At this time in 1991, Clinton was polling no more than 6% nationally

Here's a Gallup poll from December, 1991, two months after Clinton officially declared he was running for president:

Mario Cuomo - 33%
Jerry Brown - 15%
Douglas Wilder - 9%
Bob Kerrey - 8%
Tom Harkin - 7%
Bill Clinton - 6%
Paul Tsongas - 4%
Undecided/Others - 18%


In December of 1991, 12 years ago, the Florida straw poll gave Bill Clinton a decisive victory over Tom Harkin and Bob Kerrey (54%-31%-10% respectively), but nationally, Clinton was not polling above 6%. Cuomo then dropped out, which shows how the Gallup numbers didn't pan out for him in some regions. Clinton received a major boost from his Florida showing.

Then later in December, one poll showed Clinton trailing Paul Tsongas 23% to 21% in New Hampshire. Only 2 points, not bad.

Then in January, the Gennifer Flowers and ROTC letter/draft issues reared their Scaifian heads against Clinton. Iowa did not look good for him. In fact, all of the candidates save Harkin passed over Iowa, and Harkin received 77% of the vote. By this point, Clinton trailed Tsongas by 20 points in New Hampshire. Big drop from that 2 point gap a few weeks earlier.

Clinton fought back hard, with relentless campaigning in New Hampshire. He came in second behind Tsongas, 33%-25%. This was enough to earn him the "Comeback Kid" sobriquet.

We all know the rest. But there's a lesson here, no matter who you support. The early primaries STILL don't determine by default who the nominee will be. ANYTHING can happen. Anything usually does.

Don't be slaves to the polls. Don't think this is sewn up for any of our candidates by Christmas Eve.

DO, however, volunteer for your candidate, whether with field work or money. Be creative, and active.

DO make sure you meet your state's voter registration guidelines in order to vote in your primary, if you have one.

DO think positive!

:-)

What's the best book on the 1992 election? I'm curious.

Hunter S. Thompson's "Better Than Sex: Confessions of a Political Junkie".

Read it not only for his views on the '92 campaign, but his searing, no-holds-barred obituary of Nixon. :-)

I love Thompson but that's an awful book.

I just realized that I've probably read 300 political books in my life . . .and not one good one about either Clinton. They don't make particularly good subjects for some reason. I'm stumped to come up with a good book.

Forget reading. Rent "The War Room" instead. It's great.

"Primary Colors" is probably the best book on that era, but it's fiction.

Made my D.A. Pennebaker, who crafted Bob Dylan's "Don't Look Back" breakthrough documentary.

I am pretty wide open with HST - and how can anyone not love his over-the-top Nixon eulogy? Of course, if you say "Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72" is better as a campaign document, I would agree.

But did you notice that he never seems to leave his bedroom in the '92 book? It's just a bunch of made-up faxes and letters . . .about nothing really. Some of it is funny since Hunter is always funny, but it has no meaning.

The '72 book is beyond brilliant. It should be on college reading lists.

I had to read "The Boys On The Bus" by Timothy Crouse, also a document of the 1972 campaign, but with a media-coverage focus. I don't remember it too vividly, being that it was 16 years ago I read it. It had some okay moments, and inside scoops on some of the reporters. But nowhere near as colorful or insightful as HST.

Jann Wenner basically sent Crouse to babysit Thompson since Thompson was so erratic. Crouse ended up being on the scene at some big story (maybe the Wallace shooting) and Thompson insisted that he write the story, much to Wenner's dismay. Thompson became a big supporter and told him to write down everything everyone in the press said. And that was his book.

From "Making of a President" in '60 to whatever the '80 book was called.

Judis, John B. Teixeira, Ruy A. The emerging Democratic majority. New York: Scribner, 2002.

They take a bunch of data from 92 88 etc. and try to forcast that democrats are going to dominating the comming years...
and as much as I'd love to believe it, their use of statistics is somewhat flawed and well they forcast the democratic party to walk away with the congressional 2002 election.

I am somewhat embarassed to say I did't know that much about the primary history..

My heart is still from beat.

Gotta link?

BTW, did Cuomo ever officially run?

Cuomo never ran officially, but in December, he declared he was out of consideration, which is tantamount to dropping out. The fact that he appeared high in polls even when the Florida vote occurred means something, When you lead a poll at 33% for Gallup, which is a major poll, and decide not to run, that is big news.

"Cuomo, who was leading in the polls in late 1991 when he decided against a race for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination..."

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/politics/main567011.shtml


The various numbers from my original post were culled from the following:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/publications/redbook/elections/10-5.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/campaign.92.shtml

www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/Research_Publications/ Papers/Research_Papers/R19.pdf

He was regarded as the only Democrat with a chance in '91 (and a slim one at that). He pulled his Hamlet routine for approximately 37 months before finally deciding against running.

See my edited post above for clarification on his status.

This is why Gore's speech (more than his endorsement) angered me so much yesterday. What if Cuomo, who was the only member of that group with any national consituency, had come out and said, "We all need to stand behind Bob Kerrey . . enough of this bickering . . keep your eyees on the prize."

If only a Cuomo endorsement would have meant a Kerrey presidency. Bob Kerry, while not having quite the charisma of Bill Clinton, did not have the same problems that Clinton had. Does anyone believe that there would have been a "Republican Revolution" or all-Monica-all-the-time with Bob Kerrey as president?

No candidate had grass roots like Dean so the two situations are uncomparable.

Thanks Zomby, I needed this! B-)

there is a different primary schedule this time around. No real chance for a Comeback.

"That means 94% were against him"

Then they'd whine and cry and call him Newt McGovern or something.

Then they'd post a picture of him from their own webpage, cry about too many people seeing it and stealing bandwidth, then attack everybody else for being negative.

Any sources on how much money those people had at various points in the campaign? I'd be curious to see how much money Bill had raised by December.

The problem is, the Internet wasn't so widespread back then, so sources for those things are hard as hell to Google when coming from normal media sources. However, one thing I culled from all the sources is that money and organization will benefit in the long haul, plus the ability to connect the message over the din. Clinton had the organization for sure. Still, he sure had to overcome countless attacks from the Scaife Machine and a GOP-friendly media.

Cuomo was the establishement candidate. The liberal wing of the party was dominating the process. Clinton used his intelligence, charisma and message to rally moderate and smart liberal Dems to him. He used the attacks against him as a ralling cry for people who had been demoralized by 3 consecutive defeats. He ultimately defeated an "unbeatable Bush".

Wake up folks. Dean is ALREADY rallying moderates, liberals and some republicans to his insurgent campaign. Your example best describes DEAN. The differance is Dean is doing it NOW instead of January. He is being attacked by both sides, like Clinton was now instead of two weeks before the votes.

I paid attention to 1992. Dean is rallying and mobilizing the same folks, but he has even more support from the left than Clinton. He is no Liberal and neither is Bill Clinton. That attack will not work.

It is obvious if you open your eyes. Clark is backed by establishment and so is Kerry. Niether one is the Clinton '92 model. It is Dean.

I am not convinced Dean is the model for anything. Much of the Left felt burned by Clinton, and are wary of embracing yet another centrist charlatan, but this time with fewer political gifts than Clinton, and nearly zero charisma. Dean polarizes far more than any other candidate, and I do not recall Clinton's followers being so, um, devoted. I was 25, so I recall quite clearly the mood of the country, and my own participation in the process back then.

your post reflects the clinton move to the nomination and that model reflects Dean only.

I will argue that the left wants to win this time and will stand tall against Bush. Dean or no Dean.

As far as the Dean polarization, it seems that the people who know of him have a more positive view than negative, thus a positive polarization AGAINST bush is what we need to win.

I know plenty about Dean, and I still don't like him. Tough noogies. No grape kool-aid for me.

I will vote for him more as a vote against Bush, rather than a pro-Dean vote. I hope it doesn't come to that. But I accept such compromises in politics.

I guess another alternative agrument could be made for Al, Dennis or Carol if they won the nom.

Kool-Aid....hahaha. I am no fool. I gave this serious consideration. He does not care what the cons say or do to him. He will fight them on his issues. That is how to win.

We will see.

Clinton also defined the race "its the economy stupid". Remember he ran on the issues he wanted. Cons were out screaming about morality to the choir while Perot and Clinton were speaking to Dems and independants about important issues.

Dean will run on what he wants to and will not waiver. Again the Cons will have Bush out screaming about morality and security when he has no credibilty except to the con party faithful.

We have a good chance here folks. Be excited and get together once a nominee is selected by the votes.

err... I forgot what I'm replying to...

I'm really interested in this and don't mean for this to be a personal afront, but I checked the links you provided above and cannot find a source for the Gallop poll numbers you cited.

I looked up so many sites, I don't have all my links cited. I used the back button my other window's browser and came up with those. I suppose I can google it AGAIN.

Hell, Hillary was quoted in my morning paper as saying Bill was only at 4% this time in December of 1991.

I appreciate that. Like I said, I wanted to see the data for my own edification.

because initially, I supported Tsongas. Later, I worked in my county for Clinton/Gore.

that Cuomo wasn't a candidate--that is as meaningless as any poll that includes Hillary Clinton in the Democratic mix today. Cuomo didn't drop out he never got into the race.

trying to think positive! :-)

I will never forget the look on Howdy Doody's face. :-)

I want to lend aid and comfort to this race's underdogs. This fight ain't over yet.

got me out of my chair.

to wait so long for someone to say the truth and GAWD HE SAID IT BETTER THAN I EVER, EVER, EVER COULD.

DK is the best.

from all the candidates!

However, Bush sr. was nowhere near the disaster that Jr. is, and the anger and passion among democrats was not as strong as it is now. There was also not a Dean-style grassroots phenomenon happening then.

It's still up in the air, but I think Dean will be very hard to beat...

thinking positively!

:kick:

You are just the best, mon ami! I was pouting the other night but I'm over it now and this help move those positive feelings along. Well, the snow here today helped a little. :hug:

:hi:
DemEx

That's what this poll means in comparison to now. Isn't Hillary crushing Dean in most National and NH polls? She's 2004's Cuomo, but only in the eyes of the media instead of actual Democrats.

I am not saying we are living in an exact parallel universe to 1991-92. I am not saying the current race is a clone. What I am saying is that easy predictions are foolish and can bite you on the ass. Trust polls, and predictions, with great risk to your credibility.

Any candidate with a solid organization is still in the running, and big time!

As I made clear right above, my analysis is beneficial to EVERY candidate. I am not equating Dean or Clark with Cuomo or Tsongas or Harkin. I am also not equating Kucinich or Edwards or Braun or Sharpton with Clinton. I am just saying, it is all wiiiiide open until some votes have been tallied, and hopefully with a verifiable paper trail.

History does not repeat itself, but it does provide lessons, if we know where to look.

That was a great way to get back to the positive, and keep folks energized!

:toast:

Good job. :)

I think my analysis is fair to everyone, and will keep us motivated. :-)

that anyone who tries to call a race this far in advance is a fool. :)

*sniff, sniff*

;)

glad to see everyone is finally seeing the light !

:-)

Thanks for reading. :-)

Were there any polls that didn't include Cuomo? I think those would be more telling.

Anyway, Cuomo dropped out even though he had the lead and probably could have won. I think that if Dean were to drop out tonight, Kucinich would rise a lot in the polls, probably the exact same thing that happened to Clinton when Cuomo dropped out.

Of course I was just a small little thing back then and don't remember too much about it.

In nine of the 10 contested nomination fights since 1980, the candidate leading in the last national poll before the Iowa caucuses won his party's nomination. (Gary Hart being the exception)

In nine of the 10 contested races since 1980, the candidate who raised the most money before the actual election year went on to win the nomination, according to figures assembled by William G. Mayer, a Northeastern University political scientist. (Treasury Secretary John Connally was the exception).