AVP Crocs Tour
Chamber of Commerce After-Hours
Miami RedHawks football
Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2007 > October > 24
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Negatives, Schmegatives
A follow-up to yesterday’s post “Gingrich Plan Wouldn’t Work.” One reader responded that he thought Goldberg’s column was not focused so much on how the Republicans could benefit from running away from Bush, as on how they could benefit from a Clinton nomination. Goldberg said that, while the Democrats might suggest that her election would bring back the good old days of Bill, the Republicans would remind people of the scandals and whatnot on his watch.
OK. Hillary’s got negatives. Bill’s got negatives. Beyond dispute.
But look at Bill’s negatives in ’92. Humongous: Draft dodger. Dissembler about that. America basher in England. Adulterer. Dissembler about that. Hard-edged feminist wife before that was cool. McGovern supporter. Lack of national experience, or even big-state experience.
Through much of the year, Democrats and Republicans alike thought he was a political catastrophe waiting to happen (because the polls said so). (This is documented in my book; see top of blog, if interested.)
But, come September, when the Republicans tried to talk about Clinton, it just didn’t work. Why?
After all, trashing Dukakis had seemed to work in ’88. And, contrary to what is often suggested, Dukakis didn’t have more negatives, but fewer, smaller ones. The Republicans had to dredge up obscure stuff to trash with, stuff nobody had previously heard about. In ’92, by contrast, they had the great advantage of working with stuff that was already on the public record, that was being discussed outside of television ads.
The reason that going negative seems to have worked in ’88 is that in that year the Republicans were benefiting from good times, both at home and abroad. They were on a roll. For that reason, they didn’t have to prove that Dukakis was unfit. They just had to plant the possibility, and people would decide not to take the chance on change.
In ’92, however, with people looking for a change, they had to reach a much higher level of proof, and they couldn’t come close.
They’ll have the same problem in ’08 if circumstances then are similar to now. Nonpartisan voters will be predisposed in favor of change. Bush’s absence from the ballot won’t matter much. Nobody will see significance in the fact that the Republicans are trashing their guy if he’s unpopular. He will still be seen as their guy - as, after all, he is, no matter what anybody says - and they will be held responsible.
Sure, Hillary will be seen as a mixed bag. Didn’t hurt Bill. Truth is, everybody’s a mixed bag - and seen that way.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: '92 race, 2008 presidential race
