« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Obama’s 2012 Will Not Be Clinton’s 1996

By: Ben Domenech (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2011 at 10:52 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Dan McLaughlin to discuss why the 2012 presidential race won’t be a repeat of 1996, and tonight’s State of the Union.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Why 2012 Is Not 1996
Too Moderately Moderate

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • whatevrworks

    2012 will definitely not be Clinton’s 1996. Although he wants more than anything for it to be. Bill Clinton has been making more and more appearances for the white house (both public and private), which is surprising since Hilary is still making the rounds of ever third world country to get her out of DC. Look for the Obama administration to pull out all of the “the republicans want to cut your healthcare”, “the republicans want to take your social security”, etc, etc, comments during the elections season. It will be interesting to see how the left handles the campaign now that they were “forced” to accept extending the Bush tax cuts, knowing them they will still try to blame Republicans and “those rich fat-cats” for taking the working class’ money.

    DF
    http://notadriveby.blogspot.com

    • haumea

      Obama’s magical thinking on the economy will translate into failure. He has set in motion too many things to cripple the economy in his first term. He shall reap what he has sown.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    This election is likely to be almost entirely a referendum on the state of the economy as of August-October 2012. If job growth picks up and the market continues to move higher, then Obama will likely win reelection, if the economy stagnates he loses (barring an awful candidate choice from our side of course). I also think he realizes this, which is why you are going to see much economic cheer-leading and a possible push at corporate tax reform.

    • acat

      elect a nominee who will make the election a referendum about the Republicans instead of Obama.

      We need someone who can keep the focus on Obama and his administration in the face of the inevitable attempts by the media to change the focus.

      They can only win if the conservative alliance comes apart…

      Mew

  • gwalt

    I don’t believe Hillary took SecState to serve her country, but to serve her needs. I wrote a long post why a few weeks ago (sorry it was so long), that she was missing Foreign Policy—sorely— and she took it to get the chops. Obama is starting fund raising earlier than any other candidate in recent history, and has never backed away from having OFA ask for money at any time.

    What are OFA’s finances right now? Can anyone find out? I still believe he will collect as much money as possible then announce he is not running, step aside for Hillary and take the money. Use it for higher good. Unions, Soros, Petrobas, Sheiks, trial lawyers and on and on owe him A LOT. Another term? Pffft.

    Billions await him. This president thing? Been there, done that.

  • victrola

    Everyone gives Clinton an enormous amount of credit for his political skills, but at the end of the day, Bubba won election through a fluke (Perot) and was reelected (still without a majority) because the economy was one of the most prosperous times in American history. (it had absolutely nothing to do with him) Had the economy been in the crapper, Clinton would not have been known as some political guru.

    2012 will be different in that the economy will still not be “feel good” like it was in 1996, but things will most likely be looking up. 2012 will also be different in that almost any candidate we field would be better than Bob Dole. Had a more dynamic and younger figure ran in 1996, and Perot been sidelined, I absolutely believe Clinton was beatable even with such a prosperous economy.

    I have to say though, I’m not as optimistic as I was 3 months ago about our chances. Unless someone “new” jumps in, like a Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, it’s going to be a hard slog.

  • nvrepub

    nt