Is Bill Clinton a Good Politician?

Is he? So many people say Bill Clinton is the greatest modern politician. Really?? Great politicians win. Their team wins more than loses. Great politicians have coattails. Great politicians win their ideas and increase their party’s spoils.

When Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993 the Democrats controlled the executive branch, the senate, the house, the majority of the governorships, the majority of the state legislatures, and a majority of all elected officials nationwide.

When Clinton left office in 2001 the democrats had lost control of everything. They lost the presidency, the senate, the house, a majority of the governorships, a majority of the state legislatures, and a majority of all elected officials nationwide. In fact, Clinton presided over a dominant resurgence of the Republican Party (which is now in its tenth year).

Turns out Clinton wasn’t such a good politician after all. Based on his win-loss record, he’s the worst thing that happened to the Democratic Party since the Civil War.

5 thoughts on “Is Bill Clinton a Good Politician?

  1. r21

    And just how good of a politician WAS Clinton?

    Perhaps the reason for Clinton’s reversion is that the old formula didn’t actually work that well. As Auren Hoffman points…

    Reply
  2. Peter Harter

    Clinton gives good speeches.
    But voters say he is always less popular than President George W. Bush:
    1992
    Bill Clinton 44,909,889
    George Bush 39,104,545
    H. Ross Perot 19,742,267

    1996
    Bill Clinton 45,628,667
    Bob Dole 37,869,435
    H. Ross Perot 7,874,283

    2000
    George W. Bush 50,456,167
    Albert Gore, Jr. 50,996,064
    Ralph Nader 2,655,916

    Reply
  3. John Case

    If you look at those numbers and take into account declining voter turnout, you can notice that if you subtract clintons numbers, from gore’s, and subtract bobs from Dubya’s that the difference in spread(once adjusted for turnout decline) can be mostly absorbed by the third party candidate of clintons time. Perot received many more votes than nader. So, Clinton was not less popular than Dubya, his average approval rating is higher. The difference in votes is due to less partisan polarization, and less people voting for the traditional parties during the Clinton era. Clinton may not have done well for his team, but he did for himself, the democrats are doing terrible, but Clinton has never been doing better.

    Reply
  4. Zaw Thet

    Voters have typically been known to balance out power (Republican and Democrats) between the executive and legislative branches. Thus, when a Democrat is in the executive office it is not uncommon for there to be a change in Congress. Obviously I should put some data in here, but I can’t dig it up right now 🙂

    Reply
  5. r21

    And just how good of a politician WAS Clinton?

    Perhaps the reason for Clinton’s reversion is that the old formula didn’t actually work that well. As Auren Hoffman points…

    Reply

Leave a Reply