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.
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…
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
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.
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 🙂
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…