please. Also, in a multi-party system, all but the most inflexible and devoted voters usually have an alternative party if they're standard favoured party disappoints or fails them, and thus parties can't afford to be as cavalier about their support base as is often seen in two-party systems.

 

*coughs and looks at Trump*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

I've never liked the whole winner-takes-all system of our government. I would go even further by saying that the losing nominee would get a cabinet position, called Secretary of the Opposition. His sole job is to help/direct executive policy to a middle ground. The losing nominee could help appoint someone else, if he doesn't want the position. The president would have the right to remove this secretary if they are being purposely obstructionist, since their job isn't to stop the opposing party, it is only to try and moderate policy and play devil's advocate. If the candidate is removed, the president has to appoint another Secretary of the Opposition, preferably from leading people of the opposition party (Senators, US Reps, Governors, former people of this rank). It's also a good launching pad for a candidate of that opposition party who wants to run for the presidency in the future. Having the opposition secretary would also make it harder for a party to enact polices specifically geared to hurting the minority party. 

I think the Speaker of the House should change with every election, so every two years a new speaker should be chosen. I think this will allow for better representation, since not even every Republican is a Paul Ryan Republican. I think the majority and minority leaders in the Senate should change every 6-year election. 

I think depending on how close a presidential election is, that the president should volunteer to enact some policies of the opposition in exchange for support (even if luke warm, for the major parts of the new president's policies). 

I think an unwritten rule should be that the entire body of the Supreme Court should be geared toward the center. That is, if it's predominately liberal, one should appoint at least centrist or moderate conservative to the court. If the court is predominately conservative, one should appoint at least a centrist or moderate liberal to the court. I think the president should always fill a slot when there is an opening, since that's his job. I think Obama actually follows these rules, he appointed a moderate, who would sometimes act as a swing judge. I think a new chief justice should be appointed with every new presidency, and selected among the current sitting judges. When a justice's term as chief justice expired, they will remain as an associate justice. The new president could reappoint that same Chief Justice. 

I think such measures would find the compromise most people probably really want. No one is entirely left out, except for radicals. 

I think independent committees should be appointed to verify attempts at compromise, to root out corruption, to ensure transparency, etc. 

Most of these would be unwritten rules/laws, since I don't know how they would be agreed on or created. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Patine

I've never liked the whole winner-takes-all system of our government. I would go even further by saying that the losing nominee would get a cabinet position, called Secretary of the Opposition. His sole job is to help/direct executive policy to a middle ground. The losing nominee could help appoint someone else, if he doesn't want the position. The president would have the right to remove this secretary if they are being purposely obstructionist, since their job isn't to stop the opposing party, it is only to try and moderate policy and play devil's advocate. If the candidate is removed, the president has to appoint another Secretary of the Opposition, preferably from leading people of the opposition party (Senators, US Reps, Governors, former people of this rank). It's also a good launching pad for a candidate of that opposition party who wants to run for the presidency in the future. Having the opposition secretary would also make it harder for a party to enact polices specifically geared to hurting the minority party. 

I think the Speaker of the House should change with every election, so every two years a new speaker should be chosen. I think this will allow for better representation, since not even every Republican is a Paul Ryan Republican. I think the majority and minority leaders in the Senate should change every 6-year election. 

I think depending on how close a presidential election is, that the president should volunteer to enact some policies of the opposition in exchange for support (even if luke warm, for the major parts of the new president's policies). 

I think an unwritten rule should be that the entire body of the Supreme Court should be geared toward the center. That is, if it's predominately liberal, one should appoint at least centrist or moderate conservative to the court. If the court is predominately conservative, one should appoint at least a centrist or moderate liberal to the court. I think the president should always fill a slot when there is an opening, since that's his job. I think Obama actually follows these rules, he appointed a moderate, who would sometimes act as a swing judge. I think a new chief justice should be appointed with every new presidency, and selected among the current sitting judges. When a justice's term as chief justice expired, they will remain as an associate justice. The new president could reappoint that same Chief Justice. 

I think such measures would find the compromise most people probably really want. No one is entirely left out, except for radicals. 

I think independent committees should be appointed to verify attempts at compromise, to root out corruption, to ensure transparency, etc. 

Most of these would be unwritten rules/laws, since I don't know how they would be agreed on or created. 

These are very good ideas, and I do like some of them. The problem, the informal and "gentleman's agreement" nature you've couched makes them nigh unenforceable in may cases in the modern US's political environment (except having to swap out the Speaker and Majority and Minority, who could still end up chosen by the same "camp" of the same, as an ideological "camp" can't really be defined constitutionally, and I can see the role of a Secretary of the Opposition ranging from a raving media political pundit on the government payroll to downright tokenism, depending on the circumstance). But, that being said, they are proposals for reform, which, strangely, many modern Americans seem to shy away from in any serious manner nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×