"Polarizing" Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, higher than anyone post-FDR

[jackson_dem]

How "polarizing" was he in reality? You can't realistically get much higher than 65% during peacetime. Is someone considered polarizing simply because there are many who are rabidly opposed to that person? Using that standard every president since Adams has been polarizing. The exception is James Monroe (the fifth president, 1816-1824). There is a lesson in that for those buying pie in the sky promises of a unity utopia. During Monroe's presidency there was only one major party. Even that didn't last long as that party--the Democratic-Republican Party--had four strong presidential candidates in 1824 and that led the party to split into two bitterly opposed factions, the Democratic Party of Jackson and the National Republicans of John Quincy Adams. The National Republicans evolved in short order to become the Whigs who would die by the 1850's and quickly be replaced by the GOP. Speaking of polarization, why is that we have always had two parties in our country, with the brief interlude of the "Era of Good Feelings"? Is it because evil DC spinemeisters, consultants, pundits, and lobbyists cast spells on our leaders and divide them? Or is it because there are simply fundamentally different views of the role of government in general and what should be done regarding specific issues? If it is the former why didn't some messiah arrive all the time from the 1790's to the present to fight the scheming dividers and unite us all? If it is the latter how do you believe anyone can merge the Democratic and Republican platforms?

[scheming daemons]

1. Shame that he's not running this time....

.....right?

Hillary's her own person, right?



RIGHT?

[jackson_dem]

7. We are told the 90's were polarizing. by the way, why do you believe we have 2 parties?

[Angry Mollusk]

20. There should be no limits on the number of political parties

Limiting the choices to only 2 parties runs the risk of either party being totally taken over by the extremists- Bush ran as a moderate Republican, but he veered far right and for years has been a puppet of the Christian zealots....Moderate Republicans defected, and became Independents, others (like my Dad) crossed party lines and joined the Democrats. Some Democrats feel the Democratic party has veered too far to the left, and some have defected to become Independents.
Independents have in their ranks liberals and conservatives- but it seems a hodge podge of ideologies, at times clashing ideologies. I'm not even sure where Libertarians would fit in- They claim to want small government and fiscal responsibilty, yet I keep encountering Libertarians who hate gays and support the war-So they seem like Republicans to me.
I don't see why there can't be a splinter Moderate Democratic and Moderate Republican parties. I've met my fair share of x Reublicans who feel the radical Christians are infesting their party like cockroaches...
The radical right think McCain is far left- hah! He may be left of Bush, but he is still a radical right winger, just foaming at the mouth to expand the campaign of killing in Iraq....

[ProSense]

2. He was polarizing enough to cause his health care proposal to fail and Dems to lose, and he doing it

again:

We needed additional time to see if there had been a sustained impact on voters. That’s because Democratic primary voters in South Carolina - especially African-American voters - had remained positive about Hillary Clinton (in fact, 70 percent of Obama voters would be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee). And when asked specifically about the importance of Mr. Clinton’s campaigning in their vote, the 26 percent who said it was very important actually were more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than were those who did not think that campaigning mattered a lot.

That specific question did not measure much negative response to the former president.

Now, however, the nation’s opinion of Mr. Clinton has declined. Back in July, favorable ratings of Clinton outnumbered unfavorable ones, 51 percent to 37 percent. In the latest poll, 46 percent are favorable and 39 percent are not.

Not surprisingly, given the racially-charged component of the comments and the coverage, the change took place more among African-Americans than among whites. Whites had split 46 percent to 41 percent on Clinton last July. Now their 43 percent-43 percent split isn’t much different. But in July, blacks were favorable towards Clinton 79 percent to 7 percent. Although blacks are still among Bill Clinton’s strongest supporters, their opinions today are 63 percent favorable and 19 percent not - a drop of 16 points on the positive side, and an increase of 12 points on the negative.

There were other changes, too. After the New Hampshire primary, 31 percent of African-American Democratic primary voters nationally said Bill Clinton’s involvement in the Clinton campaign would make them more likely rather than less likely to vote for her. Now just 15 percent say that, while the proportion who says it would make them less likely stayed at about 13 percent.

link

[jackson_dem]

5. You mean president's sometimes suffer setbacks?

Thankfully St. Obama is immune to this!

Was he polarizing inherently (you know, having a D next to your name...) or was he polarizing because he did something unpopular? Or both?

[ProSense]

9. Read up! It appears this primary Obama's message, not Bill's, is resonating with more people! n/t

[jackson_dem]

10. Will Obama have 95% approval ratings after he merges the Democratic Party and the GOP?

[ProSense]

13. Shouldn't you be worried that Hillary's campaign is falling dangerously behind? n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

3. Some of that is Sympathy from the unfair Impeachment

[jackson_dem]

12. 22 million jobs, lowering poverty by 8 mill, turning deficits into a surpluses also played a role

;)

[Johnny__Motown]

17. Yes, we had a nice tech boom that he had nothing to do with

thanks for playing. please try again

[NastyRiffraff]

4. There will always be "polarization"

If by polarization we mean that there are fundamental differences on the role of government.

Those differences aren't going to go away just because Obama wants "unity." Republicans aren't going to magically decide that yes, part of government's role is to provide a safety net for its citizens who need it. And they're not going to change their minds on the importance of public education, privacy rights, or sane gun control. Nor are the Republicans going to stop trying to block every piece of legislation Democrats offer. Their version of "compromise" is let's all agree to do it OUR way.

It's fine to "reach out," but when the hand you reach out with is in danger of being bitten, you'd better be ready to withdraw it and make a fist instead.

[ErnestoG]

6. Bill aint Hill. And that is where you lose.

[jackson_dem]

8. We are told the 90's were baaad polarizing times. By the way why do you believe we have 2 parties?

[misanthrope]

11. Impeachment backlash**nm

**

[andym]

14. The Two party system may result from the type of democracy : Duverger

One interesting theory called Duverger's Law postulates that two parties may be favored by the type of democracy found in America.
The theory tries to explain why single and multiple parties (greater than two) are disfavored by this type of system.

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law

"A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties."

[texas_indy]

15. I voted for Bill in '92 and '96, and would probably be for Hillary if not for Obama.

No way in hell will I pick a republican! We need to clean out the white house and get some sanity back to the US.

I just believe that Obama gives the chance to win big enough to be able to do something. We need to move forward with new blood.
He can, and is bringing in new voters (indies and republicans), and they will give him the support he needs to make the big changes
that are required.

Hillary is too despised by the right, and many indies, and there would be major grid lock in Washington.
With her running as the nominee I believe we would lose big time and we would be cursed with another republican tyranny.
And, if she somehow got elected, then next to nothing would get done, and we'd be reading about another scandal every month like we did before.

However, even though I believe we would lose, I would support her if she was the nominee.

I think Edwards is a better candidate than Hillary, but she was the juggernaut this time, or at least till Obama showed up.

Just my opinion.


GOBAMA!!

[LadyVT]

16. I'm sure MANY would be for Hillary if not for Obama...

[andym]

18. Many unifiers have made their mark on America

Many unifiers have made their mark on America: some by the tyranny of a strong majority (FDR), some by force (Lincoln).
These unifiers are therefore also the most polarizing figures as well. They gather a majority strong enough to allow them to change the course of American politics. The smaller than typical minority which opposes them, opposes them with even greater passion.

In America, if a leader can get 60-65% of the people behind both him and his party, he has a chance to do great things, should
the times and his vision allow. That level of support qualifies a potential unifier.

But the lesson here is that great unifiers didn't unify everyone, only enough people to get something significant done.


It is clear that Obama would like to be a FDR. It's a great dream, and he has the personality. The questions are does he have the skill, the vision (or at least the daring) and is the timing right.


Personal popularity by itself is not enough. Bill Clinton was popular, but didn't much change the course of the right-leaning political trend in America set in motion by Reagan, his friends, and followers, partly because Clinton's popularity did not extend far enough to give his party the majority necessary to make changes. In fact, the Democratic party lost a strong, but not ruling level majority, during Clinton's tenure.

[Angry Mollusk]

19. Yet the right wing slime machine still demonizes FDR and Bill Clinton

Despite the popularity and positive policies of FDR and Bill Clinton, right wing filth such as Rush Limbagh continue to villify both men-
When they are not tearing down Bill Clinton, they are attacking FDR. Why???? The right wingers continue to be apologists for Bush's crimes, and simply rewrite history. They now claim Bush inherited the deficit from Clinton,and they blame 9/11 on Clinton. Plus right wing scum like ann coulter and Laura Ingram assert FDR caused the depression. I have a real hard time debating with the right wing because of their blatent hippocricy and ignorance of history, and their tendency to use threats of violence againts people who engage in dissent and question GW Bush or the war in any way......

[Perry Logan]

21. Show me someone who hates Bill Clinton, and I'll show you a FUCKING DEGENERATE.

[cali]

22. My 87 year old mother is the furthest thing from a degenerate

and she has no use for Bill Clinton. She doesn't hate him, but she sure doesn't like him. She's educated, speaks 4 languages fluently, has been a dem activist for 60 years, and doesn't care for Bill, though she likes Hillary.

[Perry Logan]

23. Except for her, then.

[TacticalPeek]

24. K & R

:kick:

[Cameron27]

25. K&R

[DemGa]

26. I think what Obama means by polarizing,

is fighting the right-wing; whereas he will just kiss their ass and hope they play nice. It's a new day!

[JKaiser]

27. BILL Clinton is the best president we ever had!