Leaving no daylight between them, the Clintons have projected themselves to the public as a team, responsible for each other’s actions and successes. However, in doing so, it has not given the electorate much of a chance to discern between the successful domestic presidency of Bill Clinton, while accepting that Hillary Clinton was just not on the same skill level as her husband in terms of electoral politics. Nor does the personal baggage that seems to follow them around like a shadow help their cause. Viewed through the lens that Hillary Clinton was handed two of the biggest political layups in modern electoral history in 2008 and 2016, only to come up short both times, it caused Democrats to look elsewhere for their standard-bearer. The Democratic faithful have instead gravitated toward Barack Obama as their president-emeritus. But has this been a wise choice, as well as being a true statement in terms of electoral realities? Let’s take a look at the hard data:
KAMALA HARRIS SAYS SHE ‘ABSOLUTELY’ WOULDN’T HAVE STARTED IRAN WAR
In 1992, Bill Clinton became the president-elect with 370 electoral votes, winning 32 states, versus Obama’s 365 electoral votes and 28 states in 2008. Now, it is true that in 1992 there was a legitimate three-way race for the presidency, with Ross Perot running as an independent with a populist message, as Clinton garnered only 43% of the popular vote. However, in that year, Bill Clinton was running against an incumbent president who had won 40 states only four years prior and who had peaked in approval ratings during the 1991 Gulf War.
